I have been rereading Frank Herbert's Dune so when I read this interesting article, I thought it could have also been titled "A Historical Who's Who of Mentats." I am definitely looking forward to Parts 2 through N...
There are several blog posts out there on the Go vs Rust debate and how both languages are not really in the same boxing weight class, so to speak, but people tend to compare and contrast the two languages more often because they both launched around the same time. With that said, I'll take a crack at this question... Without having to define what "large amount" means to you or others, I would guess you want to pick Rust. Go uses a runtime to perform garbage collection; while Rust is not runtime-based (no garbage collection), and manages memory with zero-cost abstractions and a very strict compilation process. So, if you're turned off by your applications being attached at the hip to a garbage collector that will cost precious milliseconds, then Rust is a better choice. It's also a better choice for having more advanced language features than Go. Rust is a LLVM-based language so I believe Rust can target more platforms than Go, but Go has a better story for easier cross-compilation right now. However, one of the Rust team's goals for 2018 will be focusing on easier cross-compilation.
If the article is meant to walk someone through creating their own microservice, it begins to miss crucial code snippets in the `Accepting POST Requests` section. It doesn't point out that one should go back to the Cargo.toml file and add the `url` and `serde_json` crates (and possibly `serde` and `serde_derive`). Also, it's missing these crates in the point regarding updating the `use` statements. However, if the article is not meant to walk the reader through creating their own, but just to follow along from your git repository, then think about updating the article to have the repo url listed at the beginning. Good article, otherwise.
Life is too short to be unhappy with anything, anyone, etc; so make a change. Here is a list of criteria I have gathered over the past 20 years in tech on finding the right fit. It doesn't have to apply to just software/technology jobs.
1 - Is software/technology the company's main source of revenue?
This is my top-most question, because I have been an engineer in several organizations where software/technology wasn't their primary concern and it sucks for lots of reasons. All of the reasons funnel back to this question. It makes economic sense that if you're an engineer at a law firm (as an example), you are not the organization's primary concern because you likely do not contribute to the organization's primary source of revenue: litigation. This will have all kinds of downsides to it: lack of training whether from budget constraints or a lack of mentors; lack of advancement on the right things to match a thriving career in software/tech; a lack of pay.
2 - Does the company make software/technology for the right reasons?
This might be a stickler for lots of other HN readers, but I have made an effort to stay away from tech companies who participate in the supply chains of industries that I take up issue with. Example: I'm not fond of war for any reason, so working for a defense contractor is out of the question. Even when the sales pitch sounds great, I still look at whether I'll be able to sleep at night knowing I'm making a contribution to the things I care about.
3 - Does the initial environment suit me?
I emphasis the word, 'initial', because this will change as all environments do... Even at the few companies I have found over the years, they all changed in ways that communicated to me, it was time to move on. People, politics, mergers, acquisitions, lack of new opportunity, etc- The landscape will forever be changing so find your tolerance level for the changes you can handle and work with it, not against it.
4 - Check in with yourself frequently and ask yourself, "Do I still love what I'm working on?" and be willing to make positive changes if the answer is no. 'Knowing thyself' is some of the oldest philosophical wisdom and for good reason. You will continue to jump from one circumstance to another if you don't truly know what does make you happy. I spent years trying to climb the corporate ladder and realized that I'm not cut out for management, but I like being a leader. One can be a leader anywhere... with or without followers, subordinates, etc. Besides most people love and respect leaders, while despise and tolerate managers.
You will feel like you made mistakes and bad decisions along the way, but this is normal growth. Just keep focusing on what brings you happiness.
Of course the surveillance is about control... It seems so obvious to me that I don't even give it much thought, but I think there are far too many variables affecting the current state of affairs, regarding the NSA, surveillance, etc. It wasn't just one event, one government administration, one legislative change or one technological advancement that got us into this mess. Several factors have converged to create the current police state, but I ask: Why are people suddenly so upset about finding out that the NSA has found an efficient means to surveil the populous when so many organizations have been doing this for years?
Nobody was getting upset when Google was reading your emails; Facebook was reading your private messages; Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile were tracking your calls and geo-locations... All for the sake of more efficiently marketing to you. Advertisement is just another form of control. They don't tell you or force you to do or not do something, they just efficiently convince people to part with their money and make those people think that it was their own idea to do so all along.
All these concerns come down to whether we collectively think these practices are right or wrong, and it is becoming more difficult to make these judgements without a bias and it's difficult to continually evaluate whether your bias has been externally affected by these business practices.
The reason why nothing is truly being done about this massive theft of privacy is because people are complacent with the idea. We can't truly get upset that our governments are taking away our privacy when we have been giving it away to private corporations and religious organizations for so long.
Completely agree. It's hard to care about privacy when we get so much in return for surrendering it. Things don't cost money anymore, instead they cost our private lives. This is a bargain we've been making for a long time, and people are subconsciously aware of it. I think this plays a huge role into why people don't care about the NSA in general...every fucking other organization is spying on them too, what's one more??
I'm convinced the way to combat it is to provide services people use that are convenient and respect privacy. Not via easily-broken promises (Privacy Policy!!) but by enforcing privacy in the client. If cloud services only store encrypted data, you get the convenience and the privacy without compromise.
Once more companies make this shift, I think you'll see people realizing they don't mind spending a few bucks (hell they spend it on new apps all the time) to not have a million anal probes jammed into their private lives 24/7.
When I read the post, I thought the same thing... It's almost as if I felt like I was reading my own blog (if I kept one). I have always strived to find meaningful work where I feel like I can have a positive impact on the world. About 3 years ago, I took a job at a startup where I was sold on the story that it would have a meaningful impact on the health/wellness of others. I took on new roles and responsibilities easily as I really wanted the idea of the company to succeed. However, as I learn more and more about the true intentions of the founders, I realize that it has nothing to do with impacting the health and well-being of millions, but all to do with making money.
> However, as I learn more and more about the true intentions of the founders, I realize that it has nothing to do with impacting the health and well-being of millions, but all to do with making money.
That's not a great situation to be in. Are you still working there?
Yes. I made a lot of sacrifices to my programming skills to take on other roles and responsibilities to move the company forward. Now, 3 years later, I'm finding it tough to leave. I wish I could just jump ship, but having bills to pay is a huge motivator to maintain the status quo.
You're right... It's like asking, "what's the difference between Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and a for-profit company that improves the well-being of people?" ...nothing, they are all figments of our collective imaginations. (no offense to those HN readers who still believe ;-) )
I think many of the companies get started with good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with, right? What can be done to fix this?
I think that anything in particular can be done about companies caring about profit and little else. What can be done is changing the world for the better via (smart) state policies, some of them incentivising companies to do good (or at least less harm), others changing the world explicitly (like various social programs, the labor laws etc.). That's obviously hard and messy since it involves politics, but hey - people on this forum are supposedly all about hard problems and changing the world :) (usually, they're also about making millions of dollars in the process, but that, since it doesn't make you look as attractive, is usually left unspoken).
Link bait! The author doesn't truly answer the question in the title and even worse, the author throws a whole generation of people under the bus, so to speak. There is no balance to the explanation as it is one-sided with the employees to blame. Find me a corporation (that still exists) that is truly loyal to its employees... The author needs to read Richard Wolff.
I completely agree with this. Web/Tech are not the only industries that have startups. However, I do believe the "gotta have it right NOW" consumer attitude that the tech industry creates also creates the same kind of tech-focused venture capitalist.
