kinkrtyavimoodh

Google feels like a bunch of headless chickens running around.

it's painful to see what was once such a loved and admired brand be reduced to this. :(

i am no apologetic for the messy git UI. But i also know that any competent software engineer can be given a sufficient understanding / mental model of the basic git way of doing things in 1-2 hours, after which they can Google for the exact syntax of the commands they need (if they are doing complicated things). i feel that if they are unwilling to invest even that much time, then they are going to waste an eternity on endless tools and GUIs.

it's like tar or rsync or ffmpeg. Yes, it's hard to keep track of all the command line flags etc. but thanks to the internet we don't need to. it's far more useful to understand the underlying concepts.

Thanks for sharing this! i feel this is a cautionary tale for us HN-minded folks since i see a rather unusual love for the look and feel of the "old internet", and what i like to call the Craigslist style of design. As someone who remembers the internet of the 90s and early 2000s before it was taken over by ads and SEO spam, i understand the nostalgia, but as a web developer, also know that i need to do right by my clients and build things for them that make their businesses successful. An old outdated website turns away many customers.

> A film that exists is better than one that never gets made.

Some might disagree. The democratization of content creation that happened with the internet and social media was in general a good thing, but it can't be denied that it also resulted in a massive reduction of the Signal to Noise ratio in content quality. The reason the Google search result page is much worse today is precisely because there exits tons of content today that should never have been made.

It's hard to say whether it _should_ go to journalists. Even before the digital era, newspapers largely made money through advertisements, not subscriptions. They were monetizing eyeballs just as much as the Facebooks or Googles of the world do. In their case they brought in the eyeballs through their content (whether responsible journalism or tabloid-trash) and monetized them through also showing ads to the same eyeballs.

The difference is that journalism no longer has a pseudo-monopoly on the kinds of things they historically did (content, distribution, eyeballs etc.).

My grandfather read the whole newspaper every morning. In one day I think I read a LOT more content than him but it is spread over a wide variety of surfaces, print, websites (no single author) etc.

> "recognize that trying to parse any meaning from an email address' local-part is blatantly ignorant of IETF specifications and almost certainly will create bugs"

I am sorry but this makes no sense. You do realize that the only reason you are able to use aliases is because your email provider chooses to parse meaning out of the supposedly "opaque" text right? If your email provider is free to "break" the spec, so are people you give your id to.

Unlike programmers, their work doesn't generate revenues as easily, otherwise every blogger would be rich.

No thanks, we don't want another Prop 65 nuisance, this time for photos.

Contacts in what sense?

Probationary periods could work but it's a coordination problem. Such periods are the norm in Europe (coz it's very hard to fire someone) but for an at-will place like the US, given that the industry doesn't really do probationary periods in general, any employer who starts doing it would be at a disadvantage.

Job training is not as much worth it for companies when employees can switch jobs at the drop of a hat.

You can't force a private entity to sue another private entity. The regulator (government) can sue it if it finds it at fault. And a private entity can choose to complain to the regulator if it wants. The agreement here between MSFT and GOOG is to try and resolve disputes internally if possible without suing each other or complaining to the regulator. There's nothing illegal in that.

Just... wow. The jokes write themselves at this point. So instead of posing a simple question to the customer that even the most tech-illiterate customer can understand and answer reliably (Is your router next to a microwave oven or aquarium by any chance?), you make them download an app (which would ask for god knows how many permissions), ask them to take a photo, which may or may not even have the necessary information you need and could be in terrible lighting, blurred, or a hundred other failure modes, then run image processing on it which has its own precision and recall issues.

All of this, instead of asking a simple question. If this is not technology fetishization I don't know what is.

I think when people say processed food they are referring more Doritos than canned corn.

Regardless of my personal feelings about Bezos and Musk, the fact of the matter is that SpaceX is at least an order of magnitude to being able to actually land on the moon than Blue Origin.

BO hasn't even launched to orbit yet, why are we considering their bid?