The worst developers (as in bad practices, poor code quality, communication problems, zero care for product and just focus on tech, and extreme over or under engineering solutions) that I've found in my 20 year career also happened to be the ones blaming their tools instead of looking at their own practices, skills and beliefs.
Not saying this is the case because I don't know you, but that's been the common theme for a long time.
It's like hearing a carpenter complaining their hammer is just not good and nobody should use hammers and they should instead use a screwdriver because everyone knows how bad and outdated hammers are.
I am not a big fan of PHP, but I remember generating CSS with it. Everybody found that _completely unacceptable_. Now most tools generate CSS in JS and mix structure and styling, and behaviour (using components). Fashion definitely has a strong influence on devs.
The replication rate of Economics as a field is higher than replication rates for psychology, cancer research, pharmaceutical research, and many other fields. When was the last time you opened an econ journal?
Looks like they are starting with the popular BTRFS, and then making the pun of this being "better," and also implying the Be tree data structure they use.
I bet it's intended to be pronounced "Better Eff Ess."
After a former colleague of mine, Stuart’s rule of system naming: The whizzier the name, the crappier the system. Inside corporates the correlation is uncanny.
Is it that bad? There is plenty of technical shortcuts which differ in a single letter - that should not be an issue. Plus one is pronounced /ˈbiːtriː/ and the other likely /ˈbɛtə/ (or /ˈbɛtəɹ/ in the US :)).
I think that this is particularly bad since there are many different pronunciations for btrfs. E.g. Wikipedia says
> Btrfs (pronounced as "better F S", "butter F S", "b-tree F S", or simply by spelling it out)
and I heard all of them in practice (except for spelling it out).
While you can hear the difference for "b-tree F S", the other ones are much harder to distinguish.
Swedish person thinking I'll just pronounce it "bee tee arr FS". I mean that's what it says and it isn't a tounge warper so...
Same with SQL, never got the sequel / whatever pronunciation, I just say the darn letters.
I ended up here because automated cluster deployments failed trying to download releases from GitHub... I wonder if that software is served there and I can update the URLs before GitHub fixes their issues :)
It's a good thing that the two are separate. You really want good scientific advances to be put in textbooks, and the rest should be left for history books. You really don't want to have the scientific debate get muddled in pointless historical fights like in heterodox economics where people are still debating what mArX rEaLlY mEaNt centuries later. Scientists should read textbooks that reflect the current state of the art, not 40 years old papers that will necessarily be flawed.
That only works if you assume a linear model of scientific progress. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, and this is extremely evident in the field of software engineering (granted, SE is not science and not even a good example of an engineering discipline) where old wisdoms are forgotten and then reinvented every five years.
The goal of DRM is and always have been to lock users inside a platform, not to prevent piracy. It gives companies market power because users cannot easily switch to a better alternative without losing their entire digital collection.
> DRM is not about limiting copyright infringement. Such an argument attempts to make DRM appear beneficial to authors and is based entirely on a (very successfully advertised) misrepresentation of DRM's purpose. To illustrate the absurdity of the argument, consider the nature of file sharing: to obtain a copy of a file without permission, downloaders go to a friend or a file sharing network, not a DRM-encumbered distribution platform. If DRM existed only to prevent unauthorized sharing, every distribution method for that particular piece of media would have to be distributed by an uncrackable DRM-encumbered distribution platform, which is impossible on its own. So long as one copy becomes available without DRM, countless more are easily produced. Industry proponents of DRM are well aware that DRM is not a copyright enforcement mechanism. DRM is only marketed as a copyright enforcement mechanism to mislead authors into tolerating and even defending it.
> The goal of DRM is and always have been to lock users inside a platform,
In that case it fails to accomplish that goal for the same reason. It doesn't work and will be defeated. When you download a song, or movie, or ebook that has been stripped of its DRM you aren't tied to anything. Why introduce unnecessary annoyances for paying customers which often drives them to pirate copies that aren't crippled by DRM? As long as something works like they want it to, most people wont care what platform they use to get it.
> As long as something works like they want it to, most people wont care what platform they use to get it.
For almost anything, there are (at least in big cities and in the Internet) many vendors offering nearly the same with nearly the same quality level at nearly the same prices.
But I can't say I don't care whom do I get the same service thing every particular time. I'm more likely to choose whoever feels more nice and offers even slightly more freedom and flexibility. Once I've chosen a vendor I'm much more likely to stick with them (and choose them every time I need something else they can offer) as long as I don't feel severely dissatisfied.
E.g. once I've got a GMail (GMail is and has always been the very best e-mail service anyway, you can hardly be dissatisfied with it) account I would use everything Google if only they didn't piss me off politically (with stiff like this particular discussion subject) and scare me by terminating other's peoples accounts. But I actually am migrating everything I can away from Google and Gmail because Google seems becoming more and more evil (I even suspect RIAA only attacked ytdl after Google told them to).
Very good point, and I would add that line can be moved based on individual circumstances. I've seen people complain about issues with a service, but the moment I offer an alternative and a way to migrate (painlessly for me to do, and I typically offer to help them) suddenly all is good with their service and they're sticking with it. I've even pushed a little further in the past to say I will do ALL of the work for you, just sit back and relax and in a couple hours done. Most still refuse and I don't get why once all barriers have been removed.
No, not according to the Open Source Definition of the OSI, which is generally recognized to be the authority in terms of what we call "open source".
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
You could have a stock market crash while hitting full employment, for any number of reasons e.g. non-listed companies expand while listed contract; families scale down and take earners off the market; war mobilization that involves long-term high taxes; and probably all kinds of scenarios I'm not thinking of. "Stopping recessions" is not an automatic justification for propping up asset prices.
So is the Fed's job to make sure everyone is employed? Unemployment is at an all time low. With a normal spike an unemployment from a normal recession, we would be at normal levels of unemployment.
