I believe in this context they’re referring to an Individual Contributor. Pulling the definition from indeed.com:
> a professional without management duties and responsibilities who contributes to a company independently to support its mission and goals. While they typically report to someone within the company, individual contributors aren't responsible for managing anyone except for themselves.
Not sure why the initial tone of your response is quite so dismissive. But I do work with Python on a daily basis, even though this shouldn't be the deciding factor on the validity of any point. Discuss the point, not the individual, if it's so easy to disprove.
It seems that you're talking about poorly documented code, not how type checks effect this. Python code should have at least docstrings for types, or a scrawl with pen and paper describing this. If not, this is a failing of the project, and it's codebase. Not something you should rely on an outside tool to fix.
Totally get that, and agree that this is an aspect if Python that is awesome for iteration on new ideas without many barriers.
However, this seems to make the assumptions that when you, as you say, transition to the industrial phase:
- MonkeyType will get all of the assumped types correct, which at any scale I doubt. Not because of the ability of the projects contributors, but because they warn about this in their own documentation
- If you're doing this at an industrial scale, and you haven't already documented/thought about/understood what these functions are. I'd appreciate that it may help intially, but still runs in to the problem I was discussing above.
What's the benefit of this over simply adding the type annotations directly? I guess this is mostly for those unwilling to understand types?
Especially given the admitted limitations of inferring types, such as the add exmaple discussed; this seems to be fixing an anti-pattern problem. As this those who would build a project in Python that would largely benefit from these annotations, would be most suited to just spend the couple of hours needed to truly apply it themselves.
> In other words, we allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we’re not going to show it at the top of News Feed.
So back to the mantra of, "trust us, we'll show you what you need to know"?
I thought that was exactly the attitude that got them in to this mess in the first place?!?
> People often do this when the site is known to have an impenetrable paywall, e.g., WSJ.
Not in my recent experience, which was my reason for this comment
> But the NYT's paywall is quite easy to bypass.
As I said before, why force cures on an issue instead of simply acting on preventative measures in the first instance?
More to the point, how would someone bypass this if they used an app for HN? There's no "private mode" in these and simply asking people to delete the apps cache every time they hit this problem is again a cure not a preventative measure.
> Bear in mind that the NYT is generally regarded as among the premier news sources in the world.
> But the HN community would never want a lower-quality article on a topic to be given preference due to it having no paywall.
Discussing the relative "qualities" of news outlets is a discussion in and of itself, but as I also showed there is a Forbes article that echoes many of the same points. So I don't think this piece of analysis was unique to the NYT and is of such great stature that Forbes would be arbitrarily inferior to NYT?
Are you suggesting it's better for the community, even if some can't read the article, to post a paywalled one rather than one everybody can read? I thought the point was to share news for _everybody_ on here?
Exactly, this was the point I was (trying) to get too.
Ultimately I believe that _the majority_ of stories that will be of interest to the HN community will either be:
1. niche posts from free sources
2. More wide spread news that will be covered by every major news site, some of which are "paywalled" sites
When the latter of these two happen, where a non-niche story is published, instead of users submitting a paywalled version of the article they could instead reference one that seems to not have this issue (like this forbes article https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/04/21/dont-worry-... ) that covers the same content or reference the original paper with it's given flaws.
I am aware that this is by no means a perfect solution, but simply suggesting that you can use work arounds for every instance is a cure for the issue, instead of a preventative measure that I believe would be more beneficial and one we should be taking as a community.
P.S.
Just to be clear, I'm not gunning for the OP of this article, but was simply my trigger for the topic. As I said before it is an interesting article.
I assume if each page has the markup tag
> <strong class="fn" itemprop="author">nickmchardy.com</strong>
You can then either attempt an email to info@{} the tld of the author tag or scrape that site for email addressees on there.
Assuming that most of these are blogs, such as the case here, hopefully there wouldn't be too many addresses on each domain. So hopwfully relatively easy to do ... ?
> I only skimmed the article, but it appears to be about the prevalence of tracking in third-party services used by app developers, not in the core distribution, what did I miss?
I think it's at least partly covered on page 2 under Uncovering Parent Companies :
> We obtain the parent organizations of these services (after accounting for business mergers and acquisitions) and identify the dominant organizations in the mobile ATS ecosystem. We find that Alphabet-owned ATSes have presence in over 73% of apps in our dataset. This raises questions about Alphabet’s monopoly in the mobile ATS ecosystem.
So alongside their conclusion that information is shared freely between subsidiaries:
> Our privacy policy analysis of the largest organizations revelaed the prevalence of intra- and inter- organization sharing of user data.
It would suggest that other large "players", along side Alphabet, could have much larger collections of user data than cureently understood.
That would be my guess though.
Not to beat a dead horse too much but ultimately I would believe that he was swayed by the amount of money the company could make by sharing it. A sad thing to see happening to all too many aspects of life!