I'm quite conflicted with this; while I agree that it's a smart move in terms of forcing user engagement, I think it sucks that Github is and seemingly will continue to be THE Git platform. I'd argue that other platforms such as Gitlab and even Azure DevOps provide a better overall experience, especially when it comes to CI/CD, so it's a little sad that the battle for users seems to be going into the 'social features' territory rather than improved user experience.
I think the strategy's reasonable from a "right tool for the job" standpoint. The key to product differentiation is, you know, differentiation; if GitLab wants to differentiate with a rich CI/CD experience while GitHub wants to differentiate with a rich social/collaboration experience, then great! I can push my code to both pretty trivially, so it seems reasonable to use both for what they're respectively good at.
Looks like your opinion is not extreme enough /s
On a serious note, as found in the second paragraph about Freedom of Speech on Wikipedia
> The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"
Which I'd argue is fairly relevant when considering the Trump scenario.
Seeing how "some instances still moderate their content", I think Freedom of Speech is a weak argument since the solution to moderation is moving to a different instance which is enabled by decentralization.
Edit: Interesting how a (imo reasonable) comment about Freedom of Speech got censored.
RSS is a good illustration of the problem. In theory, it can be used to do that. In practice, it isn't because >Read the full article<. RSS used to be a solution for people who liked simple content. But there's no guarantee that you will get the whole article.
Last year I went to a talk by John Papa where he mentioned that a lot of people seem to think that it's inappropriate to approach speakers to have a chat or tell them that you enjoyed their talk; while in reality, most of them would welcome it. That's why the first thing I ended up doing right after the talk was to thank John Papa for the positive influence he's had on my development as a software engineer. Nowadays, I try to continue my effort to thank people that have a positive impact on me, however small.
Except that the whole February/leap year case is part of the Gregorian calendar. Moving the date forward or backward to a date that does exist is not a set rule and would only cause unnecessary confusion for a user or other developer for that matter; even worse if you were to do it without notifying the user. Wouldn't you agree that it'd just be better to catch the error and tell the user they "done messed up"?
This kinda reminds me of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead; people will hate but you keep doing your own thing because it's your passion, so as long as you can make a living off it, why change? Especially the idea that "he could be making a lot more money so why doesn't he?", sounds so freakishly greedy. I don't know any of his games, but I kinda feel like checking them out for the sole reason that this guy seems to have life figured out in his own way, so kudos to him.
Not sure if I'm being silly here, but with the article about Talon (https://talonvoice.com/) and coding by voice from earlier this week, I think this could potentially provide an interesting setup for a portable development setup? (I quite dislike typing on touchscreens and being able to develop by voice also seems like a portable skill)
It sounds pretty cool until the point where you read something like: "Deployment is risky because you’ve only tested on your own machine, and now you need to run the same code on many different machines, to serve (millions of) users." Which makes it seem like they don't even know about the existence of Docker; making me doubt most of what they'll try to sell us.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from and what your goals are; it'll be grand if Dark can deliver on its promises. I just don't understand why that particular statement on deployment had to be included, as it makes it sound like you're solving a problem with an existing solution.
Unfortunately when you do press, you're at the mercy of whatever gets quoted and sometimes things that are kinda irrelevant get picked up. That's definitely not the thing we wanted as the lead. Our blog post on it was different: https://medium.com/darklang/dark-announces-3-5m-in-seed-fina...
That's a fair point. Regardless of my current impression, I'll have to try it out first hand in order to form a proper opinion, so looking forward to the public release. Good luck!
