I couldn't possibly agree more. I remember the first time I saw JSON over HTTP. Within a week, I started ripping out all the SOAP code I'd written because "that's what you're supposed to use". JSON plus a few standard verbs is better than the old XML web services in every way.
I don’t follow. Marked definitely isn’t a programming tool. There’s nothing about Markdown that says nested lists should look like code. That’s just an accident of whatever editor you might be using, not of others.
> Uploaded by someone using the alias "xterm", this high resolution (1536x964) Workbench is notable for several reasons. First of all, the desktop is very big for 1993, but the actual viewable area would have been something like 768x482.
A nitpick: I had a Picasso II graphics card, which was release in '93, and it natively supported 1600x1280 resolution. I didn't post that screenshot but it's completely possible that the uploader viewed it directly at that size.
Microsoft's revenue in 1990 was 1.18B when they launched Office, sold for one-time payments. Of course they're pushing people to subscribe now so they can get that sweet recurring revenue, but that business model sustained freaking Microsoft for about 30 years.
I'm not convinced by unsustainability arguments. Now, it could be that competing with FOSS makes it a lot harder to make money now. I'm sympathetic to that, inasmuch as I can be for someone who wants to sell what others are giving away. That would be challenging. But why is it suddenly impossible to sell software, when they was the common model until rental became popular a few years ago? What's inherently different now that let someone sell programs for decades but now it's just impossible?
buying - capital expenditure with amortization (and usually goes through a lot of approvals, centralized IT, etc.), subscription - expense, frequently decided upon and paid directly by the Line-Of-Business/dept. Expense is generally better, so it is chosen by business when possible (it is all very generic of course, and there are niche cases where situation is different)
That matches on the supplying side as subscription revenue is also generally better.
This is a prime example of why I prefer HN’s moderation. On SO, even though you’re objectively wrong — this is a link to a completely different site and discussing it from a different angle — your active participation on the site would probably have given you the ability to close this conversation and ruin the discussion for those interested. I’m glad that HN doesn’t allow that, so we can roll our eyes at the obviously incorrect tag and get back to participating without having the rug yanked out from under us.
There is nothing in the submitted article that isn't part of or significantly different than the large discussion already ongoing/passed. The discussion about toxic community etc. The short blog post is basically just another comment on that greater discussion. The discussion which is already over there. No need to split it up or repeat it again days later. It's a duplicate discussion.
I disagree, and that’s what I value here: you can add your tags, and we can opt to follow or ignore them as we see fit. That’s far better than the SO model of a site participant having the ability to shut down the conversation for everyone.
But also, a note: conversations are never finished. People talked about this broad topic yesterday, but I didn’t see it yesterday to be able to weigh in. I’m here today, saw this topic, and started talking about it with the other people who stumbled across it just now. I would be highly annoyed with a friend if I brought up an interesting subject and they replied that they’d already discussed it with someone else over dinner last night so there’s no need to talk about it again. I wasn’t there last night. Even if there was a recording of it, that would be a stale artifact I could interact with, other than to contact last night’s debaters and try to continue on with a subject they’d already finished with.
You're welcome to continue the 'unfinished' conversation over there. The thread isn't closed. This article isn't bringing anything new. And yet is forcing the thousands and thousands of HNers who saw the previous main discussion and news days ago to see it again? Sorry you weren't there, sorry you missed it. It's the bringing it up and repeating much of the discussion so soon that's the hinderance. Stuff moves pretty fast around here.
I think I'd prefer to have it here with people who are still engaged and actively discussing it, rather than whispering to ghosts in another thread that people have moved past.
But no one's forcing anyone to see this version of it. It's just a link they can skip past, although if enough people upvote this post to keep it on the front page, then apparently a significant chunk of the readership hasn't gotten tired of seeing it yet.
Sorry some of you missed it. And in particular with this one, a lot more people saw the original one and discussed it. It's a huge thread. And now just repeating alot of the talking points in that thread here because again, the submitted post isn't anything new, it's hardly a substantial blog post. Part of the dupe notice is to highlight that maybe your talking point was already covered recently in another thread. You are forcing us to see it again because you're pushing it onto the front page again and into a hundred feeds as if it's fresh. But it's not. It's just a split up/repeated thread about something from 4 days ago. Anyways, OP maybe didn't realize it but you've been around long enough to know things move fast around here.
On Stack Overflow, splitting the posts between two targets would be "ruining it", because there is an explicit goal of keeping that information together. But more importantly, the entire point there is not to have free-running, threaded discussion. Obviously the practices should be different here.
Oh, man. That was kind of the end of the line for me, too. I’d get roped into conversations trying to defend the question, which wasn’t even mine, because I thought it was novel and interesting enough to be worth answering in the first place. And then I asked myself what I was doing getting suckered into these talks. I don’t need that kind of tarpit.
How on earth did wokeness even come up there? You’d have zero notion of my political leanings if you only read the words I’d written there. How badly do you have to phrase a question or answer to have it downvoted for being not-woke? “So I’m trying to write a GET route in FastAPI, which has a great ass, by the way, amirite?, and I’m getting the error that…”
Wokeness is a control mechanism. If you tread one inch off the "correct" path (as any normal person is going to do occasionally), you will get stomped. For example:
[jane]
Using "delete this" is perfectly safe in C++
[neil]
Jane, not at all. For example .....
[moderator]
neil, i think you are disrespecting jane - 6 hour ban.
And I am not joking about this. But it was only the company employee moderators that did this, and they did it excessively. They also got rid of the few mods who knew how to mod and wouldn't toe the line.
reply