> Did I misread history about Bill Gates sleeping in his office or did he run MS from his kitchen table?
Yes, Bill Gates worked like a maniac and didn't see his family. His wife took care of the kids. I think that's a terrible example to set (I wouldn't want to do it) but each to their own.
@kwanbix: do you have kids? I feel that's one of the primary deciding factors for working from home. People without kids are much more flexible with their time, whereas people with (small) kids are severely more limited. Freeing up commute time and being able to do small chores like starting the washing machine creates significant happiness, which totally offsets the downsides of not seeing your co-workers (that) often.
Before kids I would also become depressed if I worked remotely full time. But today my "alone time" is already pretty much gone outside work hours so I don't mind being by myself during the day.
Whether Google wanted to win or not: Don't kid yourself into believing they _could_ have won even if they had tried. Google has a history of being terribly at executing on product ideas and Google Code never had the same "feel" that Github did.
There's a reason Microsoft paid billions for Github. If Google could have created that in-house themselves they would have done it.
Not saying Google tried and failed - they may just have realised that actually winning this was never an option.
You make it sound like it's a bad thing that it aligns with their business goals. I'd turn this around: if it didn't align with their business goals I would be worried that they would course correct very soon.
No, just that they shouldn't be showered with praise for doing what is in their best interests - commoditizing their complement.
For the same reason Microsoft doesn't deserve credit for going all in on linux/open source when they did. They were doing it to stave off irrelevance that came from being out-competed by open source.
They were not doing it because they had a sudden "come to jesus" moment about how great open source was.
In both cases, it was a business decision being marketed as an ideological decision.
I really don’t understand this weird, almost zealous resistance to admitting that a company can do a good thing once in a while. You’d think Meta had kidnapped people’s families and held them at gunpoint or something.
It's not. It's resistance to the idea that their demands to be lavished with praise should be acceded to because their single minded focus on profit aligned with a good thing once or twice.
They're supposed to do good things all the time without praise. That's why society grants them the right to profit.
Where is Meta demanding to be lavished with praise? As far as I can tell, nobody from Meta is demanding or asking that. The only thing that’s happening is people in the comments here on HN saying “wow this is neat, and it’s cool that it’s open source”, and then getting UM ACKCHYUALLY’d by reply guys telling them that Facebook is actually full of corporate genociders who occasionally write open source to fool us all.
Morality aside, I do like the open source work coming out of Meta. It's possible for a company to be "bad guys" in one area, and "good guys" in another.
Preposterous, it’s not like Zuck got on the horn with his algorithm devs and was like “let’s get rid of some people in Myanmar in a really roundabout way.” Do you hold the guy behind Curl to the same standard every time his software gets used in a way he didn’t intend?
Basically it's accusing Meta of should have knowing that their algorithm and their user generated stickers was spreading this content.
Yes in an ideal world they should catch any campaign of this sort, but global moderation is difficult and they offer no proof that Meta knew about this.
It's disingenuous to say that Meta agitated this event. Those specific users of Meta agitated it and Meta did not catch it.
> Yes in an ideal world they should catch any campaign of this sort, but global moderation is difficult
It really isn't, it just is expensive to do it. They could just hire people to do that. Thats the accusation. Of course they don't catch it if they don't try.
Meta (or TikTok or Twitter or any other social media company/product) can't both algorithmically create specific types of discourse (because higher engagement means more ad views) and deny responsiblity for the side effects of said discourse.
If what you mean by “am I missing anything?” is “am I missing out [if I haven’t/won’t read it]?”, then possibly, yes. The concepts are timeless, and depending on what you already know, you may learn something useful, or at the very least something stimulating.
I read the first edition way back when, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I don't know how they work internally, but I can say that power hammers used for blacksmithing sound similar to the woodpecker in the video, only much slower. A couple hard, fast hits with absurd force before slowing down and stopping.
I'm guessing the woodpecker behaves that way because it's putting momentum into the hitting, even if that doesn't totally make sense in my head. When hammering on something, it's easiest to let the gravity do most of the work and focus your effort on aiming and raising the hammer, so you naturally have 1-2 hits that are solely momentum based at the end.
The woodpecker is horizontal, though, - not pecking in line with gravity - so my thought process isn't a perfect analogue. But if their tongue works like a spring then I can imagine it making sense.
To learn about Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) I found Unifi's documentation quite helpful. It's specific for their product but most of it is applicable elsewhere.
OK, thanks! so it can be like a firewall except dynamically updated by subscribing to some kind of service? This would work even for encrypted traffic.
> it feels like in the majority of cases the library is misued and people just create normal sites (that could have existed 15 years ago, but a loat bloatier) instead of creating the apps
So React shouldn't get new, powerful features because some people might (ab)use them for simple websites that don't need it? That's bollocks and I'm sure you can see that.
If you are generally annoyed about this, go rant on Twitter - no reason to do it here.
Yes, Bill Gates worked like a maniac and didn't see his family. His wife took care of the kids. I think that's a terrible example to set (I wouldn't want to do it) but each to their own.