Less clickbait and more reblogging, but yeah it’s not a good piece. It attempts to set a little context but overall fails miserably to explain the complexities around this and fails to evaluate how much credence should be given to the original poster.
Never expect journalism from NYT. They exist to manufacture consent for the oligarchs. Have since the Iraq War days. Probably longer.
It sounds like the problem you describe is not with the concept of using serverless/faas cloud compute and adjacent services, but with the design and implementation done by some engineers you work with. That may be due to time constraints, lack of familiarity, engineering skill, or some other reason.
I’ve seen terrible containers, terrible vms, terrible bare metal servers. I’ve written good and bad myself. And yes, I’ve seen (and done) great implementation of serverless. It’s all just tools to be used.
This reads as if someone doesn’t understand cloud compute, iac, and so on, and just got frustrated trying to learn and explore the paradigm.
That’s fine, but blaming “serverless” or aws lambda is like blaming a multicore cpu for having to learn threads and subprocceses.
Pdf is more flexible than printing a doc. The format supports layers, so it would avoid losing information if it saves as a layer visible in the default view. This certainly matters in some cases.
Think of the term “debt” here. For example, when you can borrow at a good rate and use the funds to gain an advantage.
If you don’t know what you owe it’s not a problem with the debt, but with your accounting. Personally, I would not trust an accountant who couldn’t keep track of what the company owed.
Identified tech debt goes into the backlog and other relevant documentation however your team handles it. You don’t need specifics, just the knowledge that you’re making the decision.
Now, if most of your tech debt is unidentified, that’s not a problem of the tech debt, but rather of engineering accounting practice.
Really strange. What industry have you seen this in.
In big tech, enterprise, biotech, every team I’ve been on has uniformly understood that technical debt is just a concept of future work that is intentionally put off to focus speed, exploration or some other reason. It’s used in strategic planning to determine the cadence of output.
Aside from new grads this has never been a concept I’ve had to explain to an engineer or pm. Not like a sometimes thing. Literally never. Just very strange.
I am curious who speaks of technical debt as only a negative. I’ve never worked on an engineering or product team that didn’t understand the meaning of the term.
When I criticize a fascist I can criticize that individual. When I want someone who advocates harm to be stripped of power, I can mean that person specifically. We absolutely must treat these people as individuals, but individuals can do bad things, they can be wrong.
Just because the powerful encourage hate speech and violence does not mean that it’s okay. Don’t forget the solution to the paradox of tolerance: don’t tolerate intolerance.
Sounds like there’s enough here to start a fork.
They do still tend to ban hate speech. I didn’t mention it because it’s been like that since the start.
Couldn’t there be an association of professional societies that run their own mastodon instance and can control membership and federation?
They banned a bunch of people including Jessie Gender (now reinstated) for mild criticism of the Harry Potter author.
They banned people for posting old (public domain) short films for fictional violence.
There was another ban wave when people were criticizing the hateful words spoken by that one guy who was violently killed.
There’s an explicit promise of an upcoming wave of noncon artists. (I’m personally not a fan of such art but don’t think they should be banned)
Some people have been reinstated, but the explicit focus on limiting speech has a real chilling effect.
I’m positive I’ve missed some from longer ago.
For real. They just can’t stop banning people.
They’ve intentionally maliciously set up systems where “carelessness” leads to these malicious outcomes.
It’s not fail safe, nor fail secure. It’s fail evil.
Billionaire oligarchs
Techdirt has covered this kinda thing for decades. Being familiar with their work I am confident no good will come of a Warner Brothers Discovery win in court. It absolutely won’t protect individual artists. It may even have the opposite effect of causing Gen AI models to avoid corporate art and only use art of individual creators who can’t afford to sue.
Maybe the best we can hope for is a private settlement that sets no precedent.
I tried Kagi briefly a while ago. It’s fine. Google is much better for obscure stuff if you’re willing to use it like people did in the 00s. Refine queries based on results and repeat until you find what you want. It also has the benefit of very good results linked in the Ai summary, which people often overlook.
Kagi might be better if you want less commercial results for broad terms, but I don’t really search that way these days, so I don’t need it for that.
Oracle vs. Google, and he mostly already had hobbyist knowledge of programming, but yes he did learn some Java for the case.
Let them fight.