NOGDP

no profile record

comments

5 anni fadiscuss

Did you read the linked story? How does demonstrate any tech vision or leadership for AWS by Bezos? Do you just blindly believe all of the claims (that don't even relate to AWS vision/tech leadership) made in the story? Do you honestly believe Bezos - the business leader and highest level manager of Amazon, who has an enormous amount on his plate, who has no technical background, is coming up with all of these high level architectural and tech decisions, instead of, say, the highly qualified and experienced engineers at Amazon? You seem to think billionaires are some kind of superheroes from fantasy land instead of actual human beings. You have to be a naive child to believe half of the claims about Bezos made in this story.

5 anni fadiscuss

1) No it doesn't.

2) 99% of this story is fake.

5 anni fadiscuss

This uncorroborated story is not 'conventional understanding'. It doesn't even demonstrate any link to AWS vision or architecture. Service oriented architectures existed years before this mythical memo and AWS didn't exist until years later. This memo reads like a Steve Jobs parody - just blatantly attributing all major tech and architectural decisions to Jeff's genius and foresight.

5 anni fadiscuss

What kind of 'vision' and tech leadership did Bezos bring to AWS? Arguably none whatsoever.

5 anni fadiscuss

I wonder of the same mechanism that allow mosquitoes to transfer disease also works as a vaccination for animals?

5 anni fadiscuss

There's a long documented history of mass media manipulation, and it seems to be getting more aggressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

> So yeah, the press certainly manipulate but it doesn't generally have a "master plan" of manipulation.

Ah, the master plan - code name 'red herring'?

5 anni fadiscuss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

5 anni fadiscuss

> Attributing stuff to a malicious effort to make the public more manipulable (as if that was necessary) should be dropped in favor of the natural incompetence of the press in framing issues reasonably.

Except we've known for a long time that the mainstream press works, very intentionally, to manipulate public opinion.

5 anni fadiscuss

You're not saying anything specific about what's wrong with Java. Java is not perfect, but you haven't actually given a single good reason. The type system alone is a huge benefit over languages such as Python/Ruby. Lisp has existed and been taught for a long time, and I like Lisp languages such as Clojure, but the allusion to Clojure being some kind of magic bullet is also pretty baseless.

5 anni fadiscuss

A big chunk of the issues you're writing that test suite for, and constantly rerunning, are solved, out of the box, by having a decent type system. The type system also gives you superior code completion (with proper IDE support), which already outweighs any potential reload time costs in Java vs Python/Ruby, for me personally.

5 anni fadiscuss

If your development productivity is entirely reliant on how quickly you can reload your changes, then you're doing something wrong. Though I guess you'd have to write mounds of unit tests and constantly rerun them to prevent common issues that Java's type system solves for free.

5 anni fadiscuss

> Now, Google comes and creates a whole new UI toolkit from scratch, couples it with a very beautiful SDK and component framework and offers a far better programming language than js could ever be but we're still nagging

All of these things, more or less, already exist in great variety in the JS ecosystem (angular, react, vue, redux, webpack, etc.). Many people have also already adopted other languages such as TypeScript, which is easier to learn for someone coming from JS, and superior to Dart imo.

5 anni fadiscuss

Does anybody know if there is a filter or something that increases oxygen concentration in the air? Maybe something that pumps air from the outside and only lets oxygen in?

5 anni fadiscuss

Eh, that's a lot of extra steps and complexity for no apparent reason. Virtual desktops, supported by many linux UXs for a long time, provide essentially all of the same functionality without the extra mental overhead of having to deal with 'mission control' and thinking about monitor vs space vs window, or thinking about 'which state is my window in?'.

> You can't drag a fullscreen window from one monitor to another, because there's no window for you to drag.

But you do get the window bar on hover, which is the same 'control' you use for dragging non-fullscreen windows... the fullscreen window is still a window, except it's controls have been restricted and behaviour modified to prevent it from acting as a window for no apparent reason. The way this concept is implemented in macOS is just ugly imo.

5 anni fadiscuss

> Haters pointing out a few flaws (which it does indeed have) doesn’t invalidate the fact that it’s still better than Windows or most Linux UIs.

I agree that it's marginally better than Windows, but it's inferior to Linux given the fact that you can have a superior UX on Linux. Obviously this is based on my personal preferences.

5 anni fadiscuss

Modern FreeBSD is probably closer to Linux than it is to MacOS.

5 anni fadiscuss

> And like that there are a lot of other UX small things that make for a more pleasant experience in the Mac, particularly for end users.

There are also a lot of bugs and inconsistencies in the Mac UX that make it very annoying to use. A few that I have to deal with on a regular basis:

- App doc will randomly break - either it will not auto hide, or it will not show when pushing cursor down.

- For some reason the OS needs to disable/reset all displays multiple times in order to redetect external monitors. Not only can the monitor detection take a few minutes, but it often messes up window/workspace positions.

- You cannot drag fullscreen windows from one monitor to another. You cannot drag a non-fullscreen window to a monitor which has a fullscreen window.

- Audio will inconsistently switch between native speakers and HDMI, completely ignoring user's manual override.

- Windows will randomly disappear - app is still running and shown in doc bar but you cannot alt/command-tab to the window, or show the window from doc bar.

-Top bar will randomly not auto-hide, and/or not show when hovering.

Mac OS UX is far from any kind of golden standard fanboys try to make it out to be.

I'm more or less forced to use windows or mac for work (mac happens to be the lesser evil), but my personal debian pc is so much more intuitive, consistent, and stable.

5 anni fadiscuss

> By this logic though, if you're already in a short squeeze, then the retail buyers (the ones who are doing the squeeze) not buying any more should not cause the price to drop: the person getting squoze (did I use that word right?) will have to buy whether or not Robinhood traders are. The price would still be shooting up. In a short squeeze all that WSB had to do was hold.

Obviously the blocking of buys will have an effect on the price and availability of the stock. Not that it provides any reasonable justification for RH either way.

> If your "short squeeze" is dependent on people buying more in order to create a short squeeze, then you are just coordinating to create a short squeeze, not dealing with a "natural occurring" one.

Even if you want to buy the stock because you know there is a short squeeze ongoing, that is not illegal. That is just analysing the market conditions and seeing the obvious.

5 anni fadiscuss

That entire argument depends on being able to determine individual trader's motives for their trades. Also, by that argument Robinhood is acting illegally by manipulating the availability of the stock.

5 anni fadiscuss

Robinhood has no stake in whether or not individual trader actions are legal, and the entire distinction between legal and illegal here is based on being able to determine individual trader's motives. Robinhood is acting illegally by your own argument by manipulating the price and availability of a stock.