Not every shell script has to be that portable. And even then, "POSIX compatible" shells vary in their "POSIXness". Sometimes using arrays is the right thing to do, or having a reliable indicator of the source script location, so you code to Bash 3. Sometimes associative arrays or something else is better, and your platform is known, so you code to Bash 4 or 5. Maybe all your users are Zsh users so you use that. So you can start by writing POSIX compatible scripts, but there's no sense in tying your hands if you don't need to.
The Bash manual also covers POSIX semantics, I just remember which is which. You're right that the Dash manual is a good place to check what is mostly POSIX (Dash isn't actually strictly POSIX). I would probably use Shellcheck with the correct shebang to double check what's compatible.
Shell scripts are a more evolved form of programming and nobody can change my mind on that. They require less work, they're easier to make, they're flexible, compatible, composable, portable, small, interpreted, and simple. You can do more with few characters and do complex things without the complexity of types, data structures, locks, scoping, etc. You don't write complex programs in it, but you use complex programs with it, in ways that would be over complicated, buggy and time consuming in a traditional language.
That said, it's a tool. Like any tool, it depends how you use it. People who aren't trained on the tool, or don't read the instruction manual, might get injured. I'd like to see a version of it that is safer and retains its utility without getting more complicated, but it would end up less useful in many cases. Maybe that's fine; maybe it needs to be split into multiple tools.
The big mental illness crisis of the 21st century is really the same one from the 20th: mass media consumerism. Social media is literally just mass media consumerism in a more efficient, evolved form. It's the car compared to the bicycle: more advanced, with more bad outcomes than before. If you want to cure social media mental illness you'll have to wrestle with the fundamental addiction all humans now have to mass media, which has a symbiotic relationship with consumerism. Since the global economy depends on consumerism, it's not going to be easy to dismantle.
Something can be both hype and useful. Paradigm shift, no, because there's no fundamental architectural difference from any other replicated sql database.
Sqlite only really works as a throwaway database. For that it's pretty great. Although a lot of the current use cases for sqlite could have just been a .ini file.
If we didn't have the web, all networking above OSI L4 on all operating systems would have been encrypted by default. A simple set of syscalls and kernel features could have enabled it. But since the web was there, and popularized a solution for secure communications (TLS + HTTP), everyone just jumped on that bandwagon, and built skyscrapers on top of a used books store.
The weird irony is it's the old "worse is better" winning again. HTTP and TLS are fairly bad protocols, in their own ways. But put them together and they're better than whatever else exists. It's just too bad we didn't keep them and ditch the browser.
Obviously it happens on planet earth and the visitors are hackers who live on planet earth. I don't think they care particularly if it's ironic, I think they just don't like the name and are looking for something to complain about. So let them complain.
I think people should stop using PyPI altogether. It's full of abandoned garbage and malware because there's really no filter on who can upload what. I don't even use it to search for packages anymore.
If Linux distro packaging worked the same way, Linux would be a hellscape of malware and weird random broken apps. I'd rather use old software than constantly worry about fat fingering a package name and ending up with a crypto miner on a thousand machines. Thank goodness for that culture of vetting packages.
A public hearing isn't going to change anything. Look at...well, literally any powerful organization or individual brought before Congress for excoriation. The pound of flesh they want is press and votes, and you don't have to change anything to get that.
It's not like they're going to break up Boeing. They can't actually do anything to improve Boeing. All they can do is wag their finger. It's not like there's an alternative American company to give our billions of dollars to. And it's not like other companies will suddenly fear being brought forward to be gummed to death by whining bureaucrats.
You want real pain? Have them pass a law that says the entire executive leadership's bonuses are forfeit, retroactively, if the company fails to maintain an adequate safety record. Shit will change there real quick. (That law will never happen but it's funny to think of)
Is there anything applicants can do to better provide what you're looking for? Obviously giving more complete answers, but anything else that would help you find the right person? And the other way round, is there anything you might change to get the right people to find you?
It's unfortunate that the development of the web has had an adversarial nature. There's been a war between those individuals who prize privacy, and organizations that want functionality.
The law requires certain things. If your protocol doesn't account for those things, then your protocol will be broken to bend to the law's will. It would often be much better to have some small compromise in privacy, rather than lose it all. "All or nothing" has some extreme outcomes.
Yes, some people do want privacy at all costs. But what about the rest of us? We send postal mail in envelopes and leave them sitting in boxes open to the street. Our phone calls traverse networks unencrypted and are overhead nearby. Our credit cards and secret PINs can be input at public facilities that enable stealing. Our laptops sit at home or work and can be broken into and memory dumped for encryption keys. In practice, 99% of us are completely fine with an acceptable risk of a possible loss of privacy. We help bolster this with laws and punishments should someone violate our privacy. But what we don't do is engineer our lives as if we're all spies hiding from an execution.
There are practical changes that could be made to allow for better functionality, whilst not having absolute privacy at every conceivable technical level, but still more than enough privacy that what we care about most is still reasonably private. Then there might be enough mild privacy lost to enable organizations the functionality they need, and we would lose less to the "all or nothing" consequences.
The thing is, there is an extremely small number of people who have the privilege and power to change things, because they're in the room and we're not. Like the generals carving up Africa because they happen to be in the right room. Personally, I think these decisions have fallen to a few people in a room for far too long. I think we should have public, wide ranging discussions about the nature of how we build the underpinnings of our world. If we don't, the consequences could be more "all-or-nothing" that ends up harming more than otherwise.
For the past year it's been a hirer's market. Applied to 30 positions I'm perhaps overqualified for, all form letter rejected. Recruiters ask me for a call, I reply back and say what's a good time, ghosted; we actually scheduled a time, I'm ready and waiting, ghosted. The positions are listed but nobody's in a hurry to fill them.
> A lot of leadership stuff is universal, but then a lot of it is also dependent on what's needed for the job, and a person's skills and leadership patterns may not be exactly what's needed for the job.
Leadership is what's needed for leadership jobs. It's in the title. All leadership is the same: inspire the troops, block the bullshit, elevate the good shit. How you do that changes by rank.
> The Peter Principle is that if you do a good job you get promoted, as you get promoted it gets harder, eventually you reach a point where your skills aren't enough to overcome the next level of difficulty increase.
The Peter Principle isn't about difficulty, it's about skill set. As you climb the ranks you need a different skill set. The job isn't harder, the job is different.