dc2

This is a breath of fresh air.

Twitter is like trying to watch a football game where all 40,000 members of the audience have a microphone and each think they should be the announcer.

You turn the TV volume off, but members of the media have been perusing the seats for a interesting cherry-picked "announcer". Finding one, they parrot it to the rest of the world and that guy's opinion shows up on your phone anyway.

It's interesting to note that the data Google stored was more alarming, though was taken up at the bottom of the article and with less detail. It also didn't make the headline. This is because bashing Facebook gets more views currently. This is a good example of how media bias can distort opinion, while maintaining that all data stated is accurate.

In other words, it's not enough that media is accurate. Bias is just as important.

See reply to Tomte on that.

Well I'm talking about exactly that - social pressure.

Just because popular opinion (aka the vocal social media / news / social media echo chamber) approves of something, it doesn't mean it is correct.

Governments and courts have definite pressure to legalize marijuana, for example. That pressure is based on popular public opinion. Therefore approving it gives that legal body or state acceptance / goodwill. This is an incentive that goes quite far.

It can also be popular to smash a company.

I do understand this.

I am just wondering what happens when there is a vested interest in attacking or suppressing the company involved.

For example, if a company becomes unpopular on social media and by "public opinion" (such as Facebook right now), a court can feel pressured into a slanted decision. Given that so much is now based on opinion, what defense does the company have?

It seems that if someone had the intention to nail a company on GDPR as a PR attack, regardless of the amount of effort the company put in, they almost certainly could.

(I don't work for Facebook)

It's disheartening that this article is painted as a disaster. This is fantastic news!

> I am of the opinion that so long as you can read the source code easily, the formatting is secondary.

I have never heard this opinion applied to any other language.

I've been developing for 10 years. I have never had a team, so I have had to build each stack from scratch, myself, including the research and decision making of each tool to use in the stack.

I've put together about 4 generations of systems in this time, each with entirely fresh stacks. The first was pre-build-tools, so I had to write my own module loaders and bundlers from scratch.

The latest web stack uses containerized deployment in a micro service architecture, sql, nosql, rest, graphql, a jwt-based authentication gateway and a modern front end stack.

Do I qualify as a full stack dev?

Author here. There seems to be a lot of discussion over use cases. Here's the use case I built it for:

All traffic for my (large) application hits a load balanced API gateway. Its role is to authenticate and forward requests to one of many services.

The gateway is the only point of exposure to internal services. After something has cleared the gateway on a route with roles approved for that user, there is little worry about security. Certificates between servers and containerized deployments such as Kubernetes help on this as well.

I'm not going to write email-sending logic in my gateway. It just handles AAA and then proxies the request.

By forwarding to microservices instead of a monolith, I can scale workload better and have less risk of a mail bug taking down other services.

Well that's good. I built it to fill my niche and hoping others would find use for it as well.

Well, thanks for that. I've actually had to deal with it for quite a while, believe it or not. And the current design is working out for my use. I do hope it does help others.

Fair enough. I updated the readme for now, and will work on those points!