I wish there was an alternative to Kong API gateway where I didn't need to write my plugins in Lua (the go and js sdks seem abandoned and are incomplete).
Yup, here I was wondering why I already had it starred if this move only happened today, but then reached the same conclusion that it was probably a mirror repository before.
Actually the colors there are adjustable! You can click the cog icon in the circle of notes on the main page and change colors of each note individually - it will affect colors in most places all over the web-site. You can even make it black and white back again )
Pretty glad about it considering how much more simpler ASCII was to work with compared to Unicode.
I say it as a non native english speaker, programming has so many concepts and stuff already, its best not to make it more complex by adding a 101 different languages to account for.
Unicode and Timezone, the two things that try to bring more languages and cultures to be accounted for while programming and look what happens, it creates the most amount of pain for everyone including non native english programmers.
I dont want to write computer programs in my non-english native tongue, if that means i’ll have to start accounting for every major language while im programming.
Its fine that IT discussions are so English-centric. Diversity is more complexity, and no one owns the english language, its just a tool used by people to communicate, thanks to that universal language, I can express my thoughts to most people in India, China, Japan, South America, etc due to having 1 common language.
They all own the english language too, the moment they decided to speak in it.
Politics is just "how people think things should be". Therefore politics are everywhere not because people _bring_ them everywhere but because they arise from everything.
Your comment is in fact full of politics, down to your opinion that politics shouldn't be included in this discussion.
**
> thanks to that universal language, I can express my thoughts to most people in India, China, Japan, South America, etc due to having 1 common language
Personally my impression is that native speakers just run circles around everyone else during meetings and such. Being _truly_ comfortable in the language, mastering social cues, being able to confidently and fluently express complex ideas, mean that they effectively take over the room. In turn that means they will hold more power in the company, rise in rank more quickly, get paid more, etc.. There's an actual, significant consequence here.
Plus, anglos usually can't really speak another language, so since they don't realize how hard it is they tend to think their coworkers are idiots and will stick to do things with other anglos rather than include everyone.
> Diversity is more complexity
In a vacuum I agree, but within the context of your comment this is kinda saying "your existence makes my life too complex, please stop being different and join the fold"; and I can't agree with that sentiment.
You raise an interesting point about the nature of politics. I’ve been thinking about this a bit, but it seems to me that radical/revolutionary politics are talking about how people want things to be while quotidian political ideas are more about how people ought to do a few things. The distinction here being people’s timelines and depth of thought. If a policy has some seriously bad consequences, people may not notice because they weren’t really thinking of things should be, just the narrower thought of how a thing out to be done (think minimum wage driving automation rather than getting people a better standard of living, or immigration control driving police militarization). Of course, for most politicians, I am not sure either of these are correct. I think for politicians, politics is just the study of their own path to power; they likely don’t care much about whether it’s how things are done or how things ought to be so long as they are the ones with the power.
I don’t know that this comment really ads anything to the conversation, but I do find it all interesting.
Edit: also, on topic, languages are fun. The world is boring when everything is in one language. Languages also hold information in how they structure things, how speakers of that language view the world, and so on, and in those ways they are important contributors to diversity of thought.
> considering how much more simpler ASCII was to work with compared to Unicode.
And elemental algebra is more simple than differential calculus.
ASCII being simpler just means it is not adequate to represent innate complexity that human languages have. Unicode is not complex because of "diversity politics", whatever that means. It is because languages are complex.
The same story with time zones: they are as complex as time is.
> thanks to that universal language, I can express my thoughts to most people in India, China, Japan, South America, etc due to having 1 common language.
My lazy ass wishes that English is enough to access those communities too. There are many cool and interesting developers, projects and communities only or mostly working in their native languages. One of the major motivation for me to learn Chinese now is to access those communities.
I'm not sure why you characterise this as political.
I wish the "case" was a modifier like Italic, bold. It would have been easier to _not_ have separate ASCII codes for upper and lower-case letters in the first place. What are your thoughts on MS Word using different characters for opening and closing quotes?
GitLab offers a nice course about transitioning to remote work. One of the items in their guidelines about online meeting is not having hybrid meetings. This is, all those attending must attend from their own device rather than the meeting room one (see Jabra) precisely for the reasons this feature tries to address.
It does in ways you likely don't understand. At large enterprises with satellite offices, most of us don't want to sit at our desks and annoy our coworkers who are also in-office by taking calls at our desks. That leaves meeting rooms, which are at a premium.
Full single device for everyone would mean either everyone loudly shouting at their desks from within their noise canceling headphones or the company giving everyone an office with a door. As even Google doesn't do this for their employees, this is the next best thing we can do to save the sanity of our coworkers and respect remote colleagues dialing in by including them in a shared room meeting.
I sometimes work out of a WeWork here in Bangalore, and they have these tiny one-person soundproof cubicles for taking calls. All they have inside is a cushioned bench to sit on and a table large enough to hold a 15" laptop.
It's a great idea, IMO. You can fit 10-12 of these in the same space as a regular conference room. This solves exactly the problem you're describing.
> You can fit 10-12 of these in the same space as a regular conference room. This solves exactly the problem you're describing.
So it's kinda like sitting in a conference room, except you're talking to other people via a shitty audio quality with latency, random noise, talking over each other due to not seeing each other. You don't even have the benefit of a more ergonomic personal setup like more monitors. When people are in the office, let them do their meetings in person ...
If your entire team is in the same location, then you should certainly have your meetings in person. It'd be silly to force everyone to join a Meet/Zoom. I'm proposing a solution for situations when that's NOT the case (e.g everyone is fully remote or you have a hybrid team).
When you have a hybrid team, the office people can sit in a conference room (for which this Meet feature will be great) and the remote people will connect remotely ...
I worked for a large company with offices all over the globe where 95% of meetings were online. I worked there for several years and don't remember anyone ever complaining about the setup, even though we were in an open office.
Rules are meant to be broken. I've participated in many meetings where, for one reason or another, some participants couldn't join in person. Making it easier - for them and for us - is a technical challenge, and not something to be decided by an arbitrary rule.
Remote is extreme and is still not the norm. It is easier to baseline on things optimised for remote then relax than try to shoehorn in person into remote which is then doomed to fail.
I worked for a company that was headquartered in London and had satellite offices in Spain and Germany. After we all went remote during the pandemic the EU offices said they felt so much more engaged with the rest of the company because they were no longer disadvantaged by default for not being in HQ and in person bad habits were penalizing them
Its definitely doomed to fail if CEOs want you to think it's doomed.
Your comment is handwavy with words like "feel" and "bad habits". There are real issues with remote work, but there are also ways to mitigate the downsides of it. It's easier for some people to just dismiss the idea entirely and pretend that in-office work is the better alternative without any problems. I have definitely seen that happen in my company and here.
Yes - my response was to the rejection that rules are to be broken.
I have worked there fully remote jobs and the ones that did it best fully leaned into being remote.
There is no hard or fast rule, I've been in a team social where I was the only person remote and it still felt relatively natural. I've done a fully remote follow a recipe and cook at home session which was also pretty fun.
I've also been in places that do the bare minimum of what constitutes remote "oh we use Zoom and screenshare" and dictate to people where everyone is cam off. And the difference is night and day.
I think that a little bit of cargo culting wrt remote etiquette is probably a net good thing because I posit many people still don't know what good looks like.
Personally, it was an eye-opener for me to see what difference the personal contact makes. I now prefer companies which are in-person or hybrid (which doesn't optimize for remote).
It's optimizing for the lowest common denominator. When a majority of the team is present in office, it's silly to downgrade the experience for everyone.
You are right, but sometimes hybrid is just a reality. For us it would be an absolute game changer when you do not have to rush to find an empty meeting room or phone booith.
The meeting room (should) have a much higher quality mic than an attendee's laptop. You want that mic.
Worse, when attendees use their mic, someone in the room asks a question, which remote viewers cannot/do not hear, because it is not picked up by the mic on the laptop. Or they join and don't mute, resulting in feedback loops.
I do feel the need for Google's feature though: the pandemic has meant a reduction in offices, so now we're ending up in "co-working" spaces, which — despite this being the bread and butter of the business — have in my experience alarmingly poor quality meeting rooms. To the extent that those present have given up on them. Literally, we were in one with no cabling. We asked the company for a cable, and they gave us a DP cable, but the room was HDMI. In these situations, yeah, nobody is going to want to waste the time trying to deal with getting the coworking space provider to deliver a quality product, and features like the one here help make up the difference.
I have literally never worked in a place with coworkers who understand VC tech well enough to understand what you're suggesting and who are diligent enough to actually do that. Getting that level of cognizance, over the entire seated body of a conference room, for the entire meeting, is unicorn territory IME.
Allow me to say that if you can, please, go visit Bologna.
It's still one of the few places where tourism won't affect much your own experience.
I had the tremendous luck of studying there 25 years ago when you could still bump into Umberto Eco having a coffee at the Students' Bar, when walking via Zamboni agglutinated most of the university life.
I just got back from a vacation to Como, Bologna and Milan. All amazing, but Bologna was the star. We stayed half a block from the Duomo and it was truly spectacular. The food, the people, the architecture…the place literally feels magical.
Although I was already very familiar with jazz, I wasn't aware of Django and the Gypsy Swing / Swing Manouche.
One day, probably being 16, I discovered it and it changed my experience with music forever.
While my friends fantasized with motorcycles, I was dreaming to attend the Samois Sur Senne festival. This passion drove me to fly to Rome, Paris, Berlin, etc just to see Angelo Debarre or Rosenberg, to fanatically collect records that never made it to the digital era like Waso's, and what not.
For those that weren't exposed yet to it, please, let yourself be tempted. Allow Django's music touch you with its brutal delicacy and self-mocking irony.
Something similar happened to me. An artist I liked effusively praised Django Reinhardt in their CD liner notes. For a sheltered suburbanite, the words "Django Reinhardt" were more or less gobbledygook, so I had to figure out exactly who or what it meant and why it prompted one of my favorite guitarists to pen an ode of praise. All this sent me on a months-long quest to track down albums and information in a pre-search-engine flyover state about an obscure gypsy guitarist.
It wasn't till I was a year or so into knowing about Django Reinhardt that I learned he did it all with just two fingers on his left hand. It blew my mind.
I wonder if we've gained or lost something culturally by having the detailed discography and life story of every artist in our pockets.
We gained a lot! In fact, I think we are approaching the possible maximum (that maximum obviously being the nineties/early 2000 days of audiogalaxy, napster etc... when people shared pretty much any kind of music).
reply