mooted1
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
376
Submissions
64
Member since
Sep 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
This is the rare actually funny comment on hn.
Comment · 6 years ago
> I'm going to assume you're a developer?
No, but thanks for explaining my career to me and helping me empathize with toxic people.
Comment · 6 years ago
bai
Comment · 6 years ago
I appreciate so many of you are willing to crusade for free speech. But the reality is that platforming isn't free, and the process of deciding who gets platforms is political. The first amendment doesn't govern this process, nor can it—no one can reasonably consume every piece of intellectual content, from every angle, and process it.
My point is, cancel culture definitely exists. There has always been, and always will be, political processes for selecting views we consider acceptable discourse. Arguments against cancel culture that don't grapple with this reality are missing the point. Canceling isn't about using the power of the state to crack down on free speech. It's about deciding who gets access to a scarce resource: their platform.
The way this get decided is unavoidably political, since it's about who wields power.
A good example is this website. While most posts are technical, Hacker News hosts a significant amount of discussion regarding social issues. If you read this site using hckrnews.com, which preserves posts flagged off the front page, it's easy to notice that there are political trends in how moderators and users select what posts get prominence. This post, which espouses a more centrist perspective on cancel culture, was briefly flagged, then restored. Many, many other posts espousing more progressive views are systematically downvoted or flagged (search for DEAD on hckrnews.com), many of which are far longer and more carefully developed than Taibbi's piece. Regardless of how you feel about confederate statues, I think it's hard to consider that this 538 post (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/confederate-statues/) isn't comparable to this post in terms of quality, sophistication, and merit to be on the front page of HN.
For those of you who agree with Taibbi... do you think those posts aren't "canceled"?
If you think this example is contrived, because the nature of this cancellation doesn't involve a visible mob, that's because of power differences.
The nature of "cancellation" against minorities looks different. Mob justice isn't necessary when people in power can just fire you. And progressives are fired or otherwise censored for advocating for inclusion, against police violence, for progressive social policy all the time. You don't see mob justice in these cases because this kind of canceling is often enforced by institutions. A mob isn't necessary. The effect is the same: people are regularly censored and excluded from mainstream prominence because their views are considered unacceptable.
The reason this latest wave of (attempted) cancellations (nyt editorial, jk rowling, adam rapaport, countless people resulting from #metoo etc) have garnered attention is twofold:
1. They require popular support. Lots of people support holding rapaport, the founder of crossfit, Tucker Carlson, etc to account. No institution wanted to punish these people, so a popular movement formed.
2. They cancel views formerly considered to be within acceptable bounds. Anti-trans speech, implicitly discriminatory pay practices, military crackdowns on protestors, even if they weren't popular, are believed by many to be "newspaper publishable". It's shocking to people like Taibbi that people who share their views can get fired and singled out on social media—things that happen to people with progressive views on a regular basis.
3. Oftentimes, the people making the speech are civil and ostensibly in good faith, even if their views are onerous.
To understand cancel culture, you need to define cancellation as "people whose views are censored", and you need to look at people who espouse progressive views. That "cancel culture" is prominent today means that our definition of acceptability is changing, that powerful people require mobs to be held accountable, and that we increasingly believe that how you present the argument (good intent, good faith etc) is less important than what you present.
Lastly, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that cancellations are sometimes off the mark. Mob justice is often unfair and harmful. It is often disproportionate (the shor incident is the best example I can think of). Holding people accountable for hate speech or discriminatory practices should be the job of institutions. But they're not doing the job—this is what progressives are protesting.
If you want to stop mob culture, change institutions to fairly enforce the injustices that the mob is necessary to enforce today.
Comment · 6 years ago
Oftentimes, these tools are developed for much more complex sites than the people who author these rants have ever maintained. Of course it doesn't solve meaningful problems for sites that can be maintained by a handful of developers and whose feature set evolves slowly.
That's fine. Don't use them.
It'd be nice if rants like this also reflect on why these frameworks do exist. Then people would actually learn something.
Here are some of the tradeoffs I considered when evaluating JAMStack vs flask/jinja server side rendering.
1. Low latency interactivity unlocks all kinds of user interaction optimizations for us. The size of the initial download is amortized over hundreds to thousands of lightening fast interactions.
2. It's difficult to manage complexity around large html/css deployments, since CSS is a global namespace. Devs use all kinds of conventions for modularizing CSS. You can definitely succeed with these strategies, but when you're juggling tens of thousands of lines of CSS, it's a lot easier to solve these problems using a real programming language and its module system. We anticipated thousands of lines of CSS over time.
3. Immutability makes whole classes of race conditions unlikely to impossible. Do things still race in React? Of course. Are they vastly less likely to happen? Yes.
4. Managing interactivity through server-client interaction shifts a ton of complexity to the backend that the browser could otherwise handle. If you're designing a multi-stage form, for example, you often have to save incomplete user submissions in servers, depending on use case. Offloading this to localstorage on the frontend is a lot easier to author and maintain.
5. If you host your frontend statically on CDNs, that's several orders of magnitude less traffic you have to scale your web servers for. The vast majority of my company's traffic is handled by Cloudfront, making our operational footprint tiny.
Are there also reasons the modern stack sucks? Yes.
1. Configuring react and webpack is incredibly, incredibly hard. Webpack exposes a vast array of knobs that most applications don't benefit from tuning.
2. Time to first load is absurdly slow and server side rendering is, again, very complex to implement. React is not the right choice for a blog or anything that is sensitive to bounce rates.
3. MUI's documentation and APIs are painful, as OP notes.
For these reasons, and because most of our application was interactive, not read-only, we went with JAMStack.
I definitely think there's a place for the traditional HTML/CSS/jQuery stack. Read-only sites, for starters, with limited feature complexity. Everything I've built in the last several years has grown in complexity and features at a faster-than-linear rate, however, and these new technologies make managing such codebases vastly simpler.
Comment · 6 years ago
Your suggestion for the problems with this project is "Why don't you just fork it and maintain your own?"
Comment · 6 years ago
Get off your high horse. It doesn't matter what it was originally intended for if hospitals are over capacity, and opening up the ship will save hundreds, maybe thousands.
Comment · 6 years ago
I think you make some good points here, and RLS is an ideal data security model in many respects.
The parent's point is that tooling around this is weak, which undermines its value. Not being able to review and easily test authz changes will almost certainly lead to issues.
Comment · 6 years ago
Having a JWT or whatever authn is irrelevant. The problem is an insufficient authz model.
Exposing databases through APIs is not the problem. Exposing relations without authorization is.
Under these frameworks, you can add an innocuous relationship between two models that entirely compromises security without even touching the API code. Not only that, but the graph of relations and their associated ACLs is complex. Every time you add a relation, you need to create a graph of your data model and ensure that it's safe. There are far, far more surface area to make a critical error, allowing attackers to exfiltrate large volumes of your data.
I've written these bugs in similar modeled systems (there were GQL like systems before GQL). I've fixed these bugs. I've caught these bugs in code review.
These bugs are orders of magnitude less likely to happen with a simpler authz model where you don't need to lock down every relation, just the table itself. This is why the GraphQL creators themselves encourage users to put authz at the business layer.
2 out of three examples above literally have no framework authz support. Postgraphile requires setting up row level security policies, meaning you have no control over what layer of code you want authz policies to live; they must be in the database. Even if you are ok with that sacrifice, you still have to find ways to manage this in version control and test, for which there is scarce tooling.
Hasura seems to do the right thing here, provided you opt into it. It's not clear if it allows you to easily version control or test your ACLs.
> And that's all assuming the GraphQL server has a public IP, which is far from a certainty (just like REST).
Security doesn't stop at your VPN. At several hundred engineers, organizations begin implementing internal controls.
In fact, my example was an employee comp manager :|.
Comment · 6 years ago
For the love of god, this is never how GraphQL was intended to be used. The official graphql website is very clear:
https://graphql.org/learn/authorization/
> Delegate authorization logic to the business logic layer
If you take security or performance debugging seriously, you should never expose database models through APIs directly in a production app.
To illustrate, say you have an Employee model:
query {
employee(userId=uuid) {
name
salary
}
}
The next day, someone creates a Manager object, a relation from employee to Manager, and Manager to employee.
Now, without having consider security for a second, you've granted all employees the ability to query each other:
query {
employee(userId=uuid) {
name
salary
manager {
employees {
name
salary
}
}
}
}
Please, please stop encouraging people to directly expose their databases through an API.
Comment · 6 years ago
Did you actually read the post?
> The case for big tech today is still the economy of scale and not network effects (maybe facebook have those, but it exists only if the interface to facebook does not change).
This is only true if you believe that the greatest cost of developing software is running hardware. The greatest cost of developing software is developing software. Not only are economies of scale in compute management negligible except at massive scale, the cost of compute has declined dramatically as the companies you've described have made their datacenters available for rent through the cloud. Yet the tech giants persist.
Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon all have considerable network effects that you're not considering. For each of these companies, having so many customers provides benefits that accrue without diminishing returns, giving them a firm hold on market share. See https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
Ben is saying that the only way to topple the giants is by working around them and leveraging new computing technologies better than them. He makes the (admittedly speculative) case that this is no longer possible because we can't bring compute any closer to the user than the mobile devices.
> However, with Kubernetes operators, there is a way to move those capabilities into any Kubernetes cluser.
Kubernetes, at the scale of technologies we're discussing, is a minor optimization. Introducing k8s costs more than it helps far until far into a company's infra maturity. Even if most companies deployed k8s in a manner that significantly reduced costs, it's not enough to overcome the massive advantages existing tech companies have accrued. Not to mention all of the big tech companies have internal cluster managers of their own.
Comment · 6 years ago
If you read more of Ben's writing, he talks extensively about how software companies dominate market share through network effects and vertical integration.
You don't hear him talk about economies of scale because marginal costs are negligible for software companies. Besides, network effects and vertical integration are sufficiently powerful to control the market.
> In addition, new tools and new processes for software has increased the productivity times fold, which means that you need fewer developers for new software.
There are other barriers to entry besides the cost of writing software, like product, sales, operations, and most importantly, network.
Comment · 6 years ago
Disappointed to see the usual onslaught of HN cynicism.
"Product doesn't meet my narrow expectations; is bad product."
1. We use Slab. It's a fairly ok product in a crowded space. Needs maturity. Far better than confluence.
2. I have had no experience with the lag that another commenter insists is a product killer, and I write and edit docs all day.
3. The niche this product and others like it solve is to keep your entire company's docs organized and discoverable. Remembering to file things away correctly, share content, and do full text search on google drive is... not a good experience.
4. Editor is pretty solid and responsive. If you know markdown it's a breeze. Literally can't understand why you'd want to edit raw markdown when the WYSIWYG reflects markdown syntax as well as it does.
Comment · 6 years ago
I think it's tempting to attribute to structure what can be better explained by accident.
You obviously have more context, but from my experience developing product, there are almost always ways to change direction incrementally and in a manner that allows you to get your toe wet to test the temperature, and not dive in unshielded.
Although I realize now you may be saying that change was inevitable, but catastrophe wasn't.
a.) necessary, and saves the company millions
b.) a simplification over the ... unusually ... architected system that came before and did not scale.
there's a lot of junk technology at many large tech companies, but scaling problems /are/ real when you have hundreds of millions of users and have demanding performance and reliability requirements. RAMEN is a differentiated and necessary part of Uber's infrastructure, even if that can't be said of a lot of uber eng blog posts.