It also only applies going forward, so the default opt-in means they've already taken what they want before we get a chance to say no. Though to be fair I never expected otherwise.
> Honestly, reinvigorate the steel industry and put any kind of barrier along the sidewalk/pavement to stop this careless attitude towards their own safety.
If you have Trump, Elon and the New York Times in one post you gonna get some hop-ons that normally do not get engaged the same way with other posts, I guess?
It's not controlled by the state, but funded by it. There's a kind of a people's council everyone can join and vote about stuff which in part control the direction of it, it's called SRG.
If it's like in Austria, then the state media doesn't receive cheques from the state government, but directly from the taxpayers via a separate tax collected by an independent agency granted power by the state, and not from the state itself.
On paper this makes it so that the state media is reporting directly to the paying citizens similar to a national Patreon, in practice IMO, it's still state control but with extra steps and middlemen designed to give the illusion of independence.
There is more than usefulness to it. Take what became social media later but what at the beginning was just a means for friends to have many-to-many async conversations instead of only 1:1 in an easy way. This was useful, I have no doubt about this. Yet the final product sold is something quite different, and in some cases can hurt people instead of benefiting them.
Invention is one thing, a product to sell is almost an entirely different thing. The more I see the more I realise that being technical is almost all the time the least important part.
You need to get people around you to succeed. In practice that means investors so that you can hire and people with the right connections so you can get sweet deals.
You need people skills not inventions. And a bit more fake it until you make it rather than correct/technical information.
I think that this is true, and I hate it.
In a previous job, I had to work with the worst (shop)-framework I have ever seen.
It is very expensive, over-engineered in the worst ways, very slow and awful to use.
The blatant misunderstanding of software architecture principles in that software is hard to put into words.
For example: It took an experienced developer two weeks and more than 2000 LoC in more than 40 files to add a new label to a product.
But the company creating this mess is good at marketing, and their events are great.
A few weeks ago one of the guys (a freelancer) who stayed in that project was on an event of a competitor to this shop framework.
After that event, he said that their software was way better, but it wasn't interesting enough for him to invest in learning that system.
In his opinion, their marketing is not good enough, and they won't be able to sell it to important companies.
So we are stuck with bad products because they apparently sell better than the good ones.
The developers in the company I mentioned first even knew beforehand that the software was bad.
They were "included" in the decision process, and they all voted against the bad software and preferred another solution (it was before my time, and I don't remember if they told me what they actually wanted to use).
But the manager who made the ultimate decision had such a good time with the guys from the bad product that he decided to go with it.
I know a lot of good developers and people who can sell themselves really well.
Sadly, these two groups hardly overlap.
> I know a lot of good developers and people who can sell themselves really well. Sadly, these two groups hardly overlap.
Because the best marketers and salespeople are plainly people who lie. People who lie about the capability of the product they are selling to get their customer to buy more of it. Good marketers and salespeople cripple their financial gain by being truthful. So liars get more money, so they get more customers, so they get more power. So it goes.
Software development, being somewhere between a craft, an art, and a science, is fundamentally grounded in truth. You can't bullshit your way to quality software. You can't lie to the computer like you can to a human (maybe with AI you can). So "success" in these two fields is diametrically different.
Though I bet you'll get the opposite answer on a sales/marketing forum.
that's not a manager, that's an internal client from hell.
and yes, the world is full of these dysfunctional groups flush with money. (you might euphemistically call it this or that VC/startup scene)
on one hand it's great that there's plenty of room for technical improvement, on the other it needs the right socioeconomic circumstances. sometimes FOSS helps with this. (developers who spend their career working on products based on FOSS stuff at least have some chance of knowing that their efforts can might be valuable for a wider audience.)
That's only the VC angle. Plenty of revolutionary products will find adoption without playing the SV startup playbook. I think it's time to reevaluate the startup business "wisdom" of these past 15 years in the light of the companies and founders "role models" it has produced over that time frame. Good at making money, obviously. Holding the promise of making society better? I'll let you judge. As for me since I've read from Zero to One I have a sense I have been duped. I was once grateful for HN for opening my eyes on marketing. Now I'm hangover at how it perverted everything.
Still using it though.
reply