Been doing it for a year or so. I grind for espresso and can see a clear difference in how clumpy my grinds are and how much is left retained in the grinder.
I have a hard time with news outlets taking articles, in which the authors highlight the need for further research, and suggest the findings as fact. I know it says “may”, but that’s not how people read it.
Wasn’t tech pronounced dead after the dot com bubble burst and then again after the financial crisis (rip good times). It seems to me that the reports of tech’s death greatly exaggerated.
The bursting of the dot com bubble was a good thing because a lot of stupid ideas were allowed to fail. Companies with solid business plans survived. Looking around at tech today, there are a lot of stupid ideas that need to fail ...
If Microsoft hadn't been pulled back from absolute dominance in the early 00s by the justice department I think the tech ecosystem could easily have waned and become a shadow of what it ended up being.
The end of the gold rush doesn't require us to run out of ways to innovate - all it requires is that enough market power is consolidated in one place that competition from non-billionaires can be squashed like a bug. Then there's no point for anybody to innovate any more.
Remember the auto industry used to have garage-started startups too. A long time ago.
Start an innovative new tire company now and you'll either be bought for a pittance or copied by one of the big 3. They are also your main customers. It isn't a hopeful play. There aren't too many VCs looking for small auto industry startups to fund. There aren't too many auto startups in detroit.
How many things can you build for customers these days in tech that don't end up living on one of 4 megalithic platforms? It's not like the auto industry yet but it is headed in that direction.
> Reminds me of working for MCI-Worldcom. When you think you’re working for crooks, you probably are. Run away.
>> Worked in crypto and I got that vibe so left. Regret it. For every SBF there are hundreds who get away with it. Tons of talentless crypto millionaires still roaming free. Look at the Axie Infinite guys plundering a whole country. Token could collapse, but there’ll be no justice and they’re sitting on at least 8 figures individually
my understanding of this comment:
They worked in crypto, got the feeling they may have been working for crooks, so left and regret being part of it at all. They are upset that many scammers who made millions are still walking around and will face no justice.
vs what I think is a total misreading:
> Wait. Do you regret leaving? Because the fraud works out for some?
There are loads of people who successfully made millions and won't face justice, and they regret leaving before making similar money.
That is a weak justification, commonly used by criminals. A liar might say, 'everyone lies'; honest people don't say it. Unless we are engaging in a very philsophical discussion (possible on HN), we don't need to explain the problem in detail.
It's not a "justification" of anything, just a question for someone who blames other people industry as fraud. Just curious about way of thinking, nothing else.
And everyone lies indeed, those who deny it are either delusional or liars. It's human nature.
I didn’t blame an industry as fraud. GP was describing a specific fraud that occurred in an industry. Not the same. I’m sure there are legitimate crypto businesses.
Profiting by deception is why marketing even exists tbh. Nobody's plastering ads that outline products in factual unbiased way, it's all just a hair above what the law defines as actual fraud. Except one every so often that deliberately breaks the convention and is often even more likely to be deceptive by fooling people into thinking it's honest.
Boring is good when you want to build things that are maintainable by 100s of devs.
Something we have experienced over and over is that devs moving from languages like C# or Java just love how easy and straight forwarding developing in Go is. They pick it up in a week or two, the tool chain is just so simple, there's no arguing around what languages features we can and can't use.
Almost everyone I've spoke to finds it incredibly productive. These people want to be delivering features and products and it makes it easy for them to do so.
Maybe a 100 devs Go is fine, but it gets to be a nightmare as you scale beyond that.
Language abstractions exist to prevent having developers build their own ad-hoc abstractions, and you find this time and time again in languages like Go. You can read the Kubernetes code and see what I mean, they go out of their way to work around some of the missing language features.
Yeah, and that nightmare gets even worse in other languages; one motivation for creating Go was the use of C/C++ by thousands of developers at Google.
Can you link to some of these workarounds? I'm curious to see whether they actually make a lot of difference. In theory (and I have no experience with any software project with more than ten developers working on it), they only made it more difficult by adding cleverness.
