As someone who has spent a good deal of time playing poker, I totally agree that this is a glaring editorial oversight.
Yet when phrased this way, it reminds me of "I'd rather be lucky than good" - something I've heard players say when criticized after winning in spite of poor play.
Sometimes this is sarcasm, but sometimes not.
There are in fact some folks who approach poker with a sort of chaos or joker mentality, and many who gain great satisfaction from winning by knowingly playing against and defying the odds - especially when the statistical aberrance is at the expense of another player who played the "right" way and lost all their money as a result.
For others, I think the saying is just a recognition of the supreme influence of variance in a poker player's lifetime success, a tacit admission that knowledge and skill alone are never enough.
I found it quite simple to install RabbitMQ server and its admin panel in my WSL local dev environment.
And the cloud/prod instance took a few clicks (just spun up a DO Marketplace server image) followed by < five minutes of RabbitMQ user and firewall configuration.
It was also dead simple to start using RabbitMQ within my application. I found a well maintained package, installed it, edited a couple lines of my application's config, and everything just worked.
I specifically avoided Redis based on my understanding that it can't guarantee message persistence, so if it crashes, your unprocessed messages are lost.
The article didn't mention the lack of version control, which AFAIK is impractical due to the sheer amount of HTML and layout-defining configuration WP stores in the db.
In spite of WP's revision history feature on Posts and other models, I've always found this to be a major issue on WP sites.
Obviously there are numerous other problems with WP, that's just one I didn't see the author touch on.
I try to talk clients out of WP whenever possible, and most let me build using a proper MVC framework.
I like to think I'm making the Internet a little better, one not-another-WordPress-site at a time.
“What we want to do is to become the operating system for the open web. We want every website, whether it’s e-commerce or anything to be powered by WordPress."
DoH doesn't bring any privacy or censorship circumvention, it still allows ISPs to mine and monetize browsing history all they want, only creating temporary inconvenience. It lets more parties to get your data though and is more friendly to state mass surveillance.
Try to search DoH on HN, these issues were discussed many times before. Essentially DoH leaks more data to more third parties, without being able to withhold that data from those who already can get it, hence violating privacy, not improving it.
The only thing I disagree with is the lack of a web client.
It just seems like you could save a ton of work by starting with the web client, then create desktop versions via something like todesktop.com.
Then you're spending less time on updates - it's just one desktop version, and the iOS + Android versions are just consuming data from your API anyway.
> Code is free and open source, but 98% don't have the time/the knowledge/the will to self host
The vast majority of people who use GSuite won't understand or care about the OSS angle. Even if they do, they won't have the sophistication to examine your code. Thus, they must simply "trust" you, the same way they'd trust a corporation like Google.
People who really care about OSS are more likely to choose a more established solution for each use case (ie. Nextcloud for storage), and to self-host those solutions.
> will happily be us to manage and secure their data (like DropBox)
Again, if your edge over Dropbox is "we're open source!", I think this is just not compelling to most potential users who still want someone else hosting/managing their files. In that case, the open source transparency doesn't even mean anything, because the code in your repo isn't necessarily the code you're running on your servers.
In my case, I don't trust Dropbox, but I want their infrastructure. So I use a third-party encryption tool to ensure that they don't have access to folders I want to keep private. Best of both worlds.
Yet when phrased this way, it reminds me of "I'd rather be lucky than good" - something I've heard players say when criticized after winning in spite of poor play.
Sometimes this is sarcasm, but sometimes not.
There are in fact some folks who approach poker with a sort of chaos or joker mentality, and many who gain great satisfaction from winning by knowingly playing against and defying the odds - especially when the statistical aberrance is at the expense of another player who played the "right" way and lost all their money as a result.
For others, I think the saying is just a recognition of the supreme influence of variance in a poker player's lifetime success, a tacit admission that knowledge and skill alone are never enough.