That certainly seems like an interesting system, and at the moment I'm open to ideas, although it's essentially impossible that my country will adopt a new system.
I think I fully agree, although to expound on (1) I don't think that is the kind of software that any company should want to depend on for anything remotely important. I'm sure there are counter examples where you get a high quality project that doesn't require or accept donations, but I think these will be exceedingly few and far between. It seems like it's in the company's best interest to make sure the development for a dependency isn't going to go away for lack of funding?
I'm of the opinion that large companies should be paying for the software they use regardless of whether it's open source or not, because software isn't free to develop. So assuming you're paying for the software you use, you still have the problem that you are subject to your internal procurement processes. If your internal procurement processes make it really painful to add a new seat, then maybe the processes need to be reformed. Open source only "fixes" the problem insofar as there's no enforcement mechanism, so it makes it really easy for companies to stiff the open source contributors.
I don't think this is entirely true. A system of government could dramatically limit the power of the executive or make it easier to remove a president or make it harder for the legislature to make moves (essentially just limit the damage until the cult effect wears off).
Absolutely this. Native apps are just so much smoother, and I say this as someone who really wants the web to win, and who used web apps almost exclusively because my 16GB iPhone 6 had very little space for apps. Also, the quality of native apps was much higher (e.g., Twitter feed doesn’t abruptly jump all over on mobile) although this could just be due to more budget allocation into native apps for whatever reason.
If that’s true, I haven’t found it when I’ve shopped for a laptop to install Linux onto. This wasn’t always the case, but right around the time of Windows 8 when everything needed a touchscreen and chromebooks were eating the low end of the market, good affordable hardware seemingly disappeared. I would have to spend $1500 to get something in the same ballpark as an entry level MacBook and it would still have profoundly terrible touchpad (whether running Linux or Windows, it never mattered), a mediocre keyboard, a plastic body, and noisy fans.
Chromebooks do offer better hardware per dollar than other computers, but you are (or perhaps were) pretty locked-into the ChromeOS, or at least none of the workarounds seemed palatable. So if you like ChromeOS then there is better value hardware out there, but Mac is it for the rest of us.
We’ve had to build a lot on. Like support for passing state across jobs in a workflow, or branching, or triggering a workflow with parameters, or triggering a workflow from a different branch, or etc. CCI went to unnecessary lengths to not support obvious use cases, or that’s how it feels. :(
CircleCI invented many of their own problems. No API to trigger workflow runs and the only trigger “API” is pushing to a git branch. A horrible job-centric UI when all you really care about are workflows. Workflows that don’t let you express conditionality and assume all errors are fatal. A broken data model that confuses the same workflow on different branches with different workflows (no good way to figure out how long your PR workflow takes on average because each PR is it’s own workflow, for some reason). No good state management or data passing options. Hopefully they will sort those things out, but it feels like they went out of their way to build a thing with a crazy data model and triggers that are tightly coupled to github.
These are strawmen arguments. No one is arguing that libraries matter more than organizations/teams, and no one is arguing that it's impossible to build good/bad frameworks in any given language/framework/etc. You can (and should!) solve the problems with your teams and your tools. If you pick a tool that solves problems you don't have (probably because it's new and shiny), there are probably hidden costs that you didn't consider and you're probably going to slow your team down. How much that slow down is going to affect your project depends on how significant the slow-down is and how sensitive your project is to developer productivity (the widely used internal tool with the big budget at BIG CORP is probably safe, but the team at the small startup with the shoestring budget and fierce competition is going to feel that friction in a bad way.
Right, but will they be able to say that the customer was thrilled with their rewrite? Probably not; they're already mostly happy with the simpler site and now they've paid to make things (almost certainly) more complex than they need to be. They probably feel swindled into agreeing to a rewrite of something that was mostly working but The Next Developer told them that adding that new feature would require completely rewriting the front- and backends.
I’m not familiar with Popper’s work, but I see that quote (“tolerate everything but intolerance”) used to rationalize intolerance toward perfectly tolerant individuals. Any evidence that the target is “intolerant” suffices, no matter how tenuous or contrived (“an intolerant person once said a good thing about <target> therefore <target> is intolerant). This seems similar to the concern you expressed about the GP’s philosophy. Did Popper lay out more stringent criteria for what constitutes “tolerance” and “intolerance”?
> Facebook and Twitter are, by comparison, cancer.
How are FB and Twitter comparable to RSS? And how are they trying to kill it? Like they're not supporting it on their platform? If so, why should I care? Or do you mean "they're conspiring to kill it across the Internet", in which case please elaborate.
EDIT: I'm getting downvoted; I can only assume people are interpreting my comment as vouching for FB/Twitter, which couldn't be further from the truth. I can be (and am) confused by his wording without supporting big social media companies. :)
First off, this isn't meant to generalize to the broader population of conservatives and liberals, and the statistically insignificant sample size is the number one reason why this anecdote would be unfair for such a purpose. That said, if my conservative acquaintances are more tolerant of a "left-of-center" arrangement than my liberal acquaintances, why would it be more fair to push the comparison further left?
Conservatives are supposed to be the ones that pressure people into gender roles, and liberals are supposed to be tolerant of all lifestyles. What point would be made if liberals were tolerant of a very, very non-traditional relationship, and our conservative friends were uncomfortable? That both groups have gender roles which they use social pressure to enforce? That the left isn't actually more tolerant than the right? That liberals have enjoyed an undeserved positive stereotype?