If it gets stuck, I tell it where I think we took a wrong turn. It then recognizes the issue and refactors in a way that for a hobby project I wouldn’t have had the patience for.
This is not my experience with GDPR. The short-term response of the ad tech industry has been to not change their ways, but to address this issue with disclaimers. This is where the cookie pop-ups and thoughtless consent interaction patterns come from.
GDPR was never about these pop-ups. It is about getting actual consent.
"By clicking on the button below, you consent with us and our 381 partners to do whatever the hell they want" may be legally acceptable in the US, but in the EU it isn't.
I know for a fact that lawyers and activists are currently challenging these patterns.
Using disclaimers to address GDPR is the short-term solution that was shaped by a US-led ad tech industry to address an EU law. I'd be surprised if 5 years from now these pop-ups are still the norm.
It depends on what kind of 'stuff' you are buying too. If it's a tool that you can use to learn new things or create beautiful things, then that's a possession that can unlock valuable experiences.
It seems like a simple truth to me that in the end, what humans value are experiences of some sort. And that possessions have weight and therefore can weigh you down. Over-analyzing the two as a dichotomy doesn't seem that useful to me.
Depends on what you mean by "the subject". dbt doesn't claim to be a testing tool. Personally I use dbt all the time, while I didn't know about the existence of DBT-2. Different worlds apparently.
I believe his point is about coin flipping being a fundamental force in the market. That at the basis of a market, there’s a game of coin flips going on.
True, there may be technological innovations in factories, farms, and labs that grow the size of the pie as a whole. But probably those with most market power will have most of the access to those innovations.
And even if the value of technology would be fairly distributed, it does feel to me that the underlying game of coin flips rigs the whole system in favor of the eventual oligarch.
I bought an apartment. Living here (ie. red light district) is not for everyone though because the area gets an insane amount of tourists. There is social housing too.
Amsterdam local here — in fact, I live in exactly this street. Where the first cartel guy gets subdued is where I get my coffee, and the people that live in the canal houses are my neighbors. (My house may or may not be in the map, would have to play the game to check.)
Fun facts:
(1) A year or two ago several guys spent days using some sort of device to scan all buildings in our street. They got complaints from several bar owners and tenants as they appeared to be taking photographs inside the buildings, and they wouldn’t explain why. I wouldn’t be be surprised if it was for this map.
(2) The footage is hyperrealistic not just graphically, they got the details right with surprising accuracy. Even the garbage bins are in exactly the right place. (It’s also not unlikely that a guy could be subdued like this without people being too surprised, as tourists like to use this district to get wasted 24/7.)
>So essentially, the company gets version 2 of the code, at the cost of 1x user time + 1x developer time. Instead of version 2 of the code, in 2x developer time, which is too expensive and never happens.
Not sure why, but in my experience the difference has been closer to 1x user time + 1x developer time <> 4x developer time.
I believe empowering a customer to think along — be pushed to their limits, even — within the boundaries of a system's technical/business domain _from the very start_ is likely to dramatically improve a system's design.
From a technical perspective it may not be architected well, but in terms of user <> business fit it probably will be.
The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company.
Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities.
In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton, not because Malaysians want to watch them.
Reason European clubs are good is that they're intertwined with society. European football became big business, but that's not where it came from, nor what it is.
I bootstrapped a company and I believe the decision to remain self-financed contributed to a more tightly knit culture with more T-shaped roles than you’d typically see in venture-backed companies.
We could have raised money but the reason we didn’t had something to do with both me and my team desiring a certain degree of learning and freedom to operate in fields where we have intrinsic motivation.
It might or might not have happened simultaneously, but I remember reading that one of the founders of Basecamp, a company famous for being mostly bootstrapped, created Ruby on Rails around the same time.
I believe it can be done in different ways, also in ways more sustainable ways than the examples of Jobs and Musk that you’re referring to.