As I write more code, use more software and read about rewrites...
The biggest gripe I have with a rewrite is... A lof of the time we rewrite for feature parity. Not the exact same thing. So you are kind ignoring/missing/forgetting all those edge cases and patches that were added along the way for so many niche or otherwise reasons.
This means broken software. Something which used to work before but not anymore. They'll have to encounter all of them again in the wild and fix it again.
Obviously if we are to rewrite an important piece of software like this, you'd emphasise more on all of these. But it's hard for me to comprehend whether it will be 100%.
But other than sqlite, think SDL. If it is to be rewritten. It's really hard for me to comprehend that it's negligible in effect. Am guessing horrible releases before it gets better. Users complaining for things that used work.
C is going to be there long after the next Rust is where my money is. And even if Rust is still present, there would be a new Rust then.
So why rewrite? Rewrites shouldn't be the default thinking no?
Linux has gotten pretty good lately. I wish it was better at running the game i want but other than that it's even better than macos in a lot of regards.
The entire podcast and youtube channel industry relies on contextual ads right?
Havent almost everyone including MKBHD said youtube ads doesnt give them enough to be used as the only revenue.
Contextual ads are more effective. You type shoes, you get shoes ads. It doesnt first need the shoe data and then later show shoe ads after you started searching for socks. And with no middlemen,more profitable. Duckduckgo employs this IIRC.
Behavioural ads are easy cos you are setting up an api. Contextual ads would mean you need a worthy product and having to handle your ad folks yourself. You cannot buy a domain and immediately start showing ads.
Behavioural ads breakeven because they sell your data. Not ads.
The whole reason why new media outlets moved to subscription model is bizarre to me. They could've just started doing it old school and it would have made news open and more privacy friendly.
In-video sponsors are a form of contextual ad but ads inserted by YouTube are personalized (that doesn't mean context is not also a factor).
Channels like MKBHD (and LTT) need more revenue than what they get from YouTube ads because their expenses have greatly increased, particularly staff.
You can't automate contextual ads in news media, otherwise you get airline ads next to stories about airplane crashes. Or travel ads for places experiencing natural disasters or political upheaval. People pairing ads with stories increases the labor costs and there's already not enough money being paid for actual journalism to increase the cost of having ads.
This is an interesting point you make. But didn't we solve all of these context issues already? I don't remember getting any ads like his in Duckduckgo since I've started using it. Nor do for the ads we used to get when everybody used contextual ads.
The only issue is going to be that you will have to handle this when you implement ads for your website/app. And each of them will have to do it.
Of course e.g. MKBHD wants more ad revenue. To do so his only option is to put additional contextual ads as part of the video itself, so he does. MKBHD has no way to make a section of the video target individual viewers based on their history. YouTube does, so they do - because they know it makes them more money to do it that way.
Yes. It makes more money for the middle-man. Neither the advertisers nor user gets enough value.
There are so many articles on why your FB or Google ads are not doing well. They show ads the way THEY can make money. Not value for you. This is theh same going when you use adwords.
The ad blockers are for behavioural ads. The api end-points which tracks you through tabs, listens to what you are saying through your phone's microphone.
Not contextual ads which you will setup for just your website / app. They are just <img> tags or equivalent. The entire reason why people use ad-blockers are because it is bad UX, anti-privacy and just sheer garbage amount of data gathering. Use a website with and without ad-blockers. You will see the difference. With middlemen comes problems for users.
CoC should facilitate free speech and thought without the worry of repurcussions. But in reality it is now a tool to say "I don't like you/your thoughts, so here comes the hammer". I have seen some of the flimsiest excuses used to ban someone. But the same reason doesn't warrant ban on the people the admins like.
If you are actually right, then talk about in the open. Show restraint from name calling. Not everybody is out there with a hidden agenda. Lobste.rs is a great example of this. No shadow banning. Everything has a reason and accountability.
Shoutout to people like JT from the BSD Now podcast as well. I am a fan of his moderation on the Telegram channel. Atleast as far as I have witnessed, I have seen some of the controversial topics going on and on but not banned for difference of opinions. A lot of de-escalation and patience. It would've been so easy for him to just do some Hammering. But that's not how it goes most of the time.
Completely bogus argument. The core of the issue is that non-technical topics were brought into technical environments, creating heaps of drama, and then the concept of code of conduct was created to try and stir that drama.
It’s basically addressing the symptoms rather than curing the disease: if you want to do foss, you have to accept you might be collaborating with somebody whose ideas are completely antithetical to yours. Any other approach is not free, and is not open.
> Completely bogus argument. The core of the issue is that non-technical topics were brought into technical environments, creating heaps of drama, and then the concept of code of conduct was created to try and stir that drama.
Yes. Looks like I didn't clarify my point in the main post. I don't think CoC is helping anyone. It is better to be without it.
I was talking about how CoC's was being applied at present and how it was first introduced. If you've been around since at least early 2000s with flamewars, then you know why CoC came about. It was not a pretty sight. A lot of communities were like 4chan. Unfiltered and with people getting banned when nobody is backing down from an argument. I wasn't rallying for CoC to be made better. But I understand where it came from at the same time.
I've been on the Internet when flamewars were common, and CoC weren't a thing yet.
CoC (along with committees) are a very recent thing. They weren't introduced until certain people started exercising moral blackmail onto projects, people and organizations by pushing political topics into technical discussions.
Back in the days of flamewars there were a few rules and pretty much just moderators to enforce them.
Rules were simple, you were usually banned if your messages were either not civil (and here again, the bar was high), if your contributions were comically off-topic or if you spammed the forum/newsgroup/mailing list.
What free speech do you expect in a free software project? There is a big chance that discussion is totally off topic and anyone managing a community knows that, for you to not be allowed to destroy it, you should be booted.
Free speech as in right to opinion without worrying about being silenced. Dead simple. On merit. It's not off-topic all the time. Right now, moderation is unfair and used to silence people.
And it's not just OSS projects you know? There are OSS related communities like Linux / BSD and many many other projects/communities. CoC unfairness is all over there too.
Its not the OSS nature. Any product from scratch will be expensive to start with and reduce in price eventually. There is a reason why Tesla didn't start with Model Y first.
Underspeccing is specific to mobile industry. But I agree with you here. Going for premium specs is a better way to start. But they'll have to pick a specs that works for them the company and can reach maximum people. So I also acknowledge that it's tough.
