But many countries have anti-trust regulations that take effect once competition is reduced to a certain level.
If a company like Uber can be divided into multiple Ubers that have to compete with each other, then the over-investment by venture capitalists can still be turned into a societal win.
> why wouldn’t one of seven employees at the company want to know about how the business is doing?
If the early-stage employees have significant equity in the company, then they'll be very interested in how the company is doing. If their upside is paycheck, bonus and equity proportional to their salary (as you'd find in an established company), then one employer is as good as another.
I think the question of how much information to share is heavily dependent on how loyal the employees are to the company, and loyalty is almost entirely a matter of how much equity they hold (and more specifically how much equity they hold relative to the founders.)
You'd never get to the end state you describe if people are uncomfortable recommending the software because of the name. Word-of-mouth fails when the literal word is something you won't say.
They should change the name; it's difficult to understand why the maintainers are so attached to something so self-defeating.
Sometimes it means "trans-Atlantic", an accent which Buckley, Burns, and many pre-1950 movie stars spoke with (while on-screen anyway). It falls somewhere between the accents found in the USA and accents found in the UK.
In the context of this thread, I think it means the mid-Atlantic states in the US. It's close to the American "television news accent".
EDITED TO ADD: It's worth noting that the two accents called "mid-Atlantic" sound very different.
Less density doesn't imply less housing, especially when empty land is cheap, as it typically is in the USA. You just use more space.
I hate cars, and I hate how expensive housing is, but as far as I can tell, housing is even more expensive in places (in the USA anyway) where cars are less necessary.
> ...but the recovery system is exactly what they need to build first.
I can't find the reference, but consistent with that, I remember reading someplace that the number of items in your queue should typically be zero, since queues can't actually make the rest of the system any faster. All they can really do is buffer temporary bursts, or buffer while the rest of the system recovers. And for that you'll definitely need your recovery system working as a prerequisite.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't expect this to be a a "hill to die on" at all.
If this professor is unconnected to the sanctioned Tornado Cash service, then Github shouldn't have to worry about running afoul of the sanctions by hosting the code.
> Pete concentrated on building a system [in COBOL] that works for him and his clients.
If that system isn't replaced before Pete retires, it turns into a significant hidden risk.
You don't know how dependent on something you are until you try to replace it with something else. If hype is driving the replacement, so be it. An organization can make replacement a regular practice and get good at it; or it can find out when it unexpectedly becomes necessary.
What's wrong with fad and hype driven development? It may be better to replace software regularly than to find yourself or your organization dependent on something ossified in place.
In the long run it might be better to treat software as "fast fashion" rather than something meant to last forever.
The people handling the emergencies should get paid considerably more than developers - when they system is down, the real, actual, company-sustaining money stops coming in.
> If money is speech, then is it free if it has no privacy?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it follows that every financial transaction is a 1st amendment issue, just because spending money to promote a message is protected.
Even if it were built perfectly, if engineers are still on-call, they would have to arrange their after-hours time around the possibility of an incident.
Engineers can run what they build during normal working hours.
Oncall is a scourge not because of the experience of technical problems, but because people already working full time have to arrange their lives outside of work around a second "oncall job". A job which occurs after hours, one out of every X weeks.
A dedicated, pure "Ops" night shift (perhaps in another time zone) would be more humane.
As many of the other posts point out, helicopter parenting happened. Instead of forming a bicycle gang with other kids in the neighborhood and rarely even encountering adults, now kids are dragged to structured activities by their parents. They have to be dragged by their parents because if they were sent on their own, most would find something more fun to do on the way and skip their training lessons. This is orthogonal to whether people live in cities or suburbs.
> Speeds in residential areas are high, so dangerous to play in the streets.
Speeds on trunk roads are ridiculous, but the streets with the actual houses on them are not the nightmare you describe.
Growing up in a midwest suburb during the 1980s, not only were we not trapped in our own homes, we were almost never in them at all.
Everybody just biked from place to place and spent like 18 hours a day outside of the house, playing basketball, duplicating cassette tapes and making music in various garages.
If a company like Uber can be divided into multiple Ubers that have to compete with each other, then the over-investment by venture capitalists can still be turned into a societal win.