remeq

I always had a feeling that Bryan and people around kinda took the tech first approach and it never really came to a proper fruition. I think the ambition behind the engineering marvels they did over time was certainly bigger. Dtrace, Fishworks, Joyent, then this... so why is that? Perhaps the fierce refusal of joining the mainstream side (Linux)? Fingers crossed, but...

They can resurrect themselves with Quantum computing. Big, fat,extremely specialized, room-sized machines was always something IBM was good at.

pay-doge-per-tweet FTFY

EU is not trying to impose regulation or standardization on highly innovative areas of hardware or chipset design or software design or anything of that matter. They are imposing it for something that has largely been understood and comoditized (electric charging of phones via cable and data transfer using open communication protocol) where there is little room for getting any kind of competitive advantage or differentiation or some significant innovation. Speaking about hindrance of progress is largely far fetched and not based on reality. Things like this are really not blocking any meaningful progress but they indeed are largely abused by enterprises to push proprietary things to consumer so that it can be monetized and consumer locked in the vendor ecosystem.

I agree with you that the only interesting aspect of blockchain is decentralized trust. But decentralized trust is a big thing. It is actually such a massive thing and people will sooner or later realize that. The magnitude of this thing is actually on a level of invention of democracy in social systems. It will change everything. And the application of decentralized trust (read - institution-less systems) goes far beyond decentralized finance.

If we look at the tendency of every single centralized system or organization to end up being either sub-optimal or evil or screwing individual we really have to ask whether there isn't a better way. Consider evolution of centralized political powers, dictatorships etc., consider evolution of big tech companies like google or facebook, consider evolution of big products.

If blockchain provides decentralized trust this can be used for almost evertyhing. And it doesn't really mean that you will run your trustless version of AWS directly on blockchain. For many applications the blockchain is there for trust and system of economy incentives for the actors in the systems (as these two things go hand by hand). The blockchain is not there to do the "business logic"

I don't agree with this point of view. I think that world is slowly evolving towards an age where this point of view is outdated.

There are things for which it makes sense to try and find a different model then traditional profit driven. A web browser is one of those things. It should be a neutral window into a neutral network.

Why doesn't Mozilla try to master donation marketing the way Wikipedia does? I am sure Firefox would have an active and regular donors would the large community of enthusiasts knew that otherwise it would be heading either towards EOL or towards making it commercial

But isn't the containerization trend leading us to a completely opposite direction ie. scale-out by default and do that not only because of performance but mainly because of how you want to manage your production environment?

Out of the entertainment categories you just listed (porn, movies, music, books, games, sports) I think the porn can have the worst side effects on your life because it directly interfere with a relationship with your partner (many people go for porn rather then for sex with partner) or can demotivate one from searching for real relationships because porn is easier. And that can ultimately lead to worsening one's quality of life.

doh, never heard of TikTok, just googled it and their logo is giving me a serious headache

"we'd have billions of dollars [1] to spend on something useful." - If companies stopped advertising tomorrow the people doing those ads wouldn't go building space rockets.

Playing around with words like "open sourcing" is not a good idea in semantics-sensitive dev community. Not even what it comes to pretty little babies

People don't realize that whatever path in their career they choose it is going to have its own set of obstacles, pitfalls and frustrations which results in false impression that would they choose something else they would live happily ever after.

For me clever is when someone is facing some problem and comes up with clever solution. Something that for example reduces complexity from O(n^2) to O(n) due to some smart idea. But I agree that elegant is another quality which can be added to the list :)

Yeah, I didn't really mean everything at once, I just wanted to make clear that "the beautiful" can be disaggregated into some engineering qualities.

I despise this kind of mentality which tries to demonize someone's passion to actually write a beautiful code. This kind of mentality takes away "the human factor" from the working environments turning IT jobs into delivery driven factories. I for one need to enjoy my work to actually be productive. And don't get me wrong - I understand that product people need to deliver products and they enjoy doing their diagrams and presentations but I am an engineer, and I like myself and my life and as a result I just want to do and be surrounded by beautiful things so I honestly don't give a shit if some product will not be delivered on time because product managers did include only business requirements and ignored requirement of my engineering team that we need to be able to sign our name under the code we write and be surrounded be beautiful things in our work life. Sorry, but engineers are part of the team, part of the product, if you ignored that at the beginning, it is not our fault.

Also, ability to write beautiful code implies the ability to deliver code much more then vice versa because there is a good chance that someone who actually is capable of writing beautiful code had to get to that level by actually also delivering stuff to production in the past.

So yes, in my world, someone who writes a beautiful code (meaning - correct, performant, maintainable, understandable, clever and so on) is a pretty good candidate to be a role model.

I dislike this way of thinking. Programmer shouldn't be described like:

ability_to_beautiful_code ---V------------ ability_to_deliver

Programmer should be described more like:

ability_to_beautiful_code: 0%---V-----------100%

ability_to_deliver: 0%----------V----100%

And both metrics should have certain threshold for you.