> I did not claim they do not improve their products.
Apologies that I didn't notice you weren't CommonGuy, who said "improving them in the future is not really their style". Consider my reply aimed at them. The two of you seem to be saying something quite different. I don't think I necessarily disagree with you
Nah, you don't get to claim they don't work on improving their products, and then handwave away actual updates to it with "yeah but those aren't the improvements I wanted". That's just life and priorities.
Abandoning something, and not making the changes you want to see are entirely different things.
e.g. when Crowdstrike takes down Windows across the worlds or AWS east coast falls over everybody hurts. At that point the story is easy, you point at the broken thing, mumble something about improving resilience, and everyone just moves on.
Roll your own system and have it taken down / breached specifically? There's noone to point at. It's hard to make the narrative anything except it being your fault.
AWS can make data export free, and no-one's going to shout at them that it's not free because it cost money to store the data there in the first place.
Bunny offers a number of services to paying customers. One of the services, that would previously have incurred a cost, now does not. It is free.
Exactly. I stopped reading part way through. The first thought was ... this seems like quite a lot of words to say not an awful lot of contents. And then the sentences started jumping out.
> A verification regime does not need your approval — it needs your participation
I'm not the commenter, but for me ghostty was good for being a Very Good terminal experience with almost no config required.
Just checked and the config file for my daily use terminal setup is 3 lines long. 3! That means I know I can chuck it on any system, any clean re-install, and it'll be Fine. That counts for a lot when you've grown tired of endless config tweaking.
Setting out to do something commercial (and succeeding), is different from setting out to do something firmly non-commercial and then commercialising it. The second one will almost always involve compromise that was never intended, which often undermines the original, non-commercial version.
You'll note I didn't actually say it was people who are prolific that were the problem.
I've worked with great prolific devs. They're often very humble, happy to explain their work, and recognise that simply adding to a pile of queued PRs isn't likely to achieve very much. They are part of a team. These are good people.
I've worked with people "who consider themselves prolific humans" - they're far less humble, far more likely to be flexing or showing off. I have less time for them.
This feels like a bad take, IMO. Starting with something that gets you up and running quickly, then transferring to something else when things are more settled is a pretty standard practice.
Year before the MSFT takeover. No idea about their actual financials but they were definitely shedding headcount pre 2020, including kicking people for trying to unionise.
I said so above. I think originally they were "online spaces that augmented a real world community". Even twitter, you mostly started by following people you knew or had heard of.
I get that this isn't at all where we are any more. And y'know, everyone's gonna use terms to mean whatever they want. I'm fine with that. I guess I just think its pointless if "social media" means "anything online where people can write messages"
see IMO it isn't. HN is an online community. Same as forums, and BBSs were. I don't think they were social media really - they're online spaces that form around a shared interest, where Facebook etc were originally online spaces that augmented a real world community.
> Interviews are useful, but the ability to ship, maintain and improve real projects should probably carry more weight.
But how do you assess this? Maybe we should get them to write a document that details what they've done, and then invite them to a conversation to discuss it.
The best thing I learned about SQL is that it can do an awful lot of clever stuff but that the vast majority of the time you really don't need it. Learn the basics. Shrug the rest off.
It's a good point, but I think the counter is that if the only people writing anything available via Gemini would have written nice simple HTML anyway, then not an awful lot is gained.
Apologies that I didn't notice you weren't CommonGuy, who said "improving them in the future is not really their style". Consider my reply aimed at them. The two of you seem to be saying something quite different. I don't think I necessarily disagree with you