gloverkcn

This is a solved problem.

Companies that store personal information at that level should be required to implement PCI-DSS level security. This includes going through the auditing process.

Here's a quick overview.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI%20SSC%20Q...

You can work to not implement the security standards, and then try to fake your way through the audit. At that point you are not ignorant of proper security, you are actively endangering the users, and your right to hold PII (Personally Identifiable Information) should be revoked.

I'll be interested to see if any manifesto can plot a path through societies looming issues. I don't see a scenario where we can maintain our current style of capitalism without things breaking down in one way or another.

You're friend in Argentina:

* has the ability to get a job from home, which means it's probably a tech/outsourcing job in a first world country. That doesn't take care of 95% of the population. That doesn't fix the issues.

* In the robot scenario where robots are smart enough to understand markets/futures and can decide a completely different line of work, and then do that work, those remote jobs are gone. Your friend is out of work. He doesn't get a robot.

* the company that hires him has to compete for resources in their country of origin. Their local pay requirements determine what they think a "good deal" on labor is. That country would have robots as well and their wages would crater. Again your friend's cush life would disappear, unless he could buy a robot.

what you are saying is the disaster is there will be so much food that people won't be able to eat it all and the prices will crash? Imagine if everybody had unlimited amounts of everything they wanted! How would we support prices?

Now you are getting to the root of the issue.

We produce enough food in the US that nobody should go hungry, yet we have swaths of kids that don't know where their next meal is coming from.

We have enough abandoned houses that nobody should be homeless, but people still live on the streets.

In capitalism, a private person/entity produces and someone else has to PAY to use what's produced. The issue isn't that there won't be enough to go around. The issue is that our current system will allow lots of people to starve and do without even when there is excess.

You used the term libertarian. That might be why you're getting all the push back. Maybe I'm misinformed on the topic. Libertarians believe an unregulated market and human morality will make everything better. Those two things combined gave us the triangle trade, raw goods (America) --> manufactured goods (Europe) --> slaves (Africe). We also got child labor, poisonous food being sold, no education, life threatening work conditions, etc.

This kind of thinking reminds me of the great depression where they would destroy food to keep up prices even as people were starving

Being against this strategy is the antithesis of capitalism. If I give away food, prices drop. If I reduce the supply then prices will go up.

During the great depression, prices dropped so low that all farmers were going to go bankrupt. Farmers themselves were dumping crops and rioting to keep crops off the market to try and increase prices. Farmers were marching on courts because they were demanding that foreclosures stop.

If you let farmers flood the market with goods (lowering prices), while allowing them to refuse to pay their debts, then what kind of economy do you have? It's not capitalism.

My concern is that the coming wave of automation will recreate the great depression x10. The population at large doesn't see it coming, and maybe I'm a chicken little. 30% of the US population think poor people are just lazy, and that if they just worked harder they'd be better off.

When automation comes full force, then our economic and political system will change. The question is what will it change to, and what will the transition look like. There's a happy path and a bloody path.

Only people working would qualify for a loan. Those people would have more prosperity until the robots cratered all wages and prices, being free labor and flooding the market with excess.

When the prices crash a large number of people with robots will be unable to pay back the loan. Their robots will be repossessed. They will now be out of a job and with no robot.

The poor would get left over food from the kindness of people with robots? They'll certainly never work again.

The Weimar Republic (German Government Prior to Hitler) was a socialist country. The parties that countered the socialists were the communists, the people who supported the old monarchy, and the Nazis.

Hitler didn't bring socialism to Germany. The party introduced extreme nationalism.

This reminds me of the wired article "the long boom" which described how the economy was on a permanent upswing. The telco / .com crash happened a couple years later.

The article asserts that currency will always go up because people will want it as an investment strategy. Sounds like the idea that real estate value will always go up

This is a nice idea, but it's inaccurate.

I sat in a court room during sentencing of a young man for a federal drug offense. He had prior drug offenses. No violent crimes. Right before he got clean, a friend asked him to mail him some drugs. The amount was just enough to qualify as intent to distribute. Mailingnacross state lines made it federal. The friend had been arrested and was given leniency in exchange for turning in someone else.

I knew the young man being sentenced. It took two years for him to be picked up. In the two years he had gotten clean, and started a small business that was growing. He had NA spnosors saying he never missed a meeting, drug tests over previous two years showing he was clean, a stack of letters vouching for his current character, and a dozen people in the courtroom who were there for support. He was also given the option of turning someone in, but since he had been clean for 2 years, he didn't know anyone.

The judge said that while rehabilitation was part of sentencing, the primary reason for sentencing was for punishment; To set an example and deter future crimes by both the convicted and people in the community.

He got 7 years in a federal prison.

I agree. After 20 years of experience I realize "Clean Architecture" will break down on larger systems. It's easy to create a clean looking architecture with a limited set of use cases. You can do it using any design methodology.

Where systems breakdown is when other viewpoints get added. For this system it might be the following:

  - Pricing/Invoicing

  - Prerequisites

  - Academic Status

  - Professor assignment

  - Course Reviews / Social Media

The problem is that at a high level two viewpoints look 95% similar, but in the code it equates to creating interdependencies between all of the viewpoints.

Different teams might be successful in keeping the separation in the system, but in most systems I've seen the entanglement starts in the database with the entities. Columns that become nothing more than status flags for different viewpoints. Columns with near identical names that mean almost the same thing, but are handled differently because the viewpoints treat them differently.

When the system gets big enough, a developer cannot mentally map the whole thing. When implementing a feature they will look for what is available vs what the architect had in mind.

This is how you wind up with 10 different getCourse calls all of which are building off one another with various parameters. The code will have a lot of if/thens checking the parameters to make it work for a particular viewpoint and avoids bugs for the others.

The more separation you have between the viewpoints the better. I now prefer separate entities/databases for every viewpoint. There is a set of entities common to all, but these are fact level entities. A course, A student, A professor, An admin, A TA. The entities should contain no status.

Where the viewpoints need information from each other they should just query the appropriate viewpoint, or have the source viewpoint send out updates (great place for event sourcing).

It might sound like I'm describing micro services. I wouldn't argue that, but I would say that a viewpoint is a higher level concept than a service. A viewpoint could be a collection of micro-services, or a single system (using this Clean Architecture).

The statement touches on a real issue. I would revise the statement to:

If your DevOps people reside in a separate group outside of the development team, then you are not doing DevOps.

Architecture and Infrastructure go hand in hand, and DevOps is the glue that merges them together. I've worked with both DevOps and Architecutre groups in larger companies where Development, DevOps, and Infrastructure have been separated and siloed. This invariably leads to waste that undercuts any advantage provided by modern development practices.

The core of the issue is the designs will only consider trade offs within their skill set. Problems that are easily solved with a combination of dev/devOps/inf are instead solved using complex designs within a single skill set. The other end of the spectrum is that decisions get made in one group that will undercut the efforts of another group.

Real life examples:

The dev group wants to deploy backend service version 2 with fail back option in production. The API's are identical, the database is unchanged. Instead of using a load balancer and monitoring to automate role back the dev group builds another system with the job of routing traffic between the two systems, identifying failures, and then stop sending traffic to the new system.

The dev group designs a system with "micro-services" in mind. The developers have all containerized the services and run them on their laptop. The infrastructure and/or devops group doesn't want to deal with containers and instead deploys one service per VM. (In these scenarios the dev group will get a bill for the extra services).

The problem is that it's easier to grab the people sitting next to design something than scheduling a meeting with groups you rarely see. This is a key driver of Conway's law.

Did you just link to something from this (http://www.energyadvocate.com/) website?

Roy Spencer (the guy who did the chart) has been thoroughly dismissed. Not because of his views, but because his models terrible, he never does any actual studies, and he will tweak models until he gets the output he wants.

http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover....

It has been proven without question that it is hotter now than it has been in 1000 years.

Link to government website. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming

The new climate denier stance is that you can't prove 100% without a doubt that it's human activity. The past decade has ended the "Is the temperature really increasing" debate.

The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding low lands, killing the polar bears, etc.

This article did not mention CO2, sin, greed, or corruption. There is a lot of FUD being thrown around in the public these days, but I didn't find any of it in this article. Maybe I missed it, so feel free to pull out some choice quotes.

More than 50% is caused by CO2, which mostly comes from powering our homes and cars (burning fossil fuels). You can be sinful using green energy as well.

Global warming doesn't cause acidic oceans. You're thinking of acid rain. You don't hear about it as much any more because congress passed The Clean Air Act. Since then there's been reduction of acid rain. I'm old enough to remember when acid rain was a "naturally occurring phenomena and not provably linked to industrial byproducts"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain...

The temperature has been very stable for the last 10K years. It's only been very recent that we've had such an uptick. Scientist are able to discern the temperatures of the past through core samples. Those samples also show dramatically higher CO2.

NASA site: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_...

You chose to highlight the years from 1940-1970. This isn't a discussion about the natural oscillations in weather. This about the proven sharp increase in temperatures as it compares to on a paleo scale. *

1. The earth is warming at an accelerating rate

2. High levels of CO2 have been linked with paleo level rising temperatures in the past

3. Our current CO2 levels are orders of magnitude higher than anything found in the past.

4. If the temperatures continue to rise the sea levels will rise, storms will become stronger, and we'll have both more floods and more droughts (depending on where you are). There are a host of other ecological impacts.

Our options are:

a) work with the rest of the planet to alleviate the likely causes as currently determined by analysis of the data and research of >95% of the science community. At the same time we can continue to research and refine our understanding.

b) We can assert that none of this is true and hope that it will magically get better on it's own.

The earth is going to be fine. We can kill everything, including ourselves, and the planet will just keep turning. There's other planets in the solar system that are also fine, we just can't live on them.

The goal isn't to save the earth. The goal is to make sure we aren't turning the only planet we have into something either uninhabitable, or a nightmare.

P.S.

Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change -- how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid climate change if the sun stopped?

This is a bullshit statement.

Someone asked me to pay a bill using docusign and entering my credit card information into one of those free text boxes They couldn't understand why I refused to do it.

Instead of deserves to go, I would say where it will be the most mobile. Sitting in a bank account doesn't do anything for the economy. Giving it to the poor means it will get spent. The people that the poor buy from will see an increase of revenue and make more money. Those people being one step above the poor will spend the profits (as well as buy more inventory), and the cycle continues. Trickle up will generate the economy spur more than trickle down.

Do you have health insurance? Have you rejected it because it increases your chance of mortality? Would you refuse health coverage for your children because it would increase their mortality rate?

Your assertion is as callous as it is absurd.

I'll talk about some counter points to the article. I don't mean to rustle feathers, but there are a couple of points I take issue with.

YAGNI/KISS are the two hardest concepts for developers to internalize. Ignoring them creates the brutally painful legacy systems we have to maintain today.

Requirements and feature priorities change all the time. I think building an over engineered foundation is always a terrible idea. Complex things are not necessarily better. You shouldn't be building frameworks or platforms. You should be building products. A framework or platform may fall out of your efforts, but it shouldn't be the goal. If you build a framework for the future, then you are wasting effort on a future that probably won't come. When the priorities change then every extra line of code becomes technical debt that the team has to work against. Now you have to have sprints to fix it. And you'll blame business for changing their minds and wasting your effort. That's not agile.

Shifting to Timelines.

Timelines are important because development, especially in larger organizations, does not work in a vacuum. Marketing, training, sales, customer support, implementations, existing customers, are all impacted by development releases. This impacts accounting's ability to plan for expenses or revenue. Things like, do we go to show X and plan for a big release blitz or not. Do we hire and prepare for a big lead generation campaign this quarter or the next. We have Y amount of revenue if we can get the release out. Is that revenue coming in now, or at the end of the year. We in technology are usually oblivious to these issues, but we shouldn't be. If we are asking everyone to understand our constraints, then we should understand theirs.

If development takes the stance "You'll get it when it's done", then it's really hard for everyone else to do their jobs.

The core of the friction is resource constraints. You can't add bodies and get more productivity quickly, so for a given release you are usually stuck with the existing team +/- a small percentage.

The only dials left are time and feature set. Good orgs will as a group adjust both. Bad orgs will set both in stone and throw rocks.

This is why good agile is so important. The original concept of agile, not the "process in a box". I'll copy the tenets here:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Working software over comprehensive documentation

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Responding to change over following a plan

If you are building a platform/framework instead of delivering features then the dev team is prioritizng the plan over responding to change.

A good group will establish the MVF (minimum viable feature set). They will do so based on the needs of the company; sales opportunities, product vision (by an industry expert), operational needs (customer support tools, et al.), and technical debt management.

The MVF/MVP is not the place for business to include every bell and whistle, and not the place for development to build a MOAA (mother of all archtectures).

The most critical items are delivered first and readied for release. Then other features can fill in and enhance the big release date. If development is able to churn out features then marketing can pick the point where they want a formal "release" with fan fare.

All that said. It sucks his contract was cut. There might have been other issues and this was the last straw, or the company might feel he was airing dirty laundry, or it he was cut for something completely unrelated.

In 20 years I haven't seen a time where this wasn't the case.

Seed money is the first to take the risk and deserves the majority share of profit

VC (series A,B,C) are putting in the most money and brining big hitters for the board and advisors. They clearly deserve the majority share.

Founders do all the work and it's their idea so they deserve all the money.

The second generation leaders productive, operationalize, and bring legitimacy to the company, so they deserve all the money.

Whichever group has the leverage forces the table to tilt their direction.

It doesn't matter how good the potential is, how sure the victory is, how close the first breakthrough customer is, if you don't trust someone, or there's a slimy/smarmy vibe then just walk away. It's not worth putting in years of effort to have to resort to contract lawyers to get paid.

Germany has most of that business.

I've now seen this devolution in argument a number of times. Here, Facebook, and Reddit

Trump Supporter: Look what Trump Did!

Answer: Obama Pressured Congress, the bill was passed in December

-Obama waited till he was on his way out so what's the point. He was ineffective.

Answer: Actually the legislation was drafted much earlier, but republicans didn't want to pass it. Obama used his office to raise the profile of the crisis to help convince Republicans to get on board.. Congress hands out Money, not the President

-So Obama fixed his own mistake in poisoning Flints water. A lot of good the EPA does.

Answer: Actually it was a Republican governor who assigned "emergency managers" to take over Flint. He superceded the democratically elected Mayor. The new managers shifted the water source from Detroit to the Flint Michigan. The EPA told them they needed corrosion controls, but the response was by the managers was there was no law requiring the controls. Flint was a financial disaster before, but the emergency managers came in and started doing whatever they wanted regardless of the outcome.

- So the EPA just let it happen.

Answer: The EPA escalated up the chain of command. The argument went on for six months, but they didn't hold press conferences with news organizations, which was probably their last option.

-Because the EPA is ineffective, and that's why it's funding should be cut! Totally Useless!

The final answer from Trump supporters is either a) you can't stop another Flint Water issue so just get rid of the EPA, or b)getting rid of all regulations will allow the free market to naturally fix the issues.

It's no longer possible to have rational discussions. Anything positive is directly attributed to Trump, and anything negative is the fault of Obama.

I don't think there's real belief that the free market would fix it.

It's a reference to the general republican stance that if government stays out of the way then the free market will fix everything i.e. health care, banking regulations, environmental protection, et cetera.

Except it was Obama pressuring congress. The legislation was passed in December

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint...

Coming back from India and going to Walmart.

so much space with nobody in it. Everything you need to live under one giant roof. There's 4 people at 4 registers and no line for any of them.

I wouldn't say capsized ship as much as "capsizing". Yahoo had a revolving door of CEOs. She was the 4th CEO in a decade. The one before her lasted 4 months (and made $6 million for his trouble). And in that time the stock price had gone from $40 to $16. Just because Yahoo was sinking doesn't mean it was sunk. Yahoo still had revenue, people, and products, but it had been declining for a long time.

It wasn't a death march, it was hail mary to see if Yahoo could be saved. The majority of her compensation was tied to stock price.

The snark doesn't bother me, but people want to hang the failure of Yahoo on Mayer. She did not take a vibrant, innovative, and successful company and drive it into the ground.

The stake in alibaba helped Mayer give her a windfall of cash she wouldn't have had otherwise. Her incentives were tied to stock price NOT performance. Start bashing the board for tying her compensation to the wrong metric.

People who are criticizing Mayer's deal are failing to realize that Mayer had better options than taking over as head of yahoo. She was a bright star who could have gone to any number of companies.

Nobody in the tech community would have categorized Yahoo as "ready for a turn around". Companies that large that have been mismanaged for so long are filled with middle managers that are better at internal politics than driving initiatives. The odds of yahoo turning around were extremely low. They had to put a deal together to entice someone who had a good reputation from a leading tech company to put their name on the line to go try and sort out a giant mess.

If your gripe is the difference between her salary and the lowest paid then I understand. That doesn't mean you bash Mayer for playing by the rules that society has set up. Good for her for getting paid. That makes you no different than the middle manager who isn't helping their team push forward but instead is sitting in meetings taking pot shots at everyone else.

Support a law that says the top executive can't make x times the total comp of the lowest paid. Of course every law like that will create incentives to structure companies to maximize payments to execs. those conversations would add more to our discussion than just throwing rocks.

History tells us that when inequality trends continue unchecked it's bad for the society as a whole.

I completely disagree with your comments.

What globalists? Sources? Name them.

Welfare is a system with a good purpose, but poor implementation. The goal is to help lift people up who are down and out. It turns out it's incredibly difficult to get groups of people on their feet with minimal monetary assistance. I have heard lots of people refer to welfare recipients as lazy, but have never heard anyone in any sort of position of authority say that laziness is the goal.

No taxes means no military, interstate highways, FDA, FBI, post office, nationak parks, federal courts, etc.

No taxes means NO regulations and NO federal laws, since taxes pay for the people who enforce regulations and laws. no regulations means the country is given to the strongest corporations with 0 oversight. Dump chemicals wherever you want, put whatever you want in food (sawdust, bleach, etc), etc.

Passing a federal law does nothing without a federal government to enforce it.

Congress empowers agencies so they can monitor and regulate an industry for the public good. Otherwise congress would have to pass a law for every little thing which would bog the government down. People get upset about regulations, but a lot of them exist because some person or organization did something to harm the public interest and a regulation was created to prevent it from happening again.

Can agencies get out of control? Absolutely, and it's congress's job to rein them in. While they report to the president all theirs power comes form the legislative branch.

As an aside? Why do you have infowars.com at the end of your comment? Infowars isn't a source appropriate for this forum

Definitely. You wouldn't know it looking at me, but I spent a month eatin only vegetables. Not raw, but no sauces other than some olive oil. I ate a donut after and it was so sweet it felt acidic.

It's not uncommon for people fasting have a glass of juice or fruit. When he says flavor is more intense it means sugar as well. An orange tastes really sweet. When having heavily reduced calories your body reacts stronger as well. Hot tea is a big pick me up.

If you are a big coffee drinker then start during a weekend where you can get through coming off coffee. Headaches and a mind like molassis are a hard way to go through th work day.

The other thing that makes the anecdotes better is avoiding thinking/emotional statements. Also using smiles and metaphors to give the listener something some color. Try to tie it back to an experience they’ve probably had.

----

How can it be so hot in the morning that you sweat right after the shower? My first shirt? I immediately sweated through it. On the bus I sweated through the second one too. The only open seats were the ones in the sun. That plastic was on fire! I had to shift around in my seat until it cooled enough for me to sit still. At one of the stops I spotted an ice cream cart. The smoke from the freezer floated out as the dude was reaching in to grab one of those drumstick cone. I would have bailed on work, bought the cart, and took a nap inside if we didn’t have that meeting scheduled.

A couple hours ago I saw John walking with an ice cream cone. I was like “Where’d you get that?”. Turns out his manager has an ice cream social every week. I tried to crash it, but the break room had nothing but empty cartons in the trash. At this point, it’s like God himself is telling me “Go forth my son, find some ice cream.”

So I went to Dairy Queen to get some Blizzard action. You know what? They were out of ice cream! I’m like “How can you be out of Ice Cream? Dairy is in your name!”, He’s smirks and said, “We still have cheese.”. CHEESE?!?!. So I ordered cheeseburger. It’s was good.

Awesome!

Yeah they always use the prompt to get to the admin panel with the list of errors and logs to prove there's an issue. I always act nervous. "There's a lot, Is it that bad?", and they respond with "don't worry sir, we're going to get it fixed for you".

20 min is pretty good. I will usually get called while away from my computer. I try to see how long I can go from memory of windows (been using Mac for 8 years). Once they pass me to their manager I know they've caught on I'm fucking with them. The second guy is clearly more technical/experienced and starts trying to determine as fast as possible if I'm legit. My "computer" will slow down at that point, then, I ask stuff like "can you guys fix this as well?"

I love it when the person yells at me for wasting their time.

My favorite example is you don't need a graphics department for presentations. Just that one guy with a graphics design background.