I built a free app, https://multiborder.io, that lets you add borders to multiple images at a time. I simply use it when I post photography to Instagram, because Instagram prefers 4:5 for maximum viewability, but most of my photos are 2:3. This preserves the aspect ratio for vertical and landscape, and also is aesthetically pleasing (imo).
Electron. I think the hate is undeserved (at this point, they've come along way) and there are plenty of billion dollar companies running Electron apps.
It's the right mindset. Because code isn't the end, it's a means to an end. The end is "value". To your users. The quicker you give that to them, the better. Bugs here and there are absolutely part of the process. You are making an assumption that the least amount of bugs is "best" for your company.
It's important to consider the bigger picture here. Consider a scenario where you spend twice the amount of time delivering features, getting things perfect. Let's assume for the sake of it, that our users will "like" half the features we ship, and we'll throw out the rest. In this scenario, it's better to reduce quality to ship faster, because half of your features are going to be "thrown out" anyway.
This happens in the real world, albeit to a less extreme extent. But the point remains. That's why we have product teams that attempt to reduce the likelihood of a feature being tossed out and time being wasted. That's why we have QA teams to ensure development bugs are caught and we deliver both value and have robust systems in place.
As long as these aren't catastrophic, affects-all-users, brings-down-the-servers type of bugs, you're probably writing the optimal amount of bugs to balance the trade-off in value delivery.
If I could magic-wand my own company, I would 100% aim to hire folks who are extremely comfortable with written communication. Asynchronous, written communication is 1000% more productive than meetings imo, and makes the organization's knowledge indexable and permanent.
> With a search paradigm this wasn't an issue as much, because the answers were presented as "here's a bunch of websites that appear to deal with the question you asked". It was then up to the reader to decide which of those sites they wanted to visit, and therefore which viewpoints they got to see.
It is very similar. Google decides what to present to you on the front page. I'm sure there are metrics on how few people get past the front page. Heck, isn't this just Google Search's business model? Determining what you see (i.e. what is "true") via ads?
In much the same way that the Councils of Carthage chose to omit the acts of Paul and Thecla in the New Testament, all modern technology providers have some say in what is presented to the global information network, more or less manipulating what we all perceive to be true.
Recently advancements have just made this problem much more apparent to us. But look at history and see how few women priests there are in various Christian churches and you'll notice even a small omission can have broad impacts to society.
This is true of the feeds and everything else where there are abundant choices. Amazon putting its inhouse brands before others. Anything which has to be narrowed down is an algorithmic choice, either data driven or top-down.
