This is what I wanted to say too. If your backend team is incapable of rapidly adding new endpoints for you, they probably are going to create a crappy graphql experience and not solve those problems either. So many frontend engineers on here saying that graphql solves the problem they had with backend engineers not being responsive or slow, but that is an org problem, not a technology problem.
At TableCheck, our frontend engineers started raising backend PRs for simple API stuff. If you use a framework like Rails, once you have the initial API structure sketched out, 80% of enhancements can be done by backend novices.
Yup. And the solution to that org problem is for the front engineers to slow down, and help out the "backend" engineers. The complexity issues faced by the back-end are only getting worse with time, the proper solution is not adding more complexity to the situation, but paying down the technical debt in your organization.
If your front-end engineers end up twiddling their thumbs (no bugs/hotfixes), perhaps there is time (and manpower) to try to design and build a "new" system that can cater to the new(er) needs.
GraphQL is the quintessential move fast and break things technology, I have worked in orgs and know other people who have done so in other orgs where getting time from other teams is really painful. It is usually caused by extreme pressure to deliver things.
What ends up happening is the clients doing work arounds to backend problems which creates even more technical debt
The sun also emits in the visible wavelengths. Your eyes do not feel pain from bright lights due to the heat or similar. It's a response to brightness, in the visible spectrum. Without the visible component, there's no pain. With unhappy optical circumstances it could cook the retina because the pupil is dilated and there's no instinctive response to look away. Not sure how plausible those circumstances are. But I sure wouldn't put a 10 watt IR LED source right up to my eyeball.
Also I didn’t need to study every night in a month. There’s a handful of stretches where I need to grind but it’s was sporadic. Certainly not something I want to manage a monthly payment for.
Also, in a college students mind, your value comp is a Netflix subscription.
$1 a night (as suggested by sibling) or even $3 a night would have been an instant sell.
it's shocking apple gets a pass on this. Not only for anti-trust reasons (it's giving Internet Explorer), but also that this is starting to remind me of all of the junk/bad settings packaged on Windows PCs eons ago.
Honestly, in some ways, a clean windows install feels like it less junk on it than a fresh Mac install. Maybe soon people will be building custom MacOS install media like folks did in the XP days, to trim the fat and make the default settings non-insane.
Another example of this is Pages, which INSISTS on being the default CSV viewer, no matter how much I check the "use this application in the future box." My only alternative is to uninstall it completely.
To your last example: checking the “Always Open With” box in the right click > Open With menu only changes the default application for that one file. To change the default for all files of that type, you have to open the info panel with command+i, and under “Open With” click “Change All…” (Or, I use the command-line tool duti.)
> a clean windows install feels like it less junk on it than a fresh Mac install.
If you have the choice between windows and mac, go with Fedora.
I imagine you arent trying to run any specific software, so go with something that is 10/10 in quality rather than a 6/10 user experience, 10/10 profit maximization.
I specify Fedora because Debian-family linux sends people back to Windows.
In my experience, they're lifted from people's hands while walking, taken out of back pockets, out of lockers, from the window sill at bars/restaurants, etc.
I guess that information will also be be useful, when weighing "X% less likely that your phone is taken when your wallet is taken from your gym locker" against "Y% more likely that a mugging turns into a maiming".
Nice, I didn't catch that one: Let's say that phone snatch&grab is just an easy entry point for people driven to bottom-end crime, and their current snatch&grab is suddenly no longer paying off, but the most immediate barrier to that can be gotten past, if only they step up to getting the phones in muggings.
if the idea that high taxes disincentivizes people from building stuff, california would be a wasteland.
but that's not what we see. people build because they still have a chance a making a lot of money.
also, like canada can build successfully tech companies. yes, I realize there should be more canadian tech darlings, but I don't think it has to do with high taxes so much as it has to do with Canadians being comfortable and not feeling the need to sacrifice everything to try and build the biggest thing.
If you look at Canada's most successful tech companies, the founders usually sell and enjoy a more comfortable existence.
Taxs on investors are quite high in Ontario/Canada compared to California. Not only does this minimize the outcome for the investor - it decreases the risk for making larger bets on big outcomes. In terms of exits -- you have a smaller playing field and fewer buyers being based in Canada vs USA. All the things add up to make a smaller opportunity for investors and builders and you work harder to pay more taxes to the government.
In terms for your ambition argument -- that could be an inherent problem in Canadian culture that no one wants to change the status quo - it is definitely a different culture than SV. The largest city is captured by financial industry for the most part which doesn't bode well for innovation.
I think it has much more to do with investors' sentiments. Canadian entrepreneurs are not comfortable; that's why they move to the US. But that's not because they don't like Canada. Moving is a big sacrifice -- they move away from their home and community, and also deal with the headache and uncertainty of US immigration. The ones I talk to who have moved down south, they miss Canada and didn't want to leave, but they didn't feel like they'd be able to afford the cost of living in Canada, and didn't think they could launch a successful startup there.
And the cost of living is going up, which is going to make even more talented Canadians uncomfortable. These days if you ever hope to own a house, you basically can't go the stable 9-to-5 route.
If investors in Canada were throwing hundreds of millions into moonshot startups the way that they do in Silicon Valley, probably most Canadian entrepreneurs would build those companies at home. But the investment landscape is such that the investors who have that much money opt to lever up on real estate instead.
The point was about high taxes for investors not employees.
How many money does OpenAI _directly_ pay to CA in taxes? Sure the employees pay a ton in taxes but as an investor if you're going to lose more in taxes by investing into a Canadian company vs a California company then you invest into CA.
California benefits from a dominant market position. If you have the choice to found where the investors and the talent are, why would you pick Canada when the tax is the same?
There's nothing wrong with doing business. But current business culture is not in a (morally) good state, and your average businessperson is not very interested in making the world better if it plays against their personal ambitions. And being answerable to investors (who almost by nature are focused on shortish term returns to the near-exclusion of all else) only exacerbates that.
The distinction between business and capital is pretty blurred right now, and it shouldn't be. Operating a charity that delivers donated food to orphaned victims of war is a business in the broad sense of the word, and there are many things that go into operating it well, including things like management and finance. Those things do not, inherently, have to be in the pursuit of capital growth; there are many humanistic ends they can be directed to. But in our world as it stands they usually aren't - they're directed towards capital growth and that fact corrupts them like it corrupts everything else.
Or, put another way, there is a difference between "making enough money to run a sustainable business" and "making all the money it is possible to make". Many large businesses run reasonably substantial profit margins, and every dollar of profit a business makes is a dollar it could afford not to make in the pursuit of more humanistic ends if it so chose.
There's nothing wrong with doing business. But current business culture is not in a (morally) good state, and your average businessperson is not very interested in making the world better if it plays against their personal ambitions. And being answerable to investors (who almost by nature are focused on shortish term returns to the near-exclusion of all else) only exacerbates that.
Just as people should specialize, institutions should too.
We should not have this whole movement to jawbone companies into being “nice.” All we are going to get is a creepy facsimile. See, e.g. greenwashing.
Instead we should understand that profit maximizing firms operating in competition with each other is an incredibly powerful but one dimensional tool. We in our sovereign capacity should set the incentives and rules such that those tools are used to accomplish the things we collectively desire to see in the world.
Incentives and rules (with enforcement) are reliable and durable. A “better businessperson” is just transient luck.
Incentives and rules (with enforcement) are reliable and durable.
I wish this were true. But a largish slice of the US polity (headed by one of the two credible candidates for President) is dead against these things and attacks any sort of institutional infrastructure or notion of accountability whenever it's politically expedient to do so. In a less obvious way, that movement is also dedicated to the dismantlement of the administrative state - ostensibly in the name of returning legislative power and accountability to the Congress, pragmatically because it adheres to a vision of commercial activity with far less legal restraint.
But a largish slice of the US polity (headed by one of the two credible candidates for President) is dead against …
The point is you have to convince these people. That’s the whole and only ballgame.
Trying to pressure companies into wearing skinsuits via external or internal pressure might be satisfying but it’s a waste of effort.
Convince one company not to work with UAE and another one will gladly take its place. Elect a President that takes human rights into account in foreign policy and now you might get somewhere.
But to do that you have to actually go talk to people that disagree with you. Not just post preaching to the choir posts about how terrible those other guys are.
People (including me) have been trying that for years; but dialog only works if both parties approach it in good faith. When you have a political movement that leans heavily on orthodoxy and loyalty, and whose response to repeatedly losing elections is to simply insist they're rigged and the results are invalid (absent any credible evidence) discussions based on mutually agreeable priors and conventional logic are not fruitful.
The prevailing orthodoxy in this group is that losing elections or court cases is a priori evidence of fraud, violent action to overturn negative outcomes is often permissible, and that this right is reserved for future negative outcomes. They're not willing to be convinced, and loudly advertise their belief that it's OK to impose their point of view on others by force. I mean, if you're dealing with someone who avers that you should be fed into a woodchipper, it's not wise to put one arm in pursuit of a compromise.
I agree with that, but I don't think it's too controversial to say that those checks are not working very well right now. Changing the nature of regulatory capture isn't in my power. Starting a company and trying not to be crappy is.
the issue is as soon as you enable the power for some to set incentives and rules to see certain outcomes, it gets taken over by the rich entrenched status quo that is easily able to use the tools of modern propaganda to drown out any true grassroots opinion, and see to it that their horse is the one to win the race. It almost takes a total reset event like a gigantic war to shake up the economic status quo but even then, what forms in the dust is almost naturally these oligarchs like stardust accumulating into black holes after the big bang.
How can you separate capital from human interest when the majority of people on earth spend the majority of their time in pursuit of it? Less people starve today than ever in the past, and that is because we have more capital, not because we are more charitable than back then. Charity is not any less corrupt, it is just more emotionally appealing because of the illusion of selflessness and a whole lot less effective.
You say "your average businessperson is not very interested in making the world better if it plays against their personal ambitions." But I claim that it's not your average businessperson it's your average person with business people just being a subset of that.
And that's not even getting into the problem of how does anybody really know how to make the world a better place. In my experience people with a "just doing my job" attitude make much better bosses than those who act like they have a higher purpose.
I agree with you that this is not unique to businesspeople, although I suspect it's probably disproportionately represented there - both because business is attracted to people pursuing self-interest ruthlessly and because it often presents excellent conditions for tilting people towards self-interest even if not naturally inclined to it. But I would also make a distinction between what a business does and what businesspeople are. It's not hard to build incentive structures that turn good people towards bad ends.
I tend to think, for example, that your average Boeing engineer probably wanted to do a good job and not have doors fall off their planes. But when you put multiple layers of abstraction in the way and have leaders looking through business metrics, it isn't hard for everyday crappiness to maneuver its way to the point where that isn't prioritized. Almost no one in the chain really thinks they're sacrificing safety, they think they're doing their job and improving efficiency by cutting redundant steps.
> In my experience people with a "just doing my job" attitude make much better bosses than those who act like they have a higher purpose.
Sure, because there's a difference between a performative "mission", a self-obsessed founder who makes their own success a story about the future of Earth, and someone who makes concretely difficult decisions when the chips are down.
This is kind of what I mean by the corruptive effects of growth. Having a mission is a good thing, but most companies' "missions" are implicitly always secondary to their financial growth, or worse, a cynical ploy for employee engagement. When people write crappy press releases about how "this will enable us to serve more of our users" (read: expand our market), that's not a statement about how serving users is bad, it's just that for most businesses it's necessarily with an asterisk of "we want to serve our users* *as long as it pleases our investors".
Do the majority spend their time in pursuit of money because they want to or because the rent is so damn high? Because it’s what we’re educated to do? I don’t mean academic education either. I mean Main Street social norms where there’s no longer being friends with neighbors. But they’ll mow your lawn for money if you’re ever too busy (had that exact conversation with a neighbor recently; we aren’t going to be friends/friendly but will serve you for $).
reply