I was working on an Arazzo[0] generator as a plugin for the Serverless Framework. This has now become a fully fledged runner. So far I have it using multiple OpenAPI source descriptions, and just about got retry rules working. Next steps will be for it to be able to reference Workflows in external Arazzo documents.
It's something i've also vaguely thought about building myself, because god damn uber, how many times do you need to send me an advert for uber one? just tell me when my car is here.
so congrats to the author of this. I do agree that I'd prefer it open sourced too, it feels a bit risky it having access to all your notifications.
> Really? Wanna give it a try then, without looking up any other documentation?
I mean, that's not the point of SO or any of the SE sites. It's not there so you don't have to do some more work to get to an answer.
From that answer, if you're still having issues, you form a question around:
"I found this answer on [SO](link), which lead me in this direction and found these [documents](link), however I am still having issues with getting the thing to work correctly when i run this bit of code, ```code```, from the output it says it's doing this or that, but when i check something, i find that it's not doing what it claims in the outputs. What might I have missed?"
And even then, that's still a fairly shaky question.
Most people don't know how to write questions, which is most of what this whole comment section is complaining about.
As one of my good friends pointed out back in 2012, most people don't know how to ask questions[0].
I'm feeling a bit sorry for zahlman in the comment section here, they're doing a good job of defending SO to a comment section that seems to want SO to bend to their own whims, no matter what the stated aims and goals of SO really were. There does seem to be a lot of people in the comments here who wanted SO to be a discussion site, rather than the Q&A site that it was set out to be.
I do think it's very unfair of many of you who are claiming SO was hostile or that they unfairly closed questions without bringing the citations required. I'm not saying at all that SO was without it's flaws in leadership, moderators, community or anything else that made the site what it was. But if you're going to complain, at least bring examples, especially when you have someone here you could hold somewhat accountable.
The problem is, you still see a lot of it today, whether it's in IRC channels, Discord chats, StackOverflow or GitHub issues. People still don't know how to ask questions:
people seem to be confusing the $10 spotify premium sub with actually giving money to music.
i think there's an over-simplification of how this works going on. When you buy a $10 cd from let's say your dad's friends garage band, that $10 is going to your dads friend, and obviously they might have expenses before they really see that $10 (buying CD-R's, printing, etc etc).
you spend $10 on spotify premium, and exclusively listen to your dads friends garage band, that $10 is not going to your dads friend, it's going to spotifys bank account which will then be used to pay for execs, macbooks, operating costs etc, but also be used to fund the artist pool. so your $10 and some other persons $10 that they use for elton john records, all sit in the same account. Elton John via EMI or whoever, might have negotiated a 0.000005c per stream deal and so gets that. your dads friend might be on a very basic rate of 0.000002c per stream (numbers made up), and will receive that. so yeah elton or taylor or other big names will get a better deal.
The Author doesn't understand how the streaming business works, and as far as I can tell, no one in the comments here has shone a better light on it.
There is and there isn't just a pool of money that goes to beyonce, the weeknd and taylor swift... i say there is because what actually happens is, the collecting societies will collect the money, then distribute it based on streams correctly to the artists/writers/producers etc that are registered. now if it so happens that a collecting society can't find the correct person to distribute to, the money might sit for a while before it is divvied up between the biggest players, so that would mean taylor swift, elton john etc might get a share of any unclaimed royalties.
When i worked in the business, we would often have many a drunken night talking about how we should just record the rain on the roof, upload it and use the "royalties" as beer money.
for the most part, being on spotify does pay, but i think people don't really understand how the pie is cut and when the artist actually gets a slice. there are many routes to being on spotify (or any streaming service), the router for taylor swift will be different to the route for your dad's garage band, as will the payout.
We don't actually know what her manager said to her during all her one to ones. We don't know what feedback she was receiving. Just because the person on the other end of the call did not dispute any of the things she raised, it does not mean she was correct and not biased.
We also see from Matthew Prince's reply to the video that he is also an unreliable participant as he is suggesting that a manager would always be involved in redundancies, and we can see from the video that was not the case.
The problem with judging any of this is the same as knowing your history lessons and sources.
All we've really got to go on is Brittney Peaches account and Matthew Princes account and neither are going to be reliable sources. We'll never know if what Brittney Peach said is reliable and we'll never know if what Matthew Prince says is true.
The problem with judging any of this is the same as knowing your history lessons and sources.
All we've really got to go on is Brittney Peaches account and Matthew Princes account and neither are going to be reliable sources. We'll never know if what Brittney Peach said is reliable and we'll never know if what Matthew Prince says is true.
> In the UK (and most other places with fairly strong employee protections I imagine)
People keep saying this, but I'm not at all convinced anyone commenting really understands UK employment law. It's really only after 2 years of working for the same company that you get any decent employment protection.
It takes a bit more legal work, but if within the first 2 years they don't want you, they can get rid of you. If you're within your first 3 months of probation, they can just extend it to 6 months and get rid of you.
The UK is not a great country these days to go "employment laws keep you safe". There are better ones.
If you don't want these rug pulls and employment laws to keep getting watered down, instead of asking about 4 day work weeks, start voting for candidates and parties that have better employment laws at the top of their policies.