I had the same thoughts a few months ago, and then someone told me Atuin Desktop is made for DevOps and the likes, in order to scale manual and repetitive operations accross many teams. This made sense to me.
We have CI actions we use to configure and deploy dev namespaces. We document a bunch of steps for these actions in a doc, including situational tweaks. I could see this being a great replacement for that, given the right integrations.
One of the main things we’re aiming to do here is make these manual processes much less manual! I’m a big believer in automating things gradually, which runbooks enable
Apparently if a light-bulb blows at a station, two different contractors need to be called - one company has a contract for replacing consumables while another has a contract for repairing faults.
Hijacked? no. For me this demonstrates the temporal differences between the web and the real world.
Books are solid things that will be here for a long time. Websites are transitory, ethereal and likely to change. It's clearly ok to reference a book from a website, but books that reference websites - yeuch. It reminds me of those stacks of hard-copy programming manuals targeting specific versions of a language now obsolete.
When you don't understand this you end up in this kind of situation. If you don't renew your domain, you might lose it (as the author and publisher are now finding out). I expect legal proceedings will fail miserably, and that a nice fat bung will probably solve the problem immediately.
> Doing the smallest and easiest solution to a problem as a way to get to know the full scope and then iterating after that if needs be is by far the best solution (for me).
100% -- this is YAGNI (or you-aint-gonna-need-it) and should be among the first things you think about when starting a new project.
Not patronising, this was exactly my first (and off-topic) thought as well.
We have lived in our house for +15 years and we still regularly find small fluorescent yellow ball bearings in the garden soil from the previous owners family. These things are here to stay
While we're here - I've gained a lot from "Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial" by DS Sivia and J Skilling. It's a graduate level text, and I found the chapters very concise and the subject well-laid out. It was one of those books that gave me continuous insight and fresh inspiration - even though it's more than 10 years old.
In many non-US countries once hired there are employment rights. You cannot simply "kick them out if they dont fit ur needs". Isn't it preferable and less stressful for everyone if you can find the right person without having to hire and fire others first?
Depending on the European country, there is a probation period between 3 to 6 months, where any of the parties can cancel the relationship at any time, usually 1 week notice, unless it is really bad.
That should be more than enough to assess if someone is fit for the job.
How does an employer distinguish a worker who is trying hard only because he is on probation from a worker who will continue to try hard after the probation period ends?
If they try hard for 6 months during probation, then congrats on having a motivated dev for 6 months. If they fall off hard after, kick them out. It's only 3 months of salary. Compare that to thesalary and hiring process of finding a good dev, which is more expensive in many cases.
I'm not expressing an opinion on live-coding interviews or the choice between them and
probationary periods. I'm changing the subject away from the original subject
-- or rather I would be if "just hire devs and kick them out if they dont fit
ur needs" hadn't already done so.
I was just pointing out that your "that wouldn’t be caught in a live-coding interview either" does not shed any additional light
on the topic I personally am interested in, namely, the choice between a free
market in labor and legal regime that grant employees some job security.
Coding tests aren't filtering for people who work hard, they're filtering for people who know how to code. Whether they will work hard on the job seems like an orthogonal question?
They don't but usually wages are scaled to average. So So average output will still be what is expected. Really bad ones well, you start giving notices. And then with enough evidence you can terminate contract.
You can't, in the same way you can't distinguish a romantic partner who is using you from one who genuinely likes you. Because clairvoyance is not real.
In many non-US countries there is also a probation period before full employment rights kick in, allowing employers to fire new hires without reason, so definitely you can "kick them out if they don't fit your needs" in many countries.
Yes, this was common web design advice in the mid 90s, though often people's first response was to simply replace "Click here to..." with "Follow this link to...", which was almost as bad.
Fixing those was a large part of my life whilst working for a web design agency during the school holidays circa 1996-97 (providing plenty of incentive to learn find/grep/sed/perl!)
I guess this 2001 W3C 'Tips for Webmasters' page was merely stating the commonly-accepted best practice at the time.
Yes, most people understand how to navigate around the jankiness...
For example, most Windows programs have "File" as the first menu item. How do I exit? Go to File, the bottom option is usually "Exit". Does that make sense? No, why is "Exit" a File-related option? Why is it like that? Because it's always been like that.
Want to learn about the program? Go to Help > About.
Some more geniuses even got involved and thought "If the user wants to edit preferences, well, they can go to the menu option Edit, and find Preferences. Never mind that Edit is otherwise filled with document related functions like Cut, Copy, and Paste!"
Meanwhile, on GNOME, there is no standard menubar so good look figuring out which one of the icon-only buttons in the headerbar has the dropdown menu with the action that you want.
Edit -> preferences makes sense because you're editing your preferences. File ->
Settings makes no sense. Help -> Options makes even less sense. Help -> KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS is just insane to me.
I somehow think it would be more janky if the "exit" or the "preferences" items were in some random menu. I've never cared that "exit" doesn't seem to fit with "file" because it's always seemed more convenient for me that it's always in the same place.
Yes, it's janky but familiar. On the phone you'll see a "Click here" and know to use your thumb to touch the area of the screen to do whatever action is behind that, on the text-based browser you know you can tab to that "Click here" text and hit Enter to navigate. If a kid saw this you'd have to explain to them the historical context of desktop computers and mice.
Just because you're used to the jank doesn't mean it's the best design.
As sibling comment says, on the Mac the first menu item is about the app. App -> Preferences, App -> Exit, wouldn't such a convention make more sense?
I mean, on a Mac, there's always a menu for the current app as the first item, titled after the app. If I want to quit Slack, I open the Slack menu. Which makes a good amount of sense.
Mandating the need of smartphone apps to access critical services and basic life necessities like payments, parking, refueling, charging your car, public transport tickets, etc should be banned under accessibility laws.
All this only benefits the service provider, not the consumer, since if the service is broken in some way (LTE/internet issue, payment processor issue, backend/cloud outage, etc) or has terrible UX, then the externalities and negative effects of that are all on the customer to deal with. Because what else are you gonna do on the spot? Not charge your car? Leave it in the middle of the road? Not board the bus to get to work? The problem they caused becomes your problem to deal with even though you have the money to pay but no easy way to do it because of their crap.
Governments need to hold service prodivers accountable for the misery they cause and have them offer payment solutions and alternatives to smartphone apps for such critical services.
^This 100%. And sometimes I get the argument back: they've become so commonplace now that you're just being unreasonable.
I'm required to wear clothes in public (Indecent exposure laws) and I need to have at least a pen or pencil to sign documents and do tax returns demanded by law. But I have a vast array of options when it comes to clothes and stationery, and most importantly I'm not required to agree to a foreign company's EULA to use them, unlike smartphones.
Its like trying to ban cars to stay with horse cariages. The wheels of time wont be turned back. Imo the issue is not Smartphones but addicting UX patterns implemented - those should be banned. Its possible to make Smartphone usage non addictive - add friction to "candy" eg uninstall social media apps (use web only) use a quiet launcher (no app icons), remove all notifications except emergency ones etc.
Replacing stable, working "low-tech" solutions with less user-friendly, unstable "high-tech" approaches is not "progress"!
Just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. Obviously, the reverse is also true, but there is so much tech naiveté going around that this needs saying repeatedly. We'd have saved our society a lot of trouble if we'd first thought about draw-backs of new technology, before hooking everything in our lives up to it.
We're talking about different things here I think. What does phones and apps being addictive have to to do with the fact that a parking lot requires me to install an app to park my car or charge my car? There are a million other issues here than addictive apps. The internet connection could be down, he backend of the app could be down, etc. This shouldn't stop people from being able to use an important service like parking, charging, refueling, transportation, etc. You should be able to slot in some coins in a machine, get a paper ticket out, and that's it, you're in.
>The wheels of time wont be turned back.
They can be turned back by laws if the direction they've been turning by the unregulated free market lead us to a bad place that's discriminatory and causing misery to consumers, especially for critical services.
We've been able to park and refuel cars fast and efficient for decades with no issues before apps and smartphones. Not all progress is good progress. Sometimes progress is just for the sake of cutting corners to increase profits for businesses at the expense of consumers. I don't want an "Bezos-fication" or "Musk-fication" of essential services.
Same for cars - you require a global functioning gas supply network to work & deliver gas nearby, it consists of 10k parts produced over the globe - a single pandemic can wipe everything out. Thats why I prefer a horse. Theres always gras nearby.
I also hate apps for everything & want us to be free & have a simple world & life - I love the terminal & its 55 years old.. yeah, we have much in common friend
In those cases I just park and pay the ticket if I get one... which I can always pay online without an app. They always make collecting tickets easy. Once you know the non-advertized online web portal you can normally pay for spaces that way next time.
While I agree that you don't need an app - you still need a smart phone to be able to buy that ticket from the website - unless you are carrying a tablet or laptop with a network connection.
I do sometimes carry a pocket wifi-only laptop in cities for working on the go which has gotten the job done in the past to prove I could.
In practice if they do not make it easy to pay then I just park without paying. The 1/10 times I actually get a fine works out to be cheaper than paying for parking up front.
Fair enough - you are lucky there - in the UK lots of city and council owned parking has ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) - just by driving onto the lot and by the sign you are deemed to have agreed to their conditions. If you don't buy a ticket you'll get an automatic fine through the post a week or so later.
That said, roadside parking is far more hit and miss for ticketing, but as a source of revenue, most councils take it fairly seriously here for the free money.
So your city/council actually have laws that require you to agree to the data sharing agreements with US companies like Google or Apple in order to use one of their devices to install an app in order to park?
And if you don't pay hundreds of pounds for a smartphone, you are not allowed to park? Or if your battery is dead? Or if your religion prohibits the use of smartphones?
If true, I bet framing it that way to the public would help get people on board with some law reform.
No one should be depending on Google or Apple at a government or city or educational level in any way, including in the US.
There is usually an unmanned machine you can go and type your number plate into, how long you want to park and pay by cash or card - as an alternative - but the apps are faster and usually offer more flexibility (such as a notification when you are getting to the end of your slot with an option to extend).
You can usually also find which car parks have spaces with the apps, to save driving around. It is possible to go cash only still - but it is a pain.
I'll try atuin desktop and I hope it succeeds, but I can't say that it solves any particular problem that I have and am aware of.