fingerprinter

One hour in, no more Codex for me. This thing rips.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know they used a SPAC. For sure going to see more and more fraud via those until some new mechanisms are introduced.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to Nikola and was surprised when a friend said they had gone public and saw their valuation.

This one always felt like a fraud when it was private. How was it able to go public? Isn't that supposed to root out these things?

Hearing about their revenue was an eye opener for sure.

Side note, I always wonder about the WeWorks and Nikola's of the world. The founders, who are obvious frauds in retrospect, still probably walk away with hundreds of millions if not a few billion. Sometimes it feels like being a decent human being doesn't pay off. Doesn't help that our current political environment is also rewarding the worst in us too

Workflow automation w/ built in CI/CD, package management and code scanning etc.

The most important bit is workflow automation. It can be triggered on most (all?) events github emits

https://help.github.com/en/actions/reference/events-that-tri...

It was super obvious the value prop when it was HCL based. YAML based it kind of looks more like 'another CI'. It's still insanely powerful, just not as developer friendly anymore.

That’s disappointing. The original Actions was amazing and much of that was the thoughtful main.workflow file. This feels like a regression. I’m not a yaml hater like many but main.workflow was clean, almost pleasant to use. It felt like it actually came from understanding developers.

These are fun. We have one in a home and the kids absolutely love it. Completely impractical but definitely adds something to the home. Nice party trick for folks too.

You've been able to permanently delete your GitHub profile and all data associated with it for quite some time.

https://help.github.com/articles/deleting-your-user-account/

I've seen this 'ghost user' around on threads for years....

That's the thing, it largely _doesn't_ have more than Azure or GCP these days. And for 80%, maybe 90% of all use cases in existence, AWS v Azure v GCP from a pure catalog offering perspective is identical. And when that compounds with other factors, it falls far behind.

Obviously Amazon.com is different and it's mostly about logistics, inventory and reduced buyer friction among some other things.

I'd agree with this for amazon.com and consumers.

That still doesn't explain AWS v Azure or GCP which have similar (or better) services, more than competitive pricing and in Azure's case, waaaaay better support.

In fact, everything about AWS is typically worse. Perhaps AWS entered the 'no one ever got fired for buying AWS territory' even when there are a ton of better options out there. If that's the case, kinda sucks for devs who are stuck using their crappy services when so many others exist.

I have long held that Amazon(.com) has some of the worst UX I've ever seen, and it still is able to sell massive amounts to consumers.

We are left to consider that perhaps UX, particularly to the mass market, really doesn't matter. Or maybe that Amazon has such an entrenched lead, mindshare or other, it can weather some horrible, horrible experiences.

Considering that AWS is almost identical on the cloud front, I'm not sure really what to think here.

I'm a programmer. I use cloud services everyday. I have actively stayed away from AWS in the past few years b/c it has such a bad UX/DX and yet....it grows.

Azure is better. GCP is better. AWS, when compared to those two objectively, is downright terrible. Their services are disjoint. Their command lines don't work together. Their web console? Hooooooollllllly mother of god.....

I guess I don't know what to make of Amazon. Developers seem to fawn over things like Heroku, Zeit, GitHub and they are hugely successful in their own right....but still AWS is used by developers and, IMO, it shouldn't be anymore. It's 2018 and AWS is very clearly stuck in the 1970s/80s DX. They just don't get it, or maybe they do? And DX doesn't matter to most developers?

If we are honest with ourselves, AWS should be in third place in 2018. And it shouldn't even be close. Their services are comparable to the point of no real differentiation to their competition, and they have worse billing, worse experience, worse DX, worse support and overall worse nearly everything.

And yet they grow.

So yes, Amazon.com and AWS are terrible. And for some reason it doesn't seem to matter. I would like to live in a world where it does, particularly for developer tools where I hope that developers have more taste and sense than the choice of AWS shows.

This....this makes no sense. An integration doesn't mean something else is going away. That's not how platforms work.

FWIW, gitlab is going to get acquired...it has to. Probably by google, or oracle, or salesforce, or ibm, or hp (or whatever name they have these days), or redhat. And depending on which one it is, will be how ruined gitlab becomes, because all of those seem like terrible options, but I digress now.

Linking to nutritionfacts.org is like linking to Exxon with an article on why green energy is bad.

That's not really what I meant. What I really meant was that Manuscript very clearly does project management (it's even in the title of the site), which Trello did. I imagine that would be a 'no-no' in the Trello sale to Atlassian.

Or is that not the case, contractually?

Someone educate me :)

How is Fog Creek allowed to do this after the sale of Trello to Atlassian? I would have expected some provision related to not releasing product/project management software for some period of time?

I don't believe this is how it works.

https://news.yale.edu/2015/03/02/new-fat-cells-created-quick...

I'm no longer deeply involved in this area so my information might be dated, though years ago it was pretty well understood based on the evidence that fat cells were created _and_ grew bigger as person got heavier, however, fat cells (once created) were never eliminated from the body, meaning they would shrink though they would be around forever once created.

It was also understood (if I recall correctly) that the faster someone gained fat, the easier it was for fat cells to be created. Meaning rapid weight gain was more likely to create new fat cells. (not sure if I'm remembering that one right)

It was surmised from these that this is why rebound weight gain (aside from rebound lifestyle factors) was quite easy for many, particularly the incredibly obese. It was also why it was strongly recommended to take fat gain incredibly seriously as the creation of fat cells was deemed potentially lifelong damaging.

For real?

It's not about this case, it's about the precedent.

The fight is about privacy...at all...online. Google needs to fight this for everyone because if they lose we all lose.

For anyone thinking of switching, here are some thoughts.

First, you'll hear all about arch. It's lovely, it really is. But, if you like the "just work" nature of OSX back in the day, look at Ubuntu proper or Ubuntu-gnome (if you don't like Unity). I'm sure people will chime in here with others that they have thoughts on here, though in my experience, Ubuntu is the best at this game and it's not even close. Yes, it has problems too (let's not start the nitpicking thing, I'm making a general statement), but it is by far the best stable linux desktop. Fedora is acceptable, particularly of late, but it /still/ is behind Ubuntu.

Second, with Ubuntu/Debian, stick with whatever is in the archive or PPA. Everything else isn't worth the pain. Perhaps Snaps can improve this problem, though I'm sceptical. Linuxbrew and other such things will not be worth the problems they bring.

Third, use a stable UI. Don't go with Pantheon, Mate, Cinnamon, Elementary or something else like that. Again, it's not worth the pain. I personally don't like KDE though it would qualify as "stable" along with Unity, Gnome-Shell and XFCE. I prefer Gnome-shell and Unity so that is what I use.

Lastly, things will be worse in some ways from OSX, and much better in others.

If the advise looks pretty straight forward, it is. Stick with the known working, well supported projects as your base, tinker in customisation to suite, and don't go with lesser known/supported projects if you only really care about something "just working".

The National Review? C'mon.

That's like quoting Ayn Rand and hoping to be taken seriously.

Of course to everything. Doesn't mean any of what I said isn't true or spot on the mark. Everything I said still holds and because people have bias, it's even more important we talk facts and why's. It's never black and white, but understanding context and why sure helps us navigate the gray.

And, to answer directly, yes, I can imagine things that would make me trust Trump. I can also imagine things that he would do that would further erode trust. Yes to both those with Obama (as it played out over the 8 years he was in office).

I honestly don't know what we are arguing anymore. This thread started with the TPP I guess? I don't know.

I literally don't know what to say to that.

Of course one can like an outcome and still think the person enacting it was wrong (not dislike the person, that was your phrasing). There's even a pithy little statement about that: the ends don't justify the means. One can literally love an outcome and hate how it was brought about.

And in the case of leadership at the highest level, I for damn sure want to know the motivation behind some (or all) decisions. The decision, lacking context (or Why), is almost worthless to understand what is happening. In isolation any decision could be fine, or it could be the signal for a future unmitigated disaster.

We hammer this point home in the business world all the time. Context matters.

Great leaders understand this and deal first with 'why' then with 'what'. Bad leaders always deal with 'what' before 'why', or maybe never giving a 'why'.

And it's not about the liking or disliking a person. Ever. It's about the context that surrounds a person and asking yourself if you can trust them.

We cannot trust Trump. He has given us enough data points to know this. I want to know the 'why' on the TPP as a datapoint. It could either give me more trust in Trump, or less.

But, at a human level, if you are asking me if I dislike Trump? I don't care. I don't trust him. And I don't trust him because he has given me enough to go. And that is what matters.

Motivations matter.

I also never said I agree with pulling out of the TPP. I didn't like the TPP for tech, security, and intellectual property reasons. Though there is no denying that the TPP would economically benefit the US.

I also liked aspects of it quite a bit.

So, the real question is what was Trump's motivation for getting out of the TPP? If it was for economic reasons, then he's missed the mark.

I'm amazed anyone who has watched the last two decades of politics unfold can honestly see the modern incarnation of the republican party as anything other than a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Every time there is a decision to be made, it seems the Republican thought process is "How can I personally benefit most from this?" and "What is the most evil thing I can do in this scenario?".

Yes, that is hyperbolic a bit, but it's not far off.

Just look at the last two days and the first press conference, the KellyAnne Conway "alternate facts" quip as well as her insinuating that unless the press gets in line, they might be cut out.

Look at the currently assembled cabinet. Look at Kansas and see how any of these policies will play out. The freakin' wall.

Anyway. I don't get it. I understand some people just vote religion or whatever some TV channel tells them too. I just don't understand how people can fall for it. I really don't understand how someone on this site could possibly not see through all that smoke.

Few things:

1. Skate to where the puck is going

2. There is more than one way to make money

3. Trump still hasn't a. released his tax records and b. divested himself of his conflicts of interest

Combine these three and it's quite easy to see how dumping the TPP theoretically benefits Trump and his friends quite well.

I will never understand any defence of Trump in 2017, At this point, it's not about Hillary, it's all about Trump. It should be about who he is, what he is doing, what he is saying and what he plans to do.

And we have enough data to unequivocally reject the man as well as his rhetoric. Look at his cabinet. Look at his twitter feed. Look at this constant stream of lies. See how unprepared he is. Skate to where the puck is going and see how this ends.

In the time from when he won (by being the biggest losing winner) to when his actions taking office, there is literally no defence of this man.

He might have listened, and he heard exactly what he needed to say to his "marks" (this would be his term from the Art of the Deal) to win and then he got on with his real agenda: making himself and his friends obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of America and the world.

NFL gamepass does the trick most of the time. Includes RedZone as well.

Sometimes a game is blacked out which requires a VPN to see any specific game, but RedZone and NFL Live are always good, as far as I've seen.

https://gamepass.nfl.com/nflgp/secure/schedule

It's likely a combination of a few things including people going directly to NFL (Gamepass), NBA, NHL and MLB for the content as well as people simply dropping cable altogether. Those cable subscribers might not have cared/watched sports anyway, though they /paid/ for it and were counted as "subscribers" on ESPN numbers.

Another way to think about it. ESPN, outside commentary and opinion, is really nothing more than a middleman. The leagues can go direct to the consumer and they likely will do this much more in the future.

ESPN cannot go direct to consumer per the contracts. It is required that to consume much of the ESPN content, you need a cable subscription (even to stream on the internet). That is a broken model and is slowly (or quickly?) dying. That's not great for NFL etc but horrible for ESPN. The sports leagues could recover, ESPN likely couldn't.

I moved to Victoria, BC from the states. There is zero chance anything in Canada can compete with SF for quite some time until a few things change.

I actually get asked this question quite a bit being here. I have many long and drawn out thoughts having lived in SF and now Victoria, but I'll try to condense them.

First, if any place in Canada will start a tech boom, it isn't Toronto. It's not Vancouver. It's Victoria. Why? Victoria is close to SF, where the VC money is. The life and cost of living in Victoria is dramatically better than either Toronto (high cost, terrible weather) or Vancouver (high cost). And tech is already one of the bigger industries in Victoria. Victoria has the added bonus of already having a vibrant start-up scene, albeit mostly local and under 20 people and on the very young side.

Second, even with the above, Victoria (which I consider the most likely, so that means even less for other cities) is highly unlikely to get any major traction for a few reasons.

1. Canada is very conservative with money. Canadian banks, angels and VCs are all pretty conservative. They are not like SF VCs and do not want to make 10 bets to get one win. Canadian startups typically have to bootstrap well beyond what any in the states would ever have to do. Sometimes this is ok, but for the most part it shows that Canadian startup scene doesn't quite understand risk and reward well. And, the majority of VCs are still out east in Canada, though they are even worse in this regard because they simply don't get the modern internet. In Toronto the tech industry was telephony and devices and it seems that most of the VCs are so old school they still think this way. Canadian VCs need to modernize their thinking quickly.

2. SF VCs are not forward thinkers. At all. SF VCs continually say to Canadian companies "you need to move to SF", which of course in 2016 is complete and utter bullshit. Most VCs are actually not inventive or progressive. Instead, they are followers of a few stronger VCs. And by a few, I mean a tiny minority. Being followers, they have playbooks and patterns they follow. It's basically scripts. SF based VCs want to invest in SF based companies. This is a 1990s model that doesn't matter in 2016 and, much like Canadian VCs, SF VCs need to update their thinking and look beyond this. They might not feel they have to because there are so many people willing to live and work in SF, but SF based VCs, the progressive ones, look for good ideas and good teams. Location is not important. SF based VCs should adapt to the brave new world and expand from a single geo.

3. Salaries. Canadian salaries in tech are low. So low that many that live close to the states and are young would simply move to the states. Now, this sometimes works out, sometimes it doesn't. It works in places like Toronto and Vancouver when the cost of living is awful (worse than SF when you factor in housing with salary, IMO). It doesn't work when it's places like Victoria (at the moment). This could actually change if salaries go up, ironically, though it's unlikely for quite some time.

4. Cargo Culture. Most techies in Victoria view SF as the mecca of tech. I mean, it is, but not the way they idolize it. Smart and stupid have no geo lock and many in Victoria/Canada have a bit of a complex when SF comes up. Canadians need to stop looking at SF for inspiration and instead build the local community up, make it a vibrant scene of their own and own it all. Forget what SF is doing. Don't chase trends and build things of value.

>>>slavery is fine, rape is fine, beating your wife is fine

>Jesus in Matthew 5:21-22 explains that calling someone a 'fool' is equivalent to murder relative to the /actual standard/ so slavery, rape, beating, &c. are going to be hard to explain. For more on this type of perspective you can look into Anabaptist theology.

This does nothing to resolve the simple questions: is slavery, rape, beating your wife wrong? It's a simple societal question these days, but when the bible was being written, the authors went to great lengths to describe the systems and rules around which all of those were indeed acceptable. To our eyes and ears that is ridiculous! There is no system or rules for owning people; it's just wrong. Doesn't matter if you marry the person you rape, it's still wrong.

So, again, religion, in this particular case Christianity, regardless if we ever get to the question of objective v subjective morality, has a problem. It has clear and demonstrated instances where it is on the wrong side of the moral debate which inherently makes the religion objectively wrong. Any purported religion designed by a higher power whose purpose is to set guiding principles and rules by which our lives are to be lived, governed and judged has to be, by definition, never worse/lower than the society. It always has to outpace the moral landscape of society. By definition and, you know, common sense.

>>>Making a claim about what is good/bad is something we can judge, particularly as society advances.

>What is moral doesn't change, or you would have Relativism.

So, stating it another way. Is slavery ok, objectively? You have a problem if it isn't. It means Christianity is wrong. If you say it is, you have an entirely different problem because we as a society have moved beyond this concept.

>>>Our modern moral code, subjective or objective, is "better"

>This society did not spring from a vacuum. Then Wesleyan theologians led Abolitionist efforts; now we "know" slavery is wrong. Like the Personalist Project puts it "Those who repudiate God cannot preserve the personalist affirmation of the incomparable worth of each person, though they may for a time live by the light of a setting sun."

Skirts the issue entirely. Is slavery wrong? Has it always been wrong?

>>>We know this. It's undisputed fact that owning people is wrong.

>Indeed. This type of knowledge falls under self-evident truth, the same way we know that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That we universally, inherently are positive about these natural revelations either points to something or they are collective delusions.

Again, skirts the issue. Is slavery wrong? Has it always been wrong?

This is quite literally nothing more than the age old 'there cannot be an objective morality without a higher power <giant leap> therefore Christianity".

You also might want to check this out: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s...

The challenge, though, really is not if something is 'objectively right'. That's not the question you want to ask, or the conclusion you really want. You want to know 'is x religion the one true religion?'. We can answer that.

A religion, like anything making a claim, is actually falsifiable. The added challenge with a religion is that the religion has to be 100% right, all the time, or it is not right at all. Said another way, if a religion is ever wrong, it is not true and we can move on from it. This is where religion /always/ gets into trouble. Christianity is no different than any other religion here. It makes claims or assertions and if any of those are shown to be wrong, oops, the religion is not true.

So, when the bible states slavery is fine, rape is fine, beating your wife is fine, it has to be 100% right on these or the religion is null and void. Unlike the global flood (which is obviously not true), you cannot slip up and say "just kidding, metaphor or allegory" in these cases. Making a claim about what is good/bad is something we can judge, particularly as society advances. It doesn't actually matter if those are "objectively right or wrong" for it to make the religion not true, either. That's a trap. You can try and argue that slavery, per the bible, is ok. You can try. You won't win any favor with anyone these days. We've moved past owning people as a concept. It's unacceptable. Our modern moral code, subjective or objective, is "better" than that described in the bible, therefore, the bible is wrong, therefore, christianity is wrong.

One could try and argue that slavery is actually objectively ok, therefore inline with the bible, and some do try this approach and have used it to justify slavery centuries ago. But you can't do that today and be considered a rational human being. It's not acceptable. We know this. It's undisputed fact that owning people is wrong. Therefore, again, our modern moral code demonstrates a higher/better/whatever moral code than christianity in the bible, therefore christianity is wrong and we move on. If a religion were true, society should NEVER be more advanced morally/ethically than the religious standard. This simply cannot be with what the religion is claiming to be.

So, as I stated earlier, the question isn't objective or subjective morality. The question is "is x religion true" (unlike "is there a god?" which really isn't answerable at the moment, maybe ever). We can answer the questions if certain religions are true. To this end, we know the answers on all religions that make positive and exclusive claims...all have fallen short.

The report is one thing, mildly interesting. However, the postscript at the end...

------

PostScript: My employment with the company ended alongside this study. As a female manager in her late 30s, I became a GitHub Inc. statistic. I hope people will continue to research hard-to-reach places, and I hope women of all diverse backgrounds will find a way to succeed in leadership at GitHub.

The link from the postscript: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/report-anti-white-a...

------

What I can't tell from the postscript is if she contends that she was let go because she is white, which is how I read it initially. I'm very confused by the wording and what she intends that to mean.