"Over the past decade, people in the community, not just Shopify employees, started to conclude that rubygems and bundler were being monetized by some key maintainers."
Is being monetized wrong? If so...
Is there any REAL evidence?
It's bizarre to talk about this WITHOUT evidence. Is it a witch hunt?
This story is bizarre on so many levels, I have no idea what's going on, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
People are complaining about the price of games, about Microsoft giving up exclusivity on some games...
I've seen this happen in many markets. When no one uses the internet and annual growth is 1,000%, everyone tries to attract an audience. Free internet access, free email, etc.
Big budgets are very encouraging in growing markets (Sony surpassed Concord with a budget of 600 million, according to some sources). It's a gold rush.
When the market stops growing, everything free disappears and everyone tries to make money in every way.
Some numbers in the gaming market probably indicate the end of growth, so prices are starting to rise more sharply. The price of older consoles hasn't dropped, the end of exclusivity (having access to more people with the same game), you have to pay to access online games, etc. The idea is to squeeze every penny out of every player.
This is also happening with streaming now.
The big risk is pushing too hard and losing the audience.
I have no idea what will happen, but I bet piracy will increase significantly in the coming years, and the industry will start trying to discontinue older games and eliminate cheap ways to play, forcing cloud gaming.
Mobile games are a different story; they're essentially a casino disguised as gambling, making money off of sick people (the whales).
Maybe Steam will be the last refuge from all this. Or it will become the same thing...
However, when officials went to congratulate him on his 111th birthday, they found his 30-year-old remains, raising concerns that the welfare system is being exploited by dishonest relatives.
> More than 230,000 elderly people in Japan who are listed as being aged 100 or over are unaccounted for, officials said following a nationwide inquiry.
I like Go and Rust, but sometimes I feel like they lack tools that other languages have just because they WANT to be different, without any real benefit.
Whenever I read Go code, I see a lot more error handling code than usual because the language doesn't have exceptions...
And sometimes Go/Rust code is more complex because it also lacks some OOP tools, and there are no tools to replace them.
So, Go/Rust has a lot more boilerplate code than I would expect from modern languages.
For example, in Delphi, an interface can be implemented by a property:
type
TMyClass = class(TInterfacedObject, IMyInterface)
private
FMyInterfaceImpl: TMyInterfaceImplementation; // A field containing the actual implementation
public
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy; override;
property MyInterface: IMyInterface read FMyInterfaceImpl implements IMyInterface;
end;
This isn't possible in Go/Rust. And the Go documentation I read strongly recommended using Composition, without good tools for that.
This "new way is the best way, period ignore good things of the past" is common.
When MySQL didn't have transactions, the documentation said "perform operations atomically" without saying exactly how.
MongoDB didn't have transactions until version 4.0. They said it wasn't important.
When Go didn't have generics, there were a bunch of "patterns" to replace generics... which in practice did not replace.
The lack of inheritance in Go/Rust leaves me with the same impression. The new patterns do not replace the inheritance or other tools.
"We don't have this tool in the language because people used it wrong in the old languages." Don't worry, people will use the new tools wrong too!
Go allows deferring an implementation of an interface to a member of a type. It is somewhat unintuitive, and I think the field has to be an unnamed one.
Similarly, if a field implements a trait in Rust, you can expose it via `AsRef` and `AsMutRef`, just return a reference to it.
These are not ideal tools, and I find the Go solution rather unintuitive, but they solve the problems that I would've solved with inheritance in other languages. I rarely use them.
Thanks. I had been searching for this for a project in the past and couldn't find it in Go or Rust. Before posting, I asked chatgpt, and he said it wasn't possible...
Before my first job, I read many of these types of texts. When I entered the job market, I saw that the truth was very different. This is pure nonsense.
In my 26 years of experience, I see managers and HR professionals as company advocates, with a single mission: to protect the company's interests.
Whether managers admit mistakes or not is irrelevant; what matters is that they defend the company's interests, no matter the cost.
Mistakes are passed on to the people who can do the heavy lifting, and they respond with dismissal or legal retaliation (when possible).
Your HR exit interview is designed to find out if you harbor resentment toward the company and if there's a chance the company will be sued.
I've tried every imaginable technique I've read in modern books. Politics are more important than anything, and nothing works.
Do you have FF's higher levels of privacy protection enabled? With fingerprinting protection enabled, image uploading breaks. oAuth doesn't seem to work properly on some sites. Enabling encrypted DNS breaks captive portals or private VPNs.
its really easy to configure FF to break the internet.
FF for Linux will have a different team from FF for MacOS or FF for Windows.
Given how different each OS is, they will have different internals.
You don't see the same kind of performance degradation on other browsers on MacOS like Chrome, Safari, Orion, Brave, Arc, or even Edge.
It's a uniquely FF issue, but I'll deal with it as long as uBO is blocked on Chrome.
And saying "migrate to $myFlavorOfLinux" is an unrealistic answer for most users, because even though Linux has progressed leaps and bounds, it's user experience still requires a fairly technical background so that limits personal usage, and isn't offered as a default OS option by most IT teams who give corporate laptops.
Linux as a personal OS will be limited as long as a Linux project that is actually lead by an actual UX Designer instead of an OS enthusiast doesn't arise. Elementary OS shows some promise, but it still has UX and workflow issues that deserve attention from a professional UX designer instead of OS devs alone.
The various Android flavors are a great example of how if you put UX minds to work on an OSS project, you can end up with a quality user experience, but most Android projects also enforce a common design language and support non-CLI based user workflows, whereas most Linux oriented projects overindex on technical users, leading to the chicken-and-egg situation for Linux adoption.
A live programming interview measures a candidate's performance in interviews, not in programming. This is because people are very bad at evaluating others' skills; those with more charisma end up winning.
I remember participating in a vote to choose a company's best employee. Whoever came in first place earned a ton of proactivity points. What? That person's work made any proactivity impossible. I asked a friend who had given this person top marks why, and he asked, "What is proactivity?" Charisma wins.
I've worked with several seniors who were terrible programmers, but... they were good, excellent in meetings... and others who threw barbecues for their bosses...
Sure, you can advance in the company and get hired by being very good at what you do, but that's not the rule in my experience.
It's nothing to do with quality. It's prioritization. Companies pick things they think people want (or what the team wants to build) without testing or experimenting with users and data.
This is actually an example of the problem, not the solution. There are probably much more useful things for the team to be doing but they let one guy add the thing he wanted.
It's because the people who spend the most money on the scam cards for GTA:O didn't care. I personally stopped playing the game after getting so fed up with the loading times, I timed it for an hour and found out I was spending more time watching the loading screen than I was actually playing missions.
Is being monetized wrong? If so... Is there any REAL evidence? It's bizarre to talk about this WITHOUT evidence. Is it a witch hunt?
This story is bizarre on so many levels, I have no idea what's going on, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.