blurker

That sounds amazing. I aspire to get a setup like yours. I am on a Pixel with the stock OS and I can't stand the way Google is pushing AI into everything on my phone.

I haven't switched it to Graphene OS yet because I read that there are issues with NFC and a few other things. I assume this new phone won't have those problems so I think that will be my catalyst to do a big overhaul.

I've seen some pretty good React codebases and I've seen plenty of backend spaghetti code. In all cases it's not the tools, it's the programmers and usually it's layers and layers of people not taking the time to write clean code. Probably because their management doesn't value it or they don't have someone with the experience necessary to guide them towards clean code.

I disagree. With classes, everything was stateful (because, y'know, classes). People were doing all sorts of crazy thing with the lifecycle methods and it was always a pain to have to remember the "this scope" and bind your event handlers. I saw so many bugs written by people who lost track of what "this" was.

Both paradigms have foot guns but having used both I much prefer the hook version.

Tell that to the gatekeeping engineers who think otherwise.

> most great engineers will actively work with management to make sure they're not single points of failure!

Sure, but that is a load bearing "great" for sure. Not every company is staffed with great, selfless engineers.

I'm an engineer and I've worked at companies with engineers who actively resisted making themselves not a single point of failure because it gave them control and job security. I think it's not uncommon to have these types at companies and it really sucks when they have their management Stockholm syndromed because they make it hard for all the other "great" engineers to do their jobs.

This comment really nicely captures how I feel about this. There's something to be said about good faith and knowing what the spirit of the agreement is.

There are some comments here saying stuff like "these compliance forms are ridiculous and are often just bureaucratic nonsense" and you see comments advocating for playing dumb and answering in bad faith and there you go.

I see there being a bit of an attitude of "everyone is doing it" to justify also doing it just to compete because you're at a disadvantage if you don't. And that's not entirely wrong but it sucks and I personally will avoid competing in that way. Probably that means not much sales in my career. Or science, but that's another topic...

Yeah I came away feeling like this was clickbait. Based on the title I expected to read something about the app stores quietly injecting telemetry in your extension or something like that. Something outside of the developer's control or being done quietly by default as part of the standard packaging and delivery pipeline.

What the author described was very much not that. What they described was developers making a conscious decision to add untrusted code to their extension without properly verifying it or following security best practices.

A more accurate title would be something like "It's hard to trust browser extensions, developers are bombarded with offers of easy money and may negligently add malware/adware"

Ahh as someone who has built several scraping applications, I feel their pain. It's a constant battle to keep your scraper working.

Bloody shame, OpsWorks was a great service in my experience. I built a few clusters with it before Kubernetes and terraform were a thing.

That said, I heard from folks at AWS that it was not well maintained and a bit of a mess behind the scenes. I can't say I'm surprised it's being shut down given where the technology landscape has shifted since the service was originally offered.

RIP OpsWorks.

> Back when I was a junior developer, there was a smoke test in our pipeline that never passed. I recall asking, “Why is this test failing?” The Senior Developer I was pairing with answered, “Ohhh, that one, yeah it hardly ever passes.” From that moment on, every time I saw a CI failure, I wondered: “Is this a flaky test, or a genuine failure?”

This is a really key insight. It erodes trust in the entire test suite and will lead to false negatives. If I couldn't get the time budget to fix the test, I'd delete it. I think a flaky test is worse than nothing.

Well yes, and many do! Most cities now have vision zero movements in part because of this.

So do you think anything should be legal on the roads by default? I think there is a clear and obvious justification for why we don't let anyone drive anything on the roads: safety. Letting people test whatever they want on our roads is a risk to all other road users.