If the company is already huge and makes a tonne of profit, there's little/no need to double-dip on an accessory service that already makes a good case for pushing people into their main service (i.e prime video is free if you use amazon prime -> using amazon's main website/service).
It's not about the market cap specifically, it's stating that prime video doesn't need to operate at a profit in order to benefit amazon's core business.
Maybe that is the downside of the general policy of abstraction that Devs use, that software should be made to look as simple as possible, and all the apparently "unnecessary intricacies"(which could have disastrous effects) should be dumped under the hood.
The point of abstraction isn’t to hide information from you. The point of (properly done) abstraction is to allow you to work without having to worry about the details.
Abstraction has nothing to do with this. The problem is the side effects of social media. Even if Facebook open source their algorithms, I doubt anyone could have conclusively predicted this. We only know all this because of empirical sampling of the user population.
If you have punitive anti-drinking policy, and a racial group susceptible to that problem, it becomes a racist policy. There's alternatives that don't set people with problems back even further.
I think you could also take in to the willful enforcement as another aspect to the law.
For instance, ACT police are known for not drug testing for cocaine, whereas meth and speed are. (At traffic stops).
This causes the rich, who can afford to take coke, to continue with their lifestyle, and punishes the poor. Using the justification of moral corruption.
For what it's worth, I am Australian, am ashamed of the countries history of treating the rightful owners of the land, but do agree that the alcohol issue is something that has more nuance than appears to outsiders.
Other things that are supposed to address the same issue, such as demonizing social benefits spending with budget control debit cards are outrageous. They are just weapons of the election cycle, and a way to recover campaign funds at the expense to the countries public.
>No it doesn't. A law does not become racist when one race disproportionately breaks it, otherwise every law everywhere would be racist.
I think you'll find there are quite a few folks that disagree with you on this point, some feel that laws can be considered racist exclusively because of disproportionate impact on specific communities.
Personally I think it just boils down to how people define the term 'racist'. When I was growing up (many moons ago), the term was used primarily to describe intent, but now it has expanded to include outcomes.
Intent is an increasingly imaginary concept when decisionmaking is partially or completely performed by neural nets and checklists. As such, outcomes end up being the important thing to examine.
I agree that it's important to examine outcomes. It's actually the fundamental measurement of a decision and if we recast 'intent' as 'desired outcome' then its clear why paying attention to it is important.
My problem is that I was taught that 'racist' describes an ugly mindset that would confer malice. That may be true in some cases where outcomes disproportionately affect certain folks, but it's clearly not always the case and implying otherwise just distracts the conversation.
Agreed, but this cuts both ways. Intent has a lot of moral judgement attached to it - if we're redefining a word to be primarily about outcomes instead of intent, we should also drop the implied moral assertions around it.
Mmm, I'm not so sure. Certainly the things it means about the person responsible for the decision are a little different - lots of people accidentally put policies into place that harm minority groups, etc. But if the outcome is the same and a person in power chooses not to fix it, it really doesn't matter what their intent is, it's a moral failure not to help the people who need your help if you're able to do so. I don't really care whether they say slurs in their spare time with friends, I just want my elected (and un-elected) representatives to do what they can to prevent people from dying of starvation or preventable diseases.
It may or may not, depending on the context. If you make abortion illegal, for example, women will disproportionately break it. If you make it illegal to drunk drive, on the other hand, and if men are more likely to break it, that's a different case.
Again, I'm not familiar enough with the causes or effects of these policies to have a properly informed debate BUT on the surface it looks like these rules have been put in place in partnership with the communities in question, in order to try to help what is evidently a severe problem.
But perhaps the reality is different.
(Edit - perhaps I do have the read on this wrong, and these policies were not put in place with community agreement, in which case they should be changed. In other states such as Queensland the 'dry place' legislation is far more voluntary)
What if the communities are the ones creating/supporting these policies? Are the being racist to themselves? As from my reading this is often the case.
I'm not an expert in this field but it seems to me you are vastly oversimplifying the policy and without context. And using language like 'punitive' seems unfair as I dont see how this is a punishment, even if one were to believe it was misguided or ineffective. And I respect this policy has flaws and questionable value, while at the same time feel its fair to recognise it is being done in co-ordination with the community itself and and with altruistic intent.
What are these other alternatives you mention? Please suggest. I suspect they come with a whole set of other flaws and failures as rarely is a solution to these problems without a flip side.
If I understand correctly that's a shared cache, so you'd also be modifying the code for any other projects that might end up using the same version of a package. Also, I don't think live hacks to that cache would affect the project you're working on without deleting the pnp file and rebuilding.
Overall, like the OP said, it's possible but it's not the same.
Edit: Though as another commenter pointed out, the patch workflow alleviates these issues so it really isn't that big of a deal, you're right.
> I created a horse-racing simulation game in Applesoft BASIC in Manhattan Beach Middle School’s computer classroom and ran a small gambling operation.
"Software" is much more than just ability to write a small BASIC program.
I have "been in software" for quarter of century and I am still constantly learning as if I was beginner.
Though having been able to write even a small BASIC program may have had an effect of you appreciating the work of a developer just a tiny little bit. And this is not given -- I have seen in the past many CEOs having no appreciation whatsoever and this leads typically to disrupting developer work and underutilizing their abilities. Then when everything starts to fall apart management blames problems on developers rather than try to understand what caused these developers to fail.
> And this is not given -- I have seen in the past many CEOs having no appreciation whatsoever and this leads typically to disrupting developer work and underutilizing their abilities.
That was one of the reasons Microsoft, Google and Facebook grew so fast in the early days.
Compared to the engineers, it does sound accurate. I couldn't claim to know anything serious about medicine by reading Wikipedia compared to a practicing doctor.
Disingenuous title? Well yeah. The author does sales.
> I couldn't claim to know anything serious about medicine by reading Wikipedia compared to a practicing doctor.
A basic understanding of biology beyond high school level will get you further than you think. Keep in mind the medical industry has a lot of artificial barriers and gatekeeping.
> it's pretty obvious that any developer involved in a project can make a reasonable assumption of how rare a bug is
... is it? The fact that a bug exists means there's a logic gap. You can try and patch it with theory, but that's just adding assumption to a scenario created from broken assumptions. Also, the job of telemetry in incident reporting isn't to be vague - its to add precision.
There's probably a ratio of bug-report-to-occurrences that they're used to for difference kinds of bugs. Ex: If user-visible security bugs have good report rates, say 100-1000 leaks per 1 report, and 10 reports, then 1K-10K incidents. This is harder in b2b, but in b2c, PM's should have a feel for it..
You’d be surprised how difficult it is to estimate the frequency that someone sees a bug. The only way to have a “feel for it” is to base it on… other data.
Say there is a bug that happens in the photo taking flow – you’d need to know how often people take photos in Signal. You’d think you could spitball something for that, but it is actually really hard. But if you log how often photos are taken, then that is a great starting point.
But further, lower level logic errors like this, especially ones involving race conditions, are even harder to pin down. That is why on iOS you can log “faults” which are non-fatal but very not-expected events:
> I didn’t need comments if I wrote self-documenting code.
More than any other approach to coding (x-based-development etc), this has come up most frequently for me personally, and it astounds me how many people have this mentality.
Comments are a way to break out of whatever terse syntax your given language requires and speak directly to the developer. A single comment can house so much more context and insight the best-formatted code could ever hope for. When the only downside is some holier-than-thou idea of "I shouldn't be doing this" (despite the fact you clearly need to), I'm surprised so many people fall for this terrible mentality.
> whether it's fair or not, personal connection and trust play a huge role in collaborating effectively and deciding who gets what work, who gets promoted, etc.
You're assuming a bunch of stuff here. There's something to be said for:
1. Having known people pre-covid, and so having a predefined "connection" with them.
2. The kinds of work that would or would not be more susceptible to personal bias. Web development, for example, is more impervious than people-management.
Ultimately what you're talking about is bias, and bias is shit and should be minimised. Remote working shouldn't be compromised as a result of people not being able to be impartial in their work.
It's not about the market cap specifically, it's stating that prime video doesn't need to operate at a profit in order to benefit amazon's core business.