What's worse is that they didn't just make a decision. They reversed their previous statement that universities were using as guidance up until this point.
> For your Mac to become infected, you would need to torrent a compromised installer and then dismiss a series of warnings from Apple in order to run it
The people getting infected are the people that are knowingly bypassing all of the security measures Apple put in place to protect the uneducated users.
Those measures (and bypass methods) can be improved to more loudly tell the user of what could happen, and the risks associated though. Them being there doesn't mean they can't be improved. A ton of these malware types have come out long after these messages were (possibly arbitrarily) designed and written. I've heard of changes with Windows Defender in this respect (to more accurately reflect current threats like ransomware) but I haven't heard of Apple doing anything similar.
I just moved from Chicago to San Francisco last weekend and can definitely relate. I had such anxiety as I was locked inside watching the few months where it's enjoyable to be outside pass by. Even without the pandemic, I always felt such a need to go non-stop all summer because I knew the warm days were limited and it got exhausting. There are a number of things that I am going to miss about Chicago, but I really appreciate the fact that I'll be able to enjoy outdoor activities here year-round.
You seem to be incorrectly applying this article as advice on self development and then making an argument against that.
The author isn't suggesting that this is the way to achieve true happiness. They are suggesting that this is a good strategy to become the best at something, regardless of why you want to be the best at it (financial benefit, personal fulfillment, etc.).
> More so, what happens if industry trends shift and it turns out you specialized on the 'wrong' thing
What's the alternative to this? Remain mediocre at a number of skills just in case one of them go out of style? If you want to be the best at something, specialize in that thing but keep a pulse on the direction the field is moving and adapt as needed. The world's best mainframe developer probably won't immediately be the world's best PC developer upon switching, but they will be far from starting from square one.
That last line depends. There's a lot more to the environment, team, management structure, business goals, financing, and much more that would place them effectively at square one.
I agree with your other points. But as an example, I worked previously with some 20+ year executives with huge products... 15 years before the market I was working with them in. So, it's great they knew a lot about launching product in 2005. But I need expertise for 2020. If their ideas cost more than a more modern, more efficient method, I don't need to have to teach them the method uphill against their stubbornness to stick to what they know. This issue played a role in me releasing an entire sales team two months into my role. I don't care that they had the most experienced people. The debate about what they knew and where the company was going was driving up costs and lowering productivity for other teams.
> You seem to be incorrectly applying this article as advice on self development and then making an argument against that.
From the article:
> In our personal lives, it would help to focus on being that person in the community who could be depended on for a particular task/skillset required for a task. [...] Focussing will ensure that you are not distracted and the increases likelihood of you doing a good job.
I think the whole article is supposed to be more general life advice, not just career advice.
> They are suggesting that this is a good strategy to become the best at something
If this is the case then the advice is absolutely trivial. More so, it doesn't address the question of what it means to be the 'best' at something.
Yes, it's life advice, but no assertion is made that this advice should be applied by everyone. It's more "If you want to do X, here is some advice" not "You should do X".
I don't think it's possible to define "best" for everything. Being the best tennis player and being the best cook involve optimizing for two completely different objectives. What's more, you can define what best means to you and work towards that. The author's opinion on what best means is irrelevant IMO.
Maybe the advice is trivial, but it provoked me to reflect on how I am using my skills. I am going to keep this in mind as I choose how to spend my time. In hindsight it's obvious, but I still think it's a constructive article.
I know it's early so you're building for the largest initial audience, but a Firefox extension would be great. I would be even more happy if there was just a website I could use.
I used Google Music for years and switched to Spotify about a year ago. The difference in music discovery is like night and day. Every week, Spotify gives me a new list of music I've never heard where I tend to favorite ~30% of them. Google Music just played the same songs over and over. It was work for me to actually find new music.
That said I still pay for it to get rid of YouTube ads.
It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way where they aren't collecting data on users to show them. They have to pay the bills somehow.
Having other sources of revenue outside of a benefactor whose interesting in you relies on having a relevance in the browser market with them also actively engaged in implicitly or explicitly undermining that with a product of their own doesn't seem like too bad of an idea.
The day Google stops paying mozilla and mozilla close shop, they will get the same treatment Google itself set up in courts against Microsoft for IE6. It's pretty much protection money for their past selfs.
Google doesn't actually need Mozilla to increase their search market share. When Mozilla switched to Yahoo in the U.S., many users switched back to Google [1], and those who care about privacy switch to things such as DuckDuckGo anyways.
Developing more than one revenue stream is likely to be a more resilient strategy than hoping that Google is happy to keep paying a competitor browser to stay in business
Ah, the no true microservices idea of webservice architecture. If the idea is that you code to a webservice interface and then providers implement that interface, well, you're going to end up with the same problem, but with different interfaces. If the client specifies the interface using GraphQL or the like, that moves the problem from the incompatible interface to incompatible data naming. And so on. You need global coordination to untangle a mess of interrelated services, or you need continual migration work to adapt from one team's implementation to another.
No matter what you call it, if something can trivially be killed off, was it providing any real value in the first place? Dependencies aren't just things satisfied by linkers.
The cloud and open source world, especially in the infrastructure space has moved incredibly fast in the past five years. It's certainly possible that an in house microservice can now be replaced with one of the latest AWS services or even some of the latest apache OSS + a few lines of yaml/config.
That doesn't mean it never provided value, just that there are now better alternatives.
> If they're hard to kill because there are a web of dependencies then I would argue they are doing microservices wrong.
I call this the "You're doing it wrong" Theory of Architectural Deficiency: anything that appears to be a fundamental architectural issue is actually just you being an idiot.
For examples, see every discussion about REST ever.
I think that’s kind of the rub with microservices, it is actually a successful architecture when the vast majority of teams are unable to do it correctly?
