- this is very likely a side project. Conclusion made by the fact that the author was writing, re-writing and re-writing again the project because of a new 'cool framework' that came out. They were taking their time to do that and doing it repeatedly for years. Proving that releasing the project was not their first concern, nor making money out of it judging from the fact this was not designed to make money but merely having a github sponsor button. Author's main concern seems to having been to just have with it and learning was likely a bigger factor.
- it didn't need funding to startup, as it seems like the only costs were the operating costs which were likely just a server on vercel
Also, to answer your question more thoroughly
- usually people that make projects like these have a main job, which funds in one way or another their side-projects.
- A million $ is a very unusually big capital. Side projects are very unlikely to need such big amount of funding just to start-up. People just throw a small capital if needed at all, and if the project self-funds itself, maybe they'll throw the money back.
Technology will open up new jobs.
But I don't expect employed drivers to suddenly become data scientists.
Its a fallacy we constantly use as an argument when we talk about technology taking people's jobs.
Low specialty professions have been in my view a great way to have people employed, people who may be less fortunate, unspecialized or even students. Now that such professions start getting absorbed by tech, I don't know how those people are supposed to get by.
I can see how somebody would argue 6hay this has occurred before, but for example replacing horses with cars just made postpone jump to learning how to drive. They didn't have to "specialize for 4 years" and become computer scientists. Now this is a bolder issue imo. But my perspective can be argued
Complexity without ease of use costs. S3 kind of forces you to use those features. If all you wanted was just a public/private access, you're forced to read into the complexity of S3's complex permission system.
So, to be fair, yes it costs to not use features you do not need in this case.
You literally pay by the hour to use S3, and you also pay the hours you spend trying to understand the permissions and modify settings, so it literally costs to not use the features you do not need in this case. I'm trying to make an argument, I'm not saying you pay much, but I answered your question, and you do pay, either by time, or money.
Not really. In order to set bucket request metrics not only you need to explicitly set your bucket to be open to the world but you also need to dig down the options to explicitly enable them along with a metrics filter of what objects you cover.
Object versioning is disabled by default and you need to go way out of your way to enable them at a specific level.
You also need to go way out of your way to set another object storage class.
None of these features are enabled by default. You need to turn them on and configure to start using them.
ive been working for a company for 3 years and i had great behavior, respected the people around me, they hired me from the consultant company because they liked me so much they wanted to take me because i had already done so much for that company that usually employees don't take the initiative to do (performance fixes nobody asked or tickets for performance that were abandoned because the developer just got bored of it, then being congratulated for fixing the performance, making new projects inside the company and them realizing my new potentials and making new tools and services etc.)
Then I got fired on the spot for just talking a little more angrier at the manager because they put me on a task that nobody communicated to me they wanted in 1 month, and then when I realized after the leader was compaining that they wanted the task in 1 month I was like "do you realize you placed me in a project I dont know, the devs themselves don't know some answers I'm asking for the project, i have to implement a whole driver for getting API signals etc." you get the point. The leader asked me to put me in a project he did not even code in ever, and he thought it was gonna take 1 month and took 4-5 months and when I realized that he thought that I contested. To the point that the first manager agreed with me that "yeah it's not a 1 month task." and he was one of the best programmers in the company and was just a manager now. Like the first manager on the line agreed with me but on a 1-1 meeting, so his voice was not heard to the leader.
So I contacted the second manager on the line to have a conversation with the leadership about this task and that I had these concerns, and after realizing he agrees with the leader despite him not even remotely knowing what we were doing, I was kinda pissed off not gonna lie. It was the first time I actually just kinda exploded to him which diplomatically ngl is bad move ... but i was angry because I've pissed blood for this task, coz "the leader wanted it in 1 month" and I did unfortunately work days and hours just because I felt like it out of pressure, and I thought that I DIDN'T want to be fired for this stupid task taking "longer than the leader thought should take" despite him not even having direct experience on the project or the Data Aggregator API they placed me to get data from.
But was I fired because of MY mistake? No. I was fired, on the spot, without notice, after working for 3 years and doing so many things for that company, coz I made somebody angry.
And please believe me when I say that when I told this same manager "hey this other guy (not the leader) treated me with disrespect" he just said "yeah you know how he is we all know, he is just this way". Like what the hell? So, I'm so bad you're gonna fire me on the spot for making you angry just so you can powertrip, but he's "just the way he is"?
You guys get my point. You can get fired, without it being your actual fault. Yes, you may have some responsibility, as I had to be more diplomatic but I'm a human too. I can be angry about some things too some times. But I didn't fire anybody on the spot for making them angry.
I'm not claiming Sam's case is the same. But I do claim that just because you're fired, doesn't mean you're on the wrong. It seems like a cliche point to make that "you were fired thus it was your mistake". Things are just not that simple sometimes. You may be fired just because you pissed off somebody and he couldn't keep his feelings inside and powertripped without second thinking, like the board of directors did when they fired Sam without a proper discussion with all the individuals first and making sure it's the right decision.
because people like the developers within the company did not like that decision and its also within their right to disagree with the board's decision and not to want to work under a different leadership. They're not slaves, they're employees who rented their time for a specific purpose under a specific leader.
As it's within the board's rights to hire or fire people like Sam or the developers.
no but the people like the developers, clients, government etc. have also the right to exercise their revolt against decisions they don't like as well. don't you think?
like, you get me, the board of directors is not the only actual power within a company, and that was proven by the whole scandal of Sam being discarded/fired that was made by the developers themselves. they also have the right to exercise their right to just not work at this company without the leader they may had liked.
Right. I really should have said employees and investors. Even if OpenAI somehow had no regard for its investors, they still need their employees to accomplish their mission. And funding to pay those employees.
The board seemed to have the confidence of none of the groups they needed confidence from.
you don't have responsibility for washing yourself before going to a mass transport vehicle full of people. it's within your rights not to do that and be the smelliest person in the bus.
does it mean it's right or professional?
getting your point, but i hope you get the point i make as well, that just because you have no responsibility for something doesn't mean you're right or not unethical for doing or not doing that thing. so i feel like you're losing the point a little.
Getting your point, although the fact that something is within your rights, may or may not mean certainly that it's also a proper thing to do ... ?
Like, nobody is going to arrest you for spitting on the street especially if you're an old grandpa.
Nobody is going to arrest you for saying nasty things about somebody's mom.
You get my point, to some boundary both are kinda within somebody's rights, although can be suable or can be reported for misbehaving. But that's the keypoint, misbehavior.
Just because something is within your rights doesn't mean you're not misbehaving or not acting in an immature way.
To be clear, Im not denying or agreeing that the board of directors acted in an immature way. I'm just arguing against the claim that was made within your text that just because someone is acting within their rights that it's also a "right" thing to do necessary, while that is not the case always.
Strike you say? That's like, as Louis Rossmann on his yt channel wisely said, "I am so angry, so infuriated that you're abusing me, that ..... I WILL... leave for 3 days and then come back for the rest of my life".
Like it's literally like saying "hey I need you in my life". Do you know what message that sends? What would you think if your customers would say "hey Im not gonna come for 3 days but I'm coming for the rest of the year" ? Would you give a damn?
Reddit is a commodity. Admittedly a great one. Used to be at least. We'll create another one or they'll fix themselves, but they won't unless they know you're not going to use them unless they fix themselves.
No strike is successful unless you actually make them understand that they can't live without you or that ••AT LEAST* that you're doing your part.
Like, is reddit scared of me deleting my account? I think it doesn't give a damn. Is reddit gonna give a damn if another 100k accounts start getting deleted along with mine? At least they're gonna start noticing. And at least I can say that I've done my part.
Ive deleted my reddit account and I'm done with Reddit. Until they fix themselves and realize that acting that greedy and immaturely with lies about conversations that never happened between the Apollo programmer and /u/spez are not gonna pass. At least not from me, i'm fairly disgusted by the Reddit leadership.
I use to be a reddit power user, but my relationship with the platform has been extremely casual (less than 5 hours/yr) for the last 10 years. Even after all this time, Reddit could win me back as a power user if the platform was better.
The two parties here are the public, and the corporations owning social networking sites.
You're not sending a message to Reddit, true enough... but it does send a VERY strong message to the rest of the tech bros and their investors that Reddit f*cked up, bad, if their numbers crash.
> "I am so angry, so infuriated that you're abusing me, that ..... I WILL... leave for 3 days and then come back for the rest of my life".
"for the rest of my life" is a big assumption. This strike could/should be the first in a series of escalating strikes. If parties truly seek change, and not just punishment, it is tactically unwise for one's first response to be maximum retaliation.
I'll be doing the strike, and possibly an extended strike. Then I'll briefly return to see where the communities I follow are migrating to. After that I'll have no more need for reddit since most of the communities I follow are tech related and will almost certainly be looking for a new home should the behavior at the top continue.
Many of us are quitting Reddit for good on June 30 when Apollo and the other third-party apps are killed. This week's strike is just a warning shot across Reddit's bow.
Okay, do you have numbers for that? (honest question)
Most "statistics" I have seen were done via a reddit survey, which 3rd party apps can't do due to API-limitations. So all the users sying "yes I use a 3rd party app" did so either via their mobile or workstation browser (where you have to auth again) which is a hassle most people (me included) are not willing to take for some random reddit survey.
They pretty much force you to use the app if you are on mobile (nag screens at best). Maybe there are ways to get around that but your average andy won’t bother
There is a ton of information I need to make sure I have saved, so I might not be out by June 30th, but I can’t see myself using Reddit remotely like I do through Apollo. Mobile apps made Reddit for me when the primary reason I hadn’t made an account till 2013 was because I thought even the old website was bad.
Alien Blue, BaconReader, Narwhal, and then eventually Apollo. All of them great apps, and that was Reddit for me.
I'm inclined to believe this considering how toxic of a place it has become. If that didn't drive them away I don't see how losing some 3rd party "enhancements" are going to break the bank for them.
I will definitely not use it on mobile anymore. I was already using it very casually, because even the alternative apps are very clunky. If I had to use an even worse app, or god-forbid a mobile browser I would just stop.
FWIW, Many of the participating subs are going dark indefinitely. And the real APIcalypse will happen in a couple of weeks, when people actually using third party apps literally can’t anymore.
I agree with you at heart, but that's like saying the head of a hospital or the head union guy dictate what the experience of being in a hospital or shop floor are like.
That is absolutely true, but in the interest of making money the owners will replace them in a heartbeat. Sure, the vibe will change, some existing users will move on, but there are always, always new users to hook.
Reddit are not even paying these mods pennies, they couldn't care less about them and getting rid of them to find ones who are more "compliant".
EDIT: Redditor for 14 years 99,665 post karma
97,633 comment karma
Mods are like air traffic controllers. If you know their name, they probably fucked up badly. I suspect we'll know the names of many more mods if Reddit goes ahead with replacing them en-mass.
I'd hate to be so aware of the mods that I remember their names. As much as they deserve gratitude and praise it's supposed to be transparent.
I only knew one name, once, because the other mod showed him the finger and started another sub. I followed the drama, agreed he was a dick and moved to the new sub.
PS: actually, I remember heroofwar and pinko from HQGifs because they're part of the meta jokes of the sub.
But sometimes sites do die. Digg is a big example of this. It started with the top users like MrBabyMan posting against the site and then it quickly snowballed taking the whole site with it.
Doesn't always happens but it can happen and we can still hope.
That Louis Rossman quote is really great actually. I feels to me like a lot of people see very popular platform services "suddenly and unexpectedly" turning around and start changing things in ways that are very unpopular, but I don't see it very common for people (on reddit at least) to point out the common characteristic between them, that they're almost always startups with investors to answer to, is the reason that they end up making unpopular changes. It really does feel a little bit like an abusive relationship that it keeps happening and yet people keep using these investor-backed startup platforms that initially offer deals that are too good to be true.
- this is very likely a side project. Conclusion made by the fact that the author was writing, re-writing and re-writing again the project because of a new 'cool framework' that came out. They were taking their time to do that and doing it repeatedly for years. Proving that releasing the project was not their first concern, nor making money out of it judging from the fact this was not designed to make money but merely having a github sponsor button. Author's main concern seems to having been to just have with it and learning was likely a bigger factor.
- it didn't need funding to startup, as it seems like the only costs were the operating costs which were likely just a server on vercel
Also, to answer your question more thoroughly
- usually people that make projects like these have a main job, which funds in one way or another their side-projects.
- A million $ is a very unusually big capital. Side projects are very unlikely to need such big amount of funding just to start-up. People just throw a small capital if needed at all, and if the project self-funds itself, maybe they'll throw the money back.
reply