Most people here seem to forget that ads is what pays for the free internet services. The main issue with them is not making the consent more explicit to the user. I think the business model: you either get this for free with ads and targeting, or otherwise you have to pay X, should be more common. I bet most people would pick the free option with ads and targeting.
> Most people here seem to forget that ads is what pays for the free internet services.
Nobody forgets that, and the issue (at least for me) isn't the ads, it's the spying. It's entirely possible to have a financially healthy ad ecosystem without the spying. It used to be the norm, even.
I got to understand from personal experience that the anti-SOA people are usually the ones who stayed at the same company their entire carers, never saw any model other than the monolithic one, see SOA as a threat to their domain knowledge within the company and simply are not able to see its downsides (because they have adapted their ways of work around it and never experienced anything better).
I will offer myself as a counterexample. I worked at many companies, as exployee or contractor and held various positions. Dev, tech lead, manager.
I have yet to see a good application of microservices. I’m not saying there are none but the companies that can truéy benefit from that are few and fare apart.
From my experience smaller companies usually benefit a lot from simple monolythical architecture. Large companies tend to split problem into multiple products. But each product is still a kinda monolyth.
I have no experience with huge SaaS companies like Netflix. I can easily see why there the situation is quite different.
My horror story from recent days is that I had a 100-ish LOC patch. I had to push an update to 8 repos. That means 8 merge requests, 8 code reviews, deploy changes in correct order such that it does not break anything. The whole thing took 3 days. Coding was done in two hours.
Similar experience to my sibling here: I've had a couple microservice shops and they really soured me on them and SOA in general.
- You have so many deploy stacks that it's literally boggling. I had to deploy code that used everything from make to GitHub CI to Jenkins to serverless just to push a single change.
- You have infinite implementations of your business logic. This is for two major reasons. First it's just hard to keep everything sync'd up; even if you've got "libbiz" you're gonna have services on various versions. But second, a core tenet of microservices is to just fork a new service for this and let other services migrate, but now you've evolved from an ecosystem of library differences to an ecosystem of service differences, which is way more complicated and expensive to maintain. It would be infinitely better if all parts of your app used the same versions of your business logic, but it will never ever happen.
- Your stacks are probably really heterogeneous ("right tool for the job"), but what that means is your devs now probably all have to know some mix of Java, Ruby, JavaScript, Python, Go, and maybe something more esoteric like Clojure or Elixir.
- Maintaining a microservice infra is way more complicated. Good luck monitoring multiple app and deploy stacks. Good luck keeping all of them up to date with security fixes. Good luck with Kubernetes and helm (or whatever). Good luck with multiple persistence systems (Postgres, Maria, Mongo, Redis, Cockroach, BigQuery, etc)
- You have to have an event bus. Boo.
- Your logging is hyper complicated now
- Because of the ecosystem around microservices, you're probably doing a lot of weird enterprisy things in your code (DDD, CQRS) that mostly only add layers of indirection or pull in more complicated dependencies, or inspire you to (against all good advice) build your own framework.
I'm not saying a monolith doesn't have problems, but I think the cons of microservices get very little play.
> I'm not saying a monolith doesn't have problems, but I think the cons of microservices get very little play.
I was about to make the same point. I hear you though. In my case CI/CD, application framework, programming language, etc. was common. We manage to shoot ourselves in the foot multiple times because (a) our CI/CD was _way_ too smart, allowing for _way_ to many things to happen for us (SRE team) in non-standard ways and (b) Helm (Duh!) ... allows you to put deployment logic in there which leads to a mess.
What does the company that owns Java offer? Their Java IDE is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JDeveloper and nobody uses that. The latest release came out in 2019. Everyone is using IntelliJ IDEA or perhaps Eclipse.
What does the Python core community offer? IDLE is ugly, is barely an IDE, and didn’t have line numbers until a few years ago. Everyone is using PyCharm or VSCode.
MAUI is just another workload of the dotnet ecosystem. There is no technical reason for it not to work on Linux outside of someone actually doing so. This has nothing to do with C# at all.
Ouchie, that's pretty nasty and uncharitable interpretation and feels like a needless attack to the poster :-/
There are people who decide early in their career to go technical and never change their mind.
There are people who decide early in their career to go management and never change their mind.
But there are a LOT of people in the middle, and that's been the overwhelming majority of people I (anecdotally) know in management roles - they were good at what they do so they were promoted to management - junior dev, senior dev, tech lead / architect... whopsie, now you're manager and you don't know how you really got there; or you found you are good at talking to customer, understanding their pain points, and are also good at helping and supporting your team, so you accept a promotion you never thought you would a decade ago. And any other number of permutations. But I do know any number of people who did not "make a different career choice". They simply were doing a good job and ended up a manager. Inertia is a more powerful career drive than many people acknowledge.
It seems to me people get tempted into management rather than promoted. It's a shitty job that they agree to do because the money is better and they like having power over others.
It feels we will have to agree to disagree. Very few people I know got into management for "power over others" - as most people and articles and lessons and training for managers will tell you - it's a common perception that managers have power.then you become manager and realize it's all constraints and targets and you have crap all power and you owe everybody everything - up down and sideways. I'm not saying that power-hungry sociopaths don't exist, absolutely they do, but I think by sheer numbers they are overwhelmed by regular folks just trying to do their job.
(Oh and, for many companies, project managers are paid less than senior developers, so it's not necessarily better money either)
It's a different career choice that leads to a higher salary ceiling and a higher status and power position in a way that is much easier to achieve than an equivalent individual contributor.
For better or worse, open source software is competing with paid software, so expectations for basic support and maintenance need to exist. If there is not enough capacity for this, the maintainers should make it clear upfront in very visible ways so people can use that information when deciding what to use.
It would be extremely useful to be able to filter per country, as not all remote opportunities are available in all countries, but I guess a feature like this would have to involve data submission from the companies themselves.
On our (shameless plug) job boards, we structured the sites around countries and you also have mandatory salary brackets (provided by the companies)
We also require them to provide full tech stacks, benefits and info how mature they are in Software Engineering (what kind of tests they write, what methodologies they use, etc.)
Neat idea structuring the boards around countries with mandatory salary brackets. I haven't seen a job board use a map like you have, reminds me of Airbnb etc - makes a lot of sense!
This is the actual problem we are trying to solve with Remote Leaf[1](shameless plug). There are tons of remote job openings posted every day on the internet and job seekers do not need to scroll through these long feeds instead we filter them by country and skills and send it to their email. At this point, we manually curate the jobs and tag them to provide good quality service for job seekers.
Yep, I agree. You can currently filter jobs by location and time zone (https://himalayas.app/jobs) but we haven't extended the functionality to our company search yet. We will based on your feedback :)
Sure. As long as they become legally co-responsible for the speech they are choosing to amplify, i.e. as long as they accept they are no longer just a platform.
Holding people legally responsible for speech means censoring speech the Government doesn't like. Holding people legally responsible for relaying other people's speech as long as they don't relay all speech, is essentially the same thing as banning the selective relaying of speech. For example, it would be impossible for Twitter to determine if any factual claim about a person or company would be considered defamation before they relay it, so they would essentially be forced to leave the US if they didn't want to relay genocide advocacy or whatever else they may have a moral objection to help spread.
That's what I find so frustrating about this debate. The people who claim to support free speech actually support more censorship by the Government. They seem to want the Government to be the sole judge of what is acceptable to say. That's the exact opposite of what I want. I want for nobody to be prevented from saying anything and for nobody to be forced to help anyone say anything. Both of those rights are equally important parts of freedom of speech.
> That's what I find so frustrating about this debate. The people who claim to support free speech actually support more censorship by the Government.
You have mis-interpreted.
People are saying that they should be treated like the telephone companies.
Do you think that the telephone companies are some massive apparatis of censorship and anti-free speech?
I don't think most people would say that. I think that would people would say that the laws that force the telephone company to do certain things, results in very little censorship of the phone network.
> Both of those rights are equally important parts of freedom of speech.
So then, telephone companies.
Do you think that the laws regarding telephone companies are some massive infringement on free speech? Because I think most people would say the opposite, that are laws regarding them help prevent censorship.
Everyone claiming that Twitter and other social media companies are infringing on their free speech are arguing that these companies must allow broadcast messages.
Telephone companies do not allow normal customers to broadcast messages. A telephone call is a targeted communication. You are calling one person, or perhaps a handful of people. Additionally, there are laws that (at least attempt to) prevent spamming and robocalling. Telephone users also have the right to be taken off of companies call lists.
> Telephone companies do not allow normal customers to broadcast messages. A telephone call is a targeted communication.
> there are laws that (at least attempt to) prevent spamming and robocalling. Telephone users also have the right to be taken off of companies call lists.
None of what you just said changes the idea that it is pretty silly to claim that these types of laws that force telephone companies to send certain messages are some huge infringement on free speech.
The laws that apply to phone companies are well accepted in society. And they could be expanded to other large communication networks, as they currently are well accepted and are not considered huge infringements on free speech, nor do people say that they support censorship.
> This would be a violation of freedom of association
No, actually. We force public businesses to not discriminate based on race, and we have laws that for the telephone company to send almost all calls on its network.
Nobody would say that those laws break our rights to freedom of association.
Similar laws could be place on social media companies that we already put on telephone companies, even if they wouldn't be exactly the same.
Telephone companies exchange legal liability for the content of what they carry, for not changing fee or pricing structures based on the use of their lines. However, they also charge fees for the use of their service to their end users.
People do not pay for the services in question here, so the idea they have a right to them is on shaky ground to begin with - i.e. if I give away free lemonade, I'm under no obligations to give it away to any specific persons.
But more importantly, there's a big difference between a transactive exchange between two parties, and a broadcast one: the telephone company is not obligated to advertise who uses their services or how they use them, whereas Facebook is a publishing platform that does - which goes to the question of association. You can discreetly use a telephone line: you cant discreetly use Facebook without Facebook branding.
So what does the proposed law then look like? Facebook is obligated to host your content next to the "Facebook" logo? Does the logo have to be there? Does the service have to be similar? What if Facebook decide your content just doesn't qualify for their branded tier, and instead will be hosted on "QuietBook.com", which they don't SEO optimize? Suppose you have a comment section on a personal website - why are you now allowed to remove comments there but Facebook isn't allowed to remove comments from it's service?
You have once again not contracted anything that I said. What I said was that we have laws that force businesses to do certain things, and very few people would say that these businesses are having their rights infringed on.
> So what does the proposed law then look like?
Well, what we could do, is take existing laws and extend them to social media companies. Such as the existing common carrier laws, or anti-discrimination laws.
> if I give away free lemonade, I'm under no obligations to give it away to any specific persons.
If you had a lemonade store, in a mall, and you were giving away free lemonade, but you refused to give away lemonade to black people, then you absolutely would get in trouble with the law.
Like c'mon. How did you not think of that immediately? I even referenced this in a previous comment.
> Facebook is obligated to host your content next to the "Facebook" logo? Does the logo have to be there?
Well, just take every single question that you asked, and apply them to if a store wanted to treat black people differently, and then you have your answer.
So whatever hypothetical you have, imagine if it was about a company being forced to follow certain laws, that prevent them from discriminating against black people.
And the answer to these hypothetical, is that if a company attempted to do these things to black people, then it would likely be disallowed.
And very few people would say that there is some large infringement on these companies rights in that situation.
So again: if I have a comment section on my personal blog - can I remove abusive comments? Ban abusive users? Can HackerNews ban or downvote comments so they're not seen? Can TalkBack radio screen which callers it puts on the air?
You can write a law to do whatever you want, but the reason rights like freedom of association are enumerated is because things will go very, very wrong quickly when you undermine them. Freedom of speech is protection from government sanction for voicing your ideas, but freedom of
association is protection of your being compelled to act due to the arbitrary desires of others.
> If you had a lemonade store, in a mall, and you were giving away free lemonade, but you refused to give away lemonade to black people, then you absolutely would get in trouble with the law.
No you wouldn't. You'd be in trouble if you ejected people from the premises on the basis of race, but there is no case-law which requires you to give away goods and services to anyone. But this comparison is completely irrelevant because "your opinions" are not a protected class, nor would they ever be.
