I haven't paid a lot of attention to Nikola and was surprised when a friend said they had gone public and saw their valuation.
This one always felt like a fraud when it was private. How was it able to go public? Isn't that supposed to root out these things?
Hearing about their revenue was an eye opener for sure.
Side note, I always wonder about the WeWorks and Nikola's of the world. The founders, who are obvious frauds in retrospect, still probably walk away with hundreds of millions if not a few billion. Sometimes it feels like being a decent human being doesn't pay off. Doesn't help that our current political environment is also rewarding the worst in us too
It was super obvious the value prop when it was HCL based. YAML based it kind of looks more like 'another CI'. It's still insanely powerful, just not as developer friendly anymore.
That’s disappointing. The original Actions was amazing and much of that was the thoughtful main.workflow file. This feels like a regression. I’m not a yaml hater like many but main.workflow was clean, almost pleasant to use. It felt like it actually came from understanding developers.
These are fun. We have one in a home and the kids absolutely love it. Completely impractical but definitely adds something to the home. Nice party trick for folks too.
That's the thing, it largely _doesn't_ have more than Azure or GCP these days. And for 80%, maybe 90% of all use cases in existence, AWS v Azure v GCP from a pure catalog offering perspective is identical. And when that compounds with other factors, it falls far behind.
Obviously Amazon.com is different and it's mostly about logistics, inventory and reduced buyer friction among some other things.
That still doesn't explain AWS v Azure or GCP which have similar (or better) services, more than competitive pricing and in Azure's case, waaaaay better support.
In fact, everything about AWS is typically worse. Perhaps AWS entered the 'no one ever got fired for buying AWS territory' even when there are a ton of better options out there. If that's the case, kinda sucks for devs who are stuck using their crappy services when so many others exist.
I have long held that Amazon(.com) has some of the worst UX I've ever seen, and it still is able to sell massive amounts to consumers.
We are left to consider that perhaps UX, particularly to the mass market, really doesn't matter. Or maybe that Amazon has such an entrenched lead, mindshare or other, it can weather some horrible, horrible experiences.
Considering that AWS is almost identical on the cloud front, I'm not sure really what to think here.
I'm a programmer. I use cloud services everyday. I have actively stayed away from AWS in the past few years b/c it has such a bad UX/DX and yet....it grows.
Azure is better. GCP is better. AWS, when compared to those two objectively, is downright terrible. Their services are disjoint. Their command lines don't work together. Their web console? Hooooooollllllly mother of god.....
I guess I don't know what to make of Amazon. Developers seem to fawn over things like Heroku, Zeit, GitHub and they are hugely successful in their own right....but still AWS is used by developers and, IMO, it shouldn't be anymore. It's 2018 and AWS is very clearly stuck in the 1970s/80s DX. They just don't get it, or maybe they do? And DX doesn't matter to most developers?
If we are honest with ourselves, AWS should be in third place in 2018. And it shouldn't even be close. Their services are comparable to the point of no real differentiation to their competition, and they have worse billing, worse experience, worse DX, worse support and overall worse nearly everything.
And yet they grow.
So yes, Amazon.com and AWS are terrible. And for some reason it doesn't seem to matter. I would like to live in a world where it does, particularly for developer tools where I hope that developers have more taste and sense than the choice of AWS shows.
This....this makes no sense. An integration doesn't mean something else is going away. That's not how platforms work.
FWIW, gitlab is going to get acquired...it has to. Probably by google, or oracle, or salesforce, or ibm, or hp (or whatever name they have these days), or redhat. And depending on which one it is, will be how ruined gitlab becomes, because all of those seem like terrible options, but I digress now.
That's not really what I meant. What I really meant was that Manuscript very clearly does project management (it's even in the title of the site), which Trello did. I imagine that would be a 'no-no' in the Trello sale to Atlassian.
How is Fog Creek allowed to do this after the sale of Trello to Atlassian? I would have expected some provision related to not releasing product/project management software for some period of time?
I'm no longer deeply involved in this area so my information might be dated, though years ago it was pretty well understood based on the evidence that fat cells were created _and_ grew bigger as person got heavier, however, fat cells (once created) were never eliminated from the body, meaning they would shrink though they would be around forever once created.
It was also understood (if I recall correctly) that the faster someone gained fat, the easier it was for fat cells to be created. Meaning rapid weight gain was more likely to create new fat cells. (not sure if I'm remembering that one right)
It was surmised from these that this is why rebound weight gain (aside from rebound lifestyle factors) was quite easy for many, particularly the incredibly obese. It was also why it was strongly recommended to take fat gain incredibly seriously as the creation of fat cells was deemed potentially lifelong damaging.
For anyone thinking of switching, here are some thoughts.
First, you'll hear all about arch. It's lovely, it really is. But, if you like the "just work" nature of OSX back in the day, look at Ubuntu proper or Ubuntu-gnome (if you don't like Unity). I'm sure people will chime in here with others that they have thoughts on here, though in my experience, Ubuntu is the best at this game and it's not even close. Yes, it has problems too (let's not start the nitpicking thing, I'm making a general statement), but it is by far the best stable linux desktop. Fedora is acceptable, particularly of late, but it /still/ is behind Ubuntu.
Second, with Ubuntu/Debian, stick with whatever is in the archive or PPA. Everything else isn't worth the pain. Perhaps Snaps can improve this problem, though I'm sceptical. Linuxbrew and other such things will not be worth the problems they bring.
Third, use a stable UI. Don't go with Pantheon, Mate, Cinnamon, Elementary or something else like that. Again, it's not worth the pain. I personally don't like KDE though it would qualify as "stable" along with Unity, Gnome-Shell and XFCE. I prefer Gnome-shell and Unity so that is what I use.
Lastly, things will be worse in some ways from OSX, and much better in others.
If the advise looks pretty straight forward, it is. Stick with the known working, well supported projects as your base, tinker in customisation to suite, and don't go with lesser known/supported projects if you only really care about something "just working".
Of course to everything. Doesn't mean any of what I said isn't true or spot on the mark. Everything I said still holds and because people have bias, it's even more important we talk facts and why's. It's never black and white, but understanding context and why sure helps us navigate the gray.
And, to answer directly, yes, I can imagine things that would make me trust Trump. I can also imagine things that he would do that would further erode trust. Yes to both those with Obama (as it played out over the 8 years he was in office).
I honestly don't know what we are arguing anymore. This thread started with the TPP I guess? I don't know.
Of course one can like an outcome and still think the person enacting it was wrong (not dislike the person, that was your phrasing). There's even a pithy little statement about that: the ends don't justify the means. One can literally love an outcome and hate how it was brought about.
And in the case of leadership at the highest level, I for damn sure want to know the motivation behind some (or all) decisions. The decision, lacking context (or Why), is almost worthless to understand what is happening. In isolation any decision could be fine, or it could be the signal for a future unmitigated disaster.
We hammer this point home in the business world all the time. Context matters.
Great leaders understand this and deal first with 'why' then with 'what'. Bad leaders always deal with 'what' before 'why', or maybe never giving a 'why'.
And it's not about the liking or disliking a person. Ever. It's about the context that surrounds a person and asking yourself if you can trust them.
We cannot trust Trump. He has given us enough data points to know this. I want to know the 'why' on the TPP as a datapoint. It could either give me more trust in Trump, or less.
But, at a human level, if you are asking me if I dislike Trump? I don't care. I don't trust him. And I don't trust him because he has given me enough to go. And that is what matters.