The best security: be honest and place complete trust in those you employ. Hire people you trust. If there is nothing that is blocking you, then morale is higher, and people get more focused on what is important. If there is nothing to break into, there is less temptation. Your employees won't be perfect, but if they are trusted, if you let things be, there's a good chance everything will be fine- at least as fine as it would have otherwise.
54% chance to have made money if you bet on any of these exclusively from IPO. That's a good reason to diversify over everything, or better yet, wait and then go with the ones who've increased investor value over the past two years. Investment in individual stocks, especially startups, is significantly risky otherwise. It's good that some gamble enough to support on an individual basis though- without them putting their necks out on the line, very few would be in this list.
> Tobacco and Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like cannabis.
To state this in another way- think of all of the Budweiser/Bud Light sponsorships and commercials and replace that Bud with the other kind of bud. That's about the scale and usage to expect, at the very least, if cannabis were to be completely legal everywhere alcohol is.
And all of the abuse, drunk driving, etc? Increase that somewhat. They won't be able to control all of it with treatment and education any more than they have with alcohol. Also, imagine the level of drinking at work even in the 1940's and 50's after alcohol prohibition was lifted.
Aside from cannabis, think of all of the other drugs that could be abused. Yes, drug violence, etc. will go down, but there is a tradeoff.
I'm curious- what do you think of Fedora? It's in the top 5 distros along with OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, and Mint, and yet I hardly ever hear people talk about it.
I had personally given up on Fedora years ago, but recently was told I should give it a second look and I've not had time to try it out.
> It isn't his fault the managers were being unreasonable in the timeline, and the company grossly over-manufactured the cartridges.
Yes, the real problem is that they expected something comparable in quality to his previous games with less time to develop it. He did agree to it, though. Watch "Atari: Game Over" and you'll be able to tell from interviews with him that he held a lot of guilt about it- for years.
The fact is that he was one of the best game developers in history that accepted a job that he couldn't do without making sacrifices that killed the game. He shouldn't take credit for killing Atari though. They ended up being split focused on computers (that did fairly well but were competing against giants) and consoles. And they messed up by releasing both the 5200, which was a bomb partially due to its controllers, and the 7800, which came too late. Even if Atari had done everything right, it would have been really difficult to compete with Nintendo.
I still love Atari, though. The NES was great, but the 2600, for its time, was the best thing that ever happened in the home gaming industry. It was the first proof that a home gaming console could be a staple to a first-world kid's life.
Good to know it is just this organization having the awful ideas. ;)
Btw- I've worked with some great Dutch developers and am in awe of all of the talent there from the things I've seen over the years. The language isn't bad either. :) Just saying it's a mutt language like English, but mutts are good things. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness.
So true. And since you've gone the intellectual route, I'll choose the emotional one:
I propose the Dutch don't like English because their language is also bastardization of different languages. As a defensive mechanism, they're picking on English to distract everyone from their soddy language. :) Sure, the writer's English, but he had to pander to the locals.
Quote from nzakas who suggested the move: "It's not just that the GitHub experience is suboptimal, it's that it aggressively undermines development. There's just no way we can keep up with the pace of issues anymore, especially when most of them lack enough information to be useful. The tooling isn't good enough for the onslaught we receive."
If they can't keep up with the pace of issues, that's not GitHub's problem. Sure, GitHub could help make the experience better, but it isn't the problem. That said, I feel for them. It's tough to have a popular project.
Protons are said to be massless, but a proton may have mass that is so small that we cannot measure it easily. We can't currently say with 100% certainty that it is massless- only that it is at most very, very small: < 1×10−18 eV/c2
> Force carrying particles in general don't have mass.
Massless particles don't have energy. Massless and energyless particles have no speed. I have no interest in massless and energyless particles that stand still.
Have been on board with this idea for some time, but, that said, here's some criticism of the specifics:
> Is there existing software that could be used instead?
Agree, up to a point. Very few OTS/SAAS solutions are practical financially and customized, and if they are (as in a company that adds those crazy features you want to their SAAS app)- watch out! Those companies products will end up hitting a wall eventually because they will have coded themselves into a corner. Note: this actually because the company you are using didn't use the 0.1x engineer philosophy.
> Let’s not build/deploy that development tool.
Maybe. But it depends. How often is human error affecting your process in a very time-consuming way? You wouldn't say CI is a bad thing would you? What about using an IDE when you've got developers or a development language that best lends itself to an IDE? You would buy that IDE right (unless you're really, really cash-strapped- compare it to the cost of a few days of your developer's time)?
> Let’s not adopt this new technology.
Maybe. How about instead- let's adopt what are solid winners technology-wise that will help us attract new talent and develop features more quickly. And when we do that, we first do in small pieces that are independent to prove it out, then eventually we commit to using it as much as it makes sense so that we don't end up with 3 tech stacks to maintain in ten years.
> Can we achieve the same thing with a technology that the team is already using and familiar with? “The best tool for the job” is a very dangerous phrase.
Sure, mostly. But don't get a shitty open-source IDE instead of paying $600 for a good one, or force developers that use UI tools to use vim because you're too darn cheap either, even if it would do the job. On the other hand, I agree- don't just buy things. Really let your dev teams hash it out and choose appropriate tools- don't dictate anything without getting feedback and adequate buy-in when it comes to tools.
> Let’s not automate this.
Again- what about CI and scripts that can help make developers work consistently, more productively, more efficiently overall, and with fewer errors?
Sure- if you are a one-man team, you might not need continuous deployment yet, but please don't sit there and have devs pulling oars in your wooden sea vessel as the hovercrafts speed past you in the race.
