HN user
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/bww; my proof: https://keybase.io/bww/sigs/ktmgTVRkDph0RurwGSebkbUEiwcjSo_vMHtmUHfB01E ]
Interesting, and this kind of service seems fine to you? It doesn’t seem fine to me.
Even if most people will have no problem with them, I’d say that knowing how a company handles edge cases like this is much more valuable than knowing how the handle things when everything is fine.
I recently transferred all my domains and cancelled a DNSimple account I’ve had for more than a decade for similar reasons.
A couple years ago they migrated me to a more expensive plan with no notice, I had to catch the price difference on an invoice. I wasn’t happy but it’s a lot of work to transfer domains.
Recently I discovered they introduced a plan that fit my usage and cost 50% less, but (would you believe it) they didn’t bother quietly migrating me to that plan…
These guys can’t be trusted.
You may be interested in Groupcache's method for filling caches, it solves the same problem that I believe this project is aimed at.
Groupcache has a similar goal of limiting the number of fetches required to fill a cache key to one—regardless of the number of concurrent requests for that key—but it doesn't try to speculatively fetch data, it just coordinates fetching so that all the routines attempting to query the same key make one fetch between them and share the same result.
https://github.com/golang/groupcache?tab=readme-ov-file#load...
You'll notice I added four "food" emojis: the crab, shrimp, squid, and lobster. I have no idea why they were assigned "food-marine" instead of "animal-marine". They look happy, healthy, and uncooked.
On Apple platforms, at least, all the crustaceans mentioned are red and therefore look very much cooked.
Just FYI, you’re still using buttondown.email in your HN profile.
Hmm. I was excited about Zed, but it now seems painfully clear they’re headed in a completely different direction than I’m interested in. Back to neovim, I guess…
The author seems to imply, as if it were generally understood and accepted, that the reason nuclear reactors are heavily regulated is because they produce a lot of energy.
Perhaps that's a component, but one really doesn't need to think about it too hard to identify better explanations for why this particular energy source is held to unusually high regulatory standards.
I don't have an opinion as to whether other large-scale sources of energy should be held to similar standards, but to suggest that solar energy's failure modes are comparable to nuclear energy seems intentionally misleading.
I’ve also recently switched (largely) from Vim to Zed and I also think that Zed is in many ways great.
At the same time it’s been pretty frustrating to use an editor that is spending so much time building AI integrations, REPLs, and so fourth when basic things like cut and paste and common Vim motions still have so many bugs.
I’d love to see them prioritize getting the basics solid first.
Given that the unemployment rate in the US (at least) is still extremely low (about 3.5%), it’s at least worth considering that if the people working gig jobs wanted full or part-time employment, with the set of trade offs that entails, it’s probably available to them.
… and you’ll give them plenty.
I live in New York, but I rarely go to hotel bars here because, while frequently comfortable, they are outrageously expensive. On my most recent visit this spring I paid $24 for a single very mediocre cocktail.
FT Alphaville is “the FT markets and finance blog”, so this is essentially an opinion piece and the Financial Times is not presenting it as news.
It's worth pointing out that retaliation, itself, is not illegal or even necessarily morally dubious. If a company were to retaliate against an employee for stealing by firing them no reasonable person would find fault with that.
Only retaliation for a protected activity is illegal. Is interfering with or undermining the company's business prospects in service of a political opinion a protected activity? I don't know, but it would not surprise me if it were not.
To be entirely honest, I'm not sure I think it should be. I can certainly imagine a lot of scenarios where I would not approve of people motivated by certain political opinions actively working against the interests of the company that employed me.
This looks pretty cool. I've long been looking for something similar to Soulver (https://soulver.app/) that I can use on Linux. This seems promising.
One small criticism: In my opinion, no web-based writing app is useful unless the tab key inserts a tab. The default behavior of most browsers to move focus to the next field is tremendously infuriating in this context. Unfortunately, that's what happens here, at least for Firefox.
(Related: key combinations that normally perform cursor movements but which are often used by browser for navigation.)
Shameless plug: for REST APIs, I've written a tool called Instaunit which combines HTTP API integration tests with documentation generation, since these two things must always be maintained in lockstep.
It's got a ways to go before it generates output that looks as good as Stripe's documentation, but it makes it dead simple to create API documentation that's guaranteed to be in sync with your service, because it was generated by your tests when they ran.
I’ve taken to just making /v0 or /v1 the root of every package I maintain. Even though it’s not required I think it’s a good practice.
It doesn’t affect the package name (unless you choose to), only the import path. So it eliminates any ambiguity about the interface you intend to use and it only affects import statements. Personally I think that’s a good balance.
Wine was originally released in 1993. You're talking about a period 7 years into it's development.
The same way you don't get to make up any value you feel like when you account for donated property.
Sure, a program couldn't have a level of access that it's not supposed to have. Let's design security beginning with that assumption.
There seems to be a surprising amount of antipathy towards standups in this thread. Reasonable people may disagree about how useful they are, sure, but the suggestion that 15 minutes of daily coordination is somehow a foundational problem in modern software engineering strikes me as pretty unrealistic.
I would suggest that if you truly believe standups are some deeply destructive tool of mismanagement you probably have much bigger problems with your company or role that you're projecting on to this rather innocuous meeting.
If Apple allowed developers to keep 100% of revenue from App Store transactions while Apple continued to pay for all the operating costs it would still, undoubtedly, work out greatly to Apple's advantage. They derive enormous value from having apps in their store creating value for their platforms.
Of course, they would not be satisfied with that arrangement because no company has ever been satisfied with making a ton of money if it is possible for them to make some more. But that certainly doesn't mean the model can't work or that if there were regulation to this effect that it wouldn't still be in Apple's enormous interest to continue to operate the App Store.
Somewhat related: the saga between Hoefler and former partner Frere-Jones, who Hoefler almost certainly attempted to (and perhaps successfully) screwed over.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3036423/type-stars-jonathan-hoef...
Certainly people should use the tools they like and are comfortable with. That said, I would suggest that there's a limit to this "whatever you like is fine" logic.
If you were building a birdhouse and decided you liked hammering in nails with the broad side of a wrench, yeah, ok, I guess that's your business and ultimately you can hammer those nails how you want. But if you saw a professional carpenter hammering in nails with a wrench, you'd have to seriously question whether you hired the right carpenter.
Mark Gyetvay, the deputy chief executive officer of Russian LNG exporter Novatek PJSC, warns that the green movement could disrupt the delivery of adequate and affordable supply to consumers.
Russian natural gas executive says promoting alternatives to his product hurts consumers. Ok.
He plans to return the unopened device, and while he's glad the strategy worked, he doesn't think it's fair. "The only way you can get any customer service is if you prove that you've actually purchased something from them," he said.
I think this guy just figured out the “customer” part of “customer service”. This, I think, illustrates the issue with Facebook well.
This sort of thing is a common pattern in Go, where it is accomplished by the fact that Go interfaces do not require types to opt into them by declaring their adoption. If a type conforms to the interface it's a type of the interface.
So one can create a new interface type that supports the specific subset of functionality you need from a larger type that you don't control and use it in a similar way to Swift protocols.
Like most people, I enjoy being physically around my colleagues from time to time. There is real value in that sort of interaction. It is not, however, an essential component of most jobs that traditionally have been conducted in an office. This fact has been indisputably proven over the last 18 months.
If you want to go to an office every day of the week, go ahead! That’s great, who’s stopping you? But if you think everyone you work with should also be there in order to interact with you? In the environment where you like to work, regardless of how productive your colleagues are there? I shouldn’t have to tell you that you are the one who is being unreasonable.
Because we see equity as part of total compensation, we believe employees should receive equity as it’s earned — every quarter.
This reads to me like someone looked at the data and discovered that almost everybody who stays employed for a quarter goes on to stay for a year. So they decided to try to juice some marketing value out of a policy change that makes no functional difference to anyone.
Why else would they choose to have equity vest quarterly instead of with each pay period? Or monthly, which is already typical after the cliff? If you believe equity is part of total compensation why does it need a different schedule at all?
The example in the hero animation has a bug. The ${text} may not be correctly URL-encoded, which would make the body invalid. And because this sort of feature encourages people to blindly trust the machine and not think about what they're doing this error is much less likely to be caught.
Personally I think this whole class of feature only offers trivial short-term efficiency gains at the expense of long-term professional development and deeper understanding of your field.
It doesn’t really matter whether any of these companies are monopolies in the Sherman Act sense. That act was passed about 130 years ago and could never have possibly envisioned the challenges presented by tech companies today.
What does matter is that these companies are very much engaged in the behaviors these bills would regulate. The point of the legislature is not to sit around and observe why a century-old law doesn’t technically apply to a modern problem, it’s to make a new law that does apply.
I don’t have an opinion on whether these bills are a good idea or not (although I definitely think big tech need some reining in). But whether or not these companies are technically monopolies has nothing to do with it beyond a bit of political rhetoric.
It’s rather remarkable how many comments in this thread dismissively explain that, sure, the US has created far more super successful companies in recent years but, hey, who even cares about that and actually big companies are stupid anyway and Americans are all brainwashed.
That’s interesting for its knee-jerk, defensive quality. But I’ll bite: the point of using huge companies as a proxy for economic performance is that globalization and the internet mean that increasingly you’ll have few (and often: one) winners in a given space that capture essentially all the value. If Europe isn’t a competitive player in creating these winners, they’re accepting that they simply aren’t going to capture any meaningful value in these emerging and ascendant industries. That, to me, implies a certain resignation to economic stagnation as a point of pride.
I genuinely wonder how you can endorse that state of affairs without any concern for how, in the face of declining competitiveness, the comfortable status quo that is preferable to success continues to get paid for.