If the goal is equity of outcome above-all-else, ignoring for any differences derived from the data, then why are we bothered investing so much time, money and effort into this area?
You can't vote in Canada unless you've citizenship. You've to be physically present in Canada 3 years of every five to retain PR, not so with citizenship.
>personally I'd say wait until profitable or >100 engineers
Personally I'd say delay until you can find an area causing such a performance or scalability issue that it justifies its own repo(s), build pipelines / devops / ops, deployable artifacts, and team to hold the context on it.
Without that, your profitability or engineering team is best invested into extending your offering to better service your customers.
It's funny that it's only now that Google employees are developing a conscience. Advanced facial recognition systems, email harvesting, stalking people across the internet and monitoring their every keyboard press, many more drastic infringements on people's privacy under the guise of "they clicked accept on our 1000 page t&cs"...not a whimper.
I support anything that damages Google as an entity, or throws egg on the faces of those who choose to work for them, so this apparent revolution-of-conscience from within is pretty delightful to behold.
I'll put it in a mildly hyperbolic manner, to match the quality of the source this article came from:
Toronto gets the sloppy seconds of America's tech industry; the Canadian tech grads who couldn't move to the US, the Indian tech migrants who couldn't get US visas, the "startups" who couldn't get US VC funding, tech conferences etc. etc.
That some companies are seeking to lower their costs but retain "North American culture" by transferring some functions to Toronto is not an indication of the strength of Toronto, but its weakness. Cheap dollar, far cheaper salaries, cheap(er) office spaces, far cheaper politicians to buy if necessary, etc.
When anyone in the North American tech industry can name 5 bustling Canadian startups from the top of their mind, then maybe we can talk about the Canadian tech industry doing well. Until then, it's about as relevant in tech as Bangalore and jobs there are as relevant as any of those located in other outsourced, cost-reducing "tech centres".
>Did the media write about email being used negatively when it was taking off?
When email was taking off, the media was still making vast amounts of money from print editions.
Now that this part of the industry is rapidly dying, it has pivoted to outrage-driven ad-clicks for revenue and their content has tailored itself appropriately.
NYT's business model seems to have turned to latching on to whatever sentiment is currently popular and beating the metaphorical horse for clicks until it's a bloody pulp, before moving on to the latest "outrage" of the week.
In fact, in catering to simply the loudest popular sentiment, they put themselves in the position of having to apologize for their recent election coverage due to how utterly biased it ended up being.
I understand they're all struggling in the battle for people's attention these days, but as an institution they somehow seem to feel they still stand out from, and above of, others such as buzzfeed.