This is the crux of the issue: that cinema hasn't caught up with streaming services. There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie, i.e., they could show movies and stream simultaneously, maximizing consumer choice (rather than maximizing cinema profits).
> There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie
Wait, what, really?
> maximizing cinema profits
Ah, no, there it is.
This is a fight for survival. Cinema can't catch up; it's an industry that was built for business conditions that existed in a bygone world, back when the equipment for distributing and viewing high-quality video recordings was so prohibitively expensive that it didn't make sense for people to have it in their homes. It's going to (largely) disappear, but it can maybe squeeze out a few more years of existence by trying to use regulation, business deals and whatever other tricks to try and create a simulacrum of the conditions its existence is based on. Like for any middleman, those conditions are precisely a lack of consumer access via alternative channels.
There's something fun and social about seeing some movies in the theater. I think options like ipic, AMC cinema suites and others, not to mention real IMAX are things you won't ever get at home.
That said, I can see the decline. I cringe every time I think of how much more concessions get priced upwards, in addition to ticket pricing. I don't think the market will bear too much more.
I should have said that there is no technical reason for delaying a streaming release, nor does it really affect the quality of the watching experience (assuming people have good streaming setups).
A lot of guys are boring, especially for people who have studied and focused in their specialties for years and years. You have to find common ground, and that can become increasingly difficult unless your friends share parts of your core interests.
I work pretty hard to maintain some normal interests, enough that I can chat with pretty much anyone. I do find deeper relationships difficult though, as there are fewer people who share my real interests in my area (or even in my cohort of long term friends). Finding those people is difficult.
I've never found developers resisted reasonable unit tests, though teams may squabble about what _real_ unit tests are, or may have been burned by poor approaches to unit testing in the past. If you can find the cause of resistance, all teams I've worked with have been happy (even excited) to get better testing in place. It makes them more productive and more successful when done properly.
What I find more common is for the business to be unprepared to make lateral changes to a product. Even rational unit tests are a medium term investment. You need to spend time developing features customers don't see, and apply those tools for some time, to see quality differences. That can be difficult to justify in a number fairly normal business scenarios (low cashflow/reserves, high tech debt/regret, etc.).
To help offset the cost (and delayed benefits), I've always suggested phasing in unit test strategically. Pick a module or cross-section of the product that is suffering from bugs that customers see (i.e., affecting revenue) and add the minimum viable tests to that. Repeat as needed, and within months/years, you'll have coverage that fits the business needs well.
It's not exclusively a benefit, but it does have some powerful upsides:
* Less commute time and cost (I save 8-10 hours a week, plus a few hundred a month in parking, fuel, and insurance)
* More freedom and flexibility (not every gig offers this, but many do)
* A bunch of focus time
* Communications (oddly) are greatly normalized as everyone has the same handicap. I find a fully remote team easier to manage than a mixed one, as no one has an advantage over another (as happens when part of a team shares the same office).
On the other hand, you're maintaining your office space and much of your setup (internet, wifi, heating, desk, chairs). Again, some jobs offer some compensation here, but some of it will be on the employee to maintain.
You're also more isolated, and team culture takes a bit more work to create and maintain.
Personally, I value the option to work remote as a net gain. I love my home office, I save time and money on the commute, and I have more time to focus than in the office. I understand the company benefits too, as they pay less rent, own fewer fixtures, and get more of my time. But I still see it as a net win for me.
Most of these points all relate to having empathy for the developer and being kind, and focusing on the point of code reviews (which is to improve quality and reduce ongoing costs).
Example:
> Unhelpful behavior: overwhelming with an avalanche of comments
Code that isn't consistent to standards absolutely needs to be fixed. And while it's a lot of work to keep code up to standard, the author is correct that the nitpicking approach is unproductive.
A better approach is to review code like this, see that it falls short, and suggest realistic (and in turn kind) ways to improve things. Picking at each missed space is clearly counter productive, and there are more standard and helpful solutions.
I don't think things like minutia fit in code reviews either, but the small stuff does matter.
I feel the same about the other suggestions, they can be boiled down to: don't be an ass; be kind; be constructive. Just imagine that you're reviewing your own code from 5 years ago.
She did suggest those things further down the article:
> Helpful Behavior: automate what can be
> Reviewing issues that can be caught by linters, git hooks, or automated tests are unhelpful because they often result in an avalanche of comments and come off as nitpicking. People are not particularly good at catching these issues, hence why automation tools exist.
I've had a few servers (and previously shared hosting) at DH over the last 20 years. While they have had their fair share of major downtime, it has been on par with Rackspace, AWS, etc., who have all had day+ events in the last.
I have heard reports of some shared servers being worse than others, but generally I've only seen reasonable performance at a low price.
That said, I also use Digital Ocean, AWS, and Rackspace still for various projects. Really, they're all pretty great.
Most of the complaints I've seen have revolved around their shared hosting environment and some support complaints. I figure it worth mentioning. I do know there are far fewer complaints AND that they are still in business, so they can't be too bad, can they?
But, yeah, at one point their shared hosting services had quite a reputation and they had lots of complaints (reasonable or not) concerning getting terminated for unreasonable resource usage when hosters felt they were in the right.
I had a personal site with them for a few months and had some downtime that put it below my acceptability level. They were pleasant enough to work with and refunded the remainder of my money without any compliant. I don't recall the exact figure but it was in the 95% uptime range.
Caveat emptor, I suppose. Refunding and moving was easy enough. I'm in the market for hosting, again. So, maybe I'll give them another shot.
I've been with them since 2007 and they did have some bad years, and just last year I was getting quite a bit of downtime due to someone attaching the shared server I was on. I asked to be moved to a different server and have had like 99% uptime since. So while there are issues now and then these days, support does help you if you ask. Plus for what I pay, I think it's great value.
