As a (perhaps unintentional) slip, “an insensitive” works rather well here. Gatekeeping your field in a forum of open(ish)1 information exchange is just categorically “not nice”.
Personally, I would have opted for a portmanteau like “incentsitive”.
1 - Paywalls notwithstanding.
The only good bug is a dead bug.
Why am I suddenly staring at the sun?
I’m inclined to agree. I think the best path through would be to focus on laws that benefit multiple minor players that have a seat at the table.
Antitrust laws in general are a good example. These function at the direct expense of big monopolies, but are exactly what companies need if they want in on what was monopolized. And in the case of breaking a monopoly down, the resulting “baby” companies given more power, growth opportunity, hiring opportunities (job growth) and money making potential than the parent. This can also spur economic growth for all the fat cats out there by creating many new investment and hiring potentials. Overall, if you can get past the monopoly itself (read: take the ball away from your billionaire of choice), everyone else involved stands to benefit.
There may be other strategies, but I can’t think of any right now. I think the key is to tip the scale in favor of more favorable outcomes, then repeat that a few more times, achieving incremental progress along the way. Doctorow outlines the ideal end state for all this, but it’s up to everyone else to figure out how to get there.
While I don’t like the idea of embracing capital to improve things, the whole system is currently run this way. Standing with other monied interests that are aligned with the same goal might be the only way to go.
Just yesterday, Mrs. Warp Core was trying to enroll with an online service. The self-service email confirmation link refused to function correctly in Firefox on a desktop operating system (Windows in this case). It worked flawlessly on Firefox+iOS. Said link also shuttled the user straight off to the phone app.
I’ll add that nearly ever other aspect of their public facing web, including the online chat support, worked flawlessly everywhere I tried it. This all just reeked of hostile design.
When asked about why this is, I simply said:
The browser provides good security and choice for the user. Apps provide good security and control for the vendor.
Java itself is kind of blissful in how restricted and straightforward it is.
Java programs, however, tend to be very large and sprawling code-bases built on even bigger mountains of shared libraries. This is a product of the language’s simplicity, the design decisions present in the standard library, and how the Java community chooses to solve problems as a group (e.g. “dependency injection”). This presents a big learning challenge to people encountering Java projects on the job: there’s a huge amount of stuff to take in. Were Java a spoken language it would be as if everyone talked in a highly formal and elaborate prose all the time.
People tend to conflate these two learning tasks (language vs practice), lumping it all together as “Java is complicated.”
$0.02: Java is the only technology stack where I have encountered a logging plugin designed to filter out common libraries in stack traces. The call depth on J2EE architecture is so incredibly deep at times, this is almost essential to make sense of errors in any reasonable amount of time. JavaScript, Python, PHP, Go, Rust, ASP, C++, C#, every other language and framework I have used professionally has had a much shallower call stack by comparison. IMO, this is a direct consequence of the sheer volume of code present in professional Java solutions, and the complexity that Java engineers must learn to handle.
Some articles showing the knock-on effects of this phenomenon:
Yes, but “Proto Indo-European” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. /s
I feel like this is just a lower-stakes version of “RedBull & vodka.” If that’s true, @[email protected], then this is a recipe for a bad hangover.
Good point.
Calling in sick:
Calling in, sick:
It’s also worth noting that the launch PS3 also had a whole PS2 inside of it, which partially explains the inflated price point. I say partially since I’m prrety sure that a PS2 slim cost a lot less than $330 in 2006 dollars; they could have just bundled both consoles or offered a rebate on a PS2 purchase and called it a day.
I just want to echo your sentiment with something I’ve been saying here for a while now:
Do not confuse information technology use for computer literacy.
Looking for bread tumors?
Honestly, this is why I tell developers that work with/for me to build in logging, day one. Not only will you always have clarity in every environment, but you won’t run into cases where adding logging later makes races/deadlocks “go away mysteriously.” A lot of the time, attaching a debugger to stuff in production isn’t going to fly, so “printf debugging” like this is truly your best bet.
To do this right, look into logging modules/libraries that support filtering, lazy evaluation, contexts, and JSON output for perfect SEIM compatibility (enterprise stuff like Splunk or ELK).
Heisenbugs are the worst. My condolences for being tasked with diagnosing one.
Last time I did anything on the job with C++ was about 8 years ago. Here’s what I learned. It may still be relevant.
const, constexpr, inline, volatile, are all about steering the compiler to generate the code you want. As a consequence, you spend a lot more of your time troubleshooting code generation and compilation errors than with other languages.valgrind or at least a really good IDE that’s dialed in for your process and target platform. Letting the rest of the team get away without these tools will negatively impact the team’s ability to fix serious problems.1 - I borrowed this idea from working on J2EE apps, of all places, where stack traces get so huge/deep that there are plugins designed to filter out method calls (sometimes, entire libraries) that are just noise. The idea of post-processing errors just kind of stuck after that - it’s just more data, after all.
Yup. Nobody else gets those cookies.
Yeah, I know that the super-flat planar look was the intent, but there’s a reason why you don’t see much in the real world that resembles the cybertruck. It turns out that the non-planar features of typical car panels are there to add rigidity. Flat sheet metal wants to bend, twist, wave, and even flap in the wind. So there are probably internal supports or struts welded to the panel backsides, in order to keep them flat. Problem is, that process tries to distort the panels due to heat from manufacturing.
And since they opted for stainless, this adds additional problems. In this case: you can’t hide imperfections with bondo and paint. The panels have to be perfect, every time. It requires tolerances that belong on a sports car, not a pickup.
Pretty sure you just triggered every developer and/or person who had to sit through a product meeting.
NGL, I was feeling very uncomfortable myself by the end of typing said list. Is it hot in here? I need to lie down.
The key phrase to remember here is: Price Discrimination.
Stores already possess the technology to track anyone’s shopping experience through loyalty cards. The “discounts” you get are really just a tax on everyone that doesn’t participate, and the benefits to the company for having your data are worth potentially losing business from un-tracked customers. That’s how valuable your data is.
So why aren’t we seeing per-customer targeting? This is not to suggest that businesses are benign here, but rather, just cautious about outright per-customer discounts and other price manipulation. Custom coupons are kinda/sorta a part of this. IMO, the door is still wide-open to find ways palatable to the customer (and courts) while dialing everyone in.
In that context, all cameras do is make the system practically impossible to dodge. Considering how much stores value that kind of information, it makes sense they’d invest to capture 100% of their retail activity.