What is a lead developer in this context? An engineering manager? Is it like an architect (staff engineer/whatever)? An engineer who is in charge of a specific project?
There are different dynamics at play in each role and reading the guy's bio I'm getting the sense that he is a freelancer? or has a consulting company? which would have a whole different dynamic.
The lead developer is the person assigned to the lead developer role. I know it's cheeky but it really could be anyone. It's usually at least a senior-level individual contributor (IC). It's not uncommon for it to be a manager (that hopefully used to be an IC).
The lead's authority also tends to be varied in scope. They could be the lead of the feature, project, repo, team, initiative, or org. Depending on the context, their hierarchy might not always be the same.
So really, a lead is someone that is in or uses leadership within their scope and with others in the same position. Alternatively referred to as "politics".
In this context, they're handing the politics of development issues with the goal of getting features done.
In the aerospace world, it's called a "systems engineer."
The lead:
1: Understands the whole system, but not necessarily every detail.
2: Plans the whole project.
Edit:
Sometimes in the software world, the title is "architect."
This is rarely the "manager," except in organizations that have a hard-on for hierarchy and artificial promotion for "career advancement." Managers are usually concerned with people, schedules, and resources; but don't go very deep into technical issues.
That being said, the lead/manager may fill in for each other when one is on vacation, sick, quits, ect.
The goal remains the same - AGI is what we see in sci-fi movies. An infallible human like intelligence that has access to infinite knowledge, can navigate it without fail and is capable of performing any digital action a human can.
What changed is how we measure progress. This is common in the tech world - some times your KPIs become their own goal, and you must design new KPIs.
Obviously NLP was not a good enough predictor of progress towards AGI and we must find a better metric.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Yes, if you're truly exceptional, you can get in the US. You can also get into any other country in the world. And the Trump administration doesn't seem to be interested in changing that.
But only a tiny sliver of what you would consider successful, skilled people can qualify for O-1. To my original point: if you're "merely" hard-working and good at something, you - as a general rule - have no lawful pathway to immigrate to the US.
Here's another way to look at it: let's say that in any country, roughly 10% of people fall into the category of "talented and hard-working" - not superstars, but the kind of people who would conceptually enrich the economy. Worldwide, that's probably what, 400 million adults? Further, let's say that about 10% would be interested in living in the US. And before all the EU folks sneer at that: that's probably a big underestimate, because a good chunk of the world is living in places with a much lower standard of living. So that's 40 million who probably want to come. And the total number of employment visas is ~100k/year. We aim for the global top <0.1%.
A country can only take so much people a year. There must be adequate employment, housing, education, health services and other infrastructure to support more people.
This is especially true for immigration that is not tied to employment.
If you can choose to only take the top, which America mostly could as it is the most desired immigration country in the world, you would prioritize the top.
If there's a limited amount of spots, why won't you prioritize the superstars over just talented and hard working?
So the top 0.1% of the total population, that's likely a good deal (on top of the employment oriented visa which have less of a strain on the economy).
> There must be adequate employment, housing, education, health services and other infrastructure to support more people.
The same logic applies in reverse: there must be sufficient people to create adequate employment, housing, education, health services, and other infrastructure.
Have you considered that a lot of the people wanting to immigrate are able to provide a lot of those things? (P.S. I wonder why ICE keeps targeting construction crews lately -- and is it possible allowing more immigration might actually help us get more housing? Food for thought.)
I don't get the hate here. This is practically a public service and Deno doesn't have any direct or obvious material gains from this. Definitely not more then dozens of other projects (from Chrome to Node.js to Tutorial sites and any company offering something with JS)
So what if they are a VC backed company? If you perform a public service, it's fair to ask the public for money.
No one is suggesting this money would go to fund their product.
It looks more like they aren't getting the adoption that they need, so they go after theater like this, instead of giving us reasons why we should talk IT into allowing Deno in our OS images instead of Node.js.
Who cares if it is JavaScript, ECMAScript, JScript, WhateverScript.
That drama could happen in any ecosystem where developers shoot from the hip adding dependencies without second thought, the same that thought curl | sudo sh is a good idea to start with.
To be that guy: you’re objecting to someone’s subjective phrasing while also using your own subjective phrasing.
Language is malleable and messy, and I find it doesn’t help discourse if you attack the surface reading of a comment. I don’t think OP is “accusing of hate”, I think they’re expressing surprise that such negative sentiments exist to a sensible issue. I agree, as do you it seems.
(And yes, in writing this I asked myself if I’m reacting to your terminology or the intent behind the words. I hope it’s the latter)
The sad reality that you had to tell your stance by saying that you donated in this context otherwise people would've considered you an (anti deno?) in this lawsuit...
I think our actions speak louder than words.
Yes, I think we shouldn't spread hate speech and everyone has their own biases.
We should all preferably write comments in good faith hoping to learn something new from the others point of view.
So this was a fresh breath of view as in that I feel like this might be the best way of not literally accusing others but at the same time, I feel like that there might be some malicious actors or people not acting in completely good faith that can be indirectly supported by not accusing anyone y'know?
If somebody is bringing their personal VC sucks vendetta (I hate VC but I mean I can stand behind donations if they are transparent etc.) into a discussion, its not entirely good faith and shouldn't be accused at a (somewhat?) rate.
I think that the situation imo is that deno might have some good people but it would still be better if it wasn't deno suing them but rather some other preferably non profit which we could donate to that can sue it instead.
I want Deno to succeed. They already have enough challenges between bun and Node taking all of their good ideas and incorporating them. I want the ecosystem to have more options.
This is Oracle we are talking about here. I would cut off my nose to spite Oracle’s face if necessary, they are some of the worst corporate actors in the history of the world. And that is not an exaggeration.
I also desperately want deno to succeed cause it’s just the best way to work with typescript. I have a strong personal interest in working with deno instead of node in the future.
At my company a lot of internal stuff is built with deno. Nothing mission critical but lots of utilities and stuff. But new services are still node, which is basically fine cause all of the complex config is handled already. But all of that complexity still leaks through (whoops can’t use this package because jest can’t find it!)
> they are some of the worst corporate actors in the history of the world. And that is not an exaggeration.
I think that’s an exaggeration. The bar is pretty high (low). The history of the world has The East India Company, The Dutch East India Company, other companies transporting and selling slaves, the various companies that helped carry out The Holocaust, companies directly involved in other genocides, companies directly benefiting from and helping to enforce apartheid, companies pushing opioids, cigarette companies, mining companies etc…
The nightmares of east india company can't be understated.
I can talk to even indian kids, Heck we learnt about east india company in 6th grade so like 10-11 years old & they can tell how they really really exploited india with their indigo plantations etc.
I have nothing against britishers but the fact that they kind of never really paid or literally anyone paid for the amount of exploitation that was carried is absolutely wild, and seem to glorify it from what I see is absolutely ridiculous.
Really shows you that the winners of wars write histories as I can't see how people just shrug off this as if eh yeah it happened ,when lets say the same couldn't be compared to lets say the nazi invasion of poland lets say y'know?
Just as how germany has almost learnt from its nazi history / remembering the pains to not do them again, yet from what I know, britain seems to have glorified it.
Literally millions died due to churchill in the bengal famine. Yet he's celebrated as a war hero which I can understand but why do I feel like critizing that millions of people died because of some guy who did wrong is gonna get me downvotes or get resentment, surely we can all agree that churchill was wrong in that context
I really feel as if the world is a large hypocritical machine.
Yeah, and I don't see how this necessarily helps Deno succeed? It may turn into a painful money sink.. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why Deno should go and do this now that they should be focused on their product
Nobody forced them into this, they poked the bear thinking it will get them an easy win and good publicity, and are now slowly falling into the abyss.
You're wasting your money. I honestly can't believe the number of people here thinking this is anything but a marketing stunt gone too far. We just had a series of major packages being infected with malware, how about putting $200k towards solving that?
Now that, if successful, would bring real immense benefits to all JS users.
Litigation is not just 'file and forget'. Deno, or any other organisation, needs to contribute in time and effort for several years. In my opinion, "media attention / clout" is a fair compensation.
Sure they benefit, but so do a lot of other people. Sound fair to ask everyone else to pitch in. Deno have already bankrolled this themselves for a while.
Indeed. I once had a former friend say something to the effect of "I wish there were a candidate who had a healthy balance of libertarian values and compassion". I asked him how he reconciles those to diametrically-opposed concepts and he grumbled and we're no longer friends.
I somehow suspect that the reason you aren't friends any more is because you as much as said he lacks compassion. If I had a friend who said that about me, and then refused to apologize for insulting me in that way, I don't know if I would stay friends with them either. It's especially ironic that you are acting in a very uncompassionate way here, while accusing others of not having compassion.
And why would anyone do something good for someone else without an ulterior motive? Do you think people donate to charity because they are good or because they want to seem good? I met people IRL who acted "nice" except they were also aware they were being perceived as "nice" and explicitly called themselves "nice," wouldn't you agree this is hypocritical?
I'm not going to argue that feeling good is an "ulterior" motive, but it can be a malicious one. People can convince themselves, with varying degree of consciousness, that what they are doing is good, and ignorantly feel good about doing that, whereas for other parties what the person did can be the opposite, bad.
Does it matter? If people are kind and generous for the sake of recognition, the positive effects of their actions are just as real.
Not to mention that wanting approval and recognition is not really “ulterior”. It’s a natural human desire. The people to watch out for are those who claim not to want it.
What an absolutely tragic worldview you have... There's no doubt that there are disingenuous people (let alone complete grifters). But the fact that you can't conceive of anyone doing anything good just for the sake of it - let alone making genuine self-sacrifices, which happens ALL the time - is utterly shameful.
Moreover, if you are properly-aligned in life, whats good for others/the world is ALSO good for you. Even those who make genuine self-sacrifices would say so - at the very least, NOT having done it would be the real, unbearable, sacrifice.
I really hope you'll reflect deeply on this, and perhaps that it even haunts you - even if just out of pure self-centeredness, since the only people who you would ever have in your life with a mentality like this would necessarily be completely self-centered as well.
I am only making conclusions based on what I see, and I comment hoping people can tell me how I am wrong. I am still trying to figure this out, but all evidence points to what I said.
People never "do good" "just for the sake of it" - there is always a reason, whether or not the person realizes it. The reason could be, e.g., as I said, the desire to seem good, some kind of religious belief, etc. Ultimately, it is never "just for the sake of it"
I am also disappointed, and I don't know what to do with this, but I am not willing to become some kind of ignorant, delusional lunatic.
Everyone's life experiences and the way we process them are different, which builds our understanding of the world around us in very unique ways. It's not unimaginable for someone to have a worldview as GP's.
Instead of labeling or patronizing them, a bit of tact and compassion go a long way. Otherwise you're just confirming what they're predisposed to think.
You seem to be implying that it is bad because it is marketing, and marketing is bad. But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy[1]. In this case, Deno can both improve perception of their brand and reclaim "JavaScript" -- it's a win-win.
It is literally association fallacy. And it is bad because it doesn't lead to a good discussion. Instead of actually talking about whether Deno is doing a good thing, the only way I can respond to "Nah, all forms of marketing are bad." is by saying "no they aren't", which won't change either of our minds and isn't a particularly interesting discussion.
You seem to be saying that Deno reclaiming JavaScript is a bad thing? Why?
>Letting people know you have a product is marketing
Google Summer of Code is bad. I don't want a trillion dollar monopoly influencing FOSS.
Sponsoring the Linux Foundation can be bad, depending on who does it. Individual people with their donations?
Releasing libraries as Open Source is not bad. But if you release them as a corporate behemoth, who employs the people who work of them, and have them assign copyright claims for their contribitions to your corporate entity, it is worse than a community drive FOSS project.
Google SoC gives legitimacy to working of OSS to equal terms of having a paid internship. Many of the projects probably don't even meet your description of FOSS.
The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it.
Most OSS suffers from a lack of maintainers with time as they rarely are paid and can't make a living from working on it. Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. Most popular "community" projects are held together by an assortment of company backed developers.
FOSS barely existed in 2005 compared to what it is today. Communities rarely stay the same as they grow larger, but that doesn't mean they are worse. Change is inevitable.
>FOSS barely existed in 2005 compared to what it is today.
On the contrary: it barely exists today.
FOSS in (roughly speaking) 2005 and before was about a larger vision and a community. Not about mere access to code with specific licenses, or how many trillion dollar companies are depending on it.
>Communities rarely stay the same as they grow larger, but that doesn't mean they are worse. .
I'm not speaking about how communities in change in abstract (in which case doesn't mean necessarily for the worse). I'm speaking about what specific FOSS communities have had happened to them, and which I, and others, do find worse.
I think you misread the comment you're replying to as "I think their chances are good", rather than "I think it speaks well of their character". The latter was how I read it, and I believe the intended meaning.
It's PR. First the petition and now this fundraiser. Sorry but it feels more like a stunt than anything sincere otherwise they would front the money. They certainly have the funds for it.
Getting into a legal battle with oracle would be an incredibly expensive PR effort, especially as they filed and started the process without donations.
$200k is absolutely not going to come close to covering their legal fees possibly in any scenario but definitely if Oracle tries to drag out the process.
Yes. Ryan Dahl has openly said this. It isn't a "gotcha" nor is it something they're hiding.
Tweet from Ryan Dahl:
> I can justify spending money on it because it does get Deno's name out there - blog posts posted to http://deno.com, etc - but without support it's pretty likely our legal bills will dwarf whatever that marketing is worth
The gotcha is them forcing the communities hand here without working with said community. It's despicable business practice and them admitting that it's mainly for show is even worse.
Everyone in here jumping to the conclusion that if you say something against the PR shit deno has done. To instantly sucking off Oracle and burning JavaScript flags in the garden. They literally brought it on to themselves and now they want you to pay for it. It's "the last chance" because they made it the last chance. That should be thing discussed in here. A company abusing their reach (60k for the petition) pretending to be guarding the community (millions) while forcing it's hand and also extorting it for money.
Yeah, it's hard for this to feel like a community endeavor when it's a single company deciding to act on behalf of the community while never taking input or building a consensus around the issue with said community.
Hard to not be cynical about the whole thing, especially when it's a private VC backed company doing this and not say the OpenJS Foundation.
The only possibly related topic that could qualify as a public service would be abolishing trademark. As it is I'd much rather get paid for having to put up with hearing about the damn language.
Isn't that exactly what they're doing here? My understanding is Deno is asking the courts to invalidate Oracle's JavaScript trademark, making it a generic term in the public domain. They are not asking for the mark to be re-assigned to Deno.
Does it matter? When I say deno, you think of the software product deno, produced by deno. Just like when I say coca cola, you think of the specific drink produced by the coca cola company. What I say escalator, you don't think of that specific company's products, but of the staircase conveyor. When I say javascript, do you think of any oracle product? No! So why should users of javascript live in fear of a lawsuite from oracle?
Oh it very much matters. Folks are questioning the legitimacy of this endeavour. It’d be total hypocracy for them to be freeing JavaScript from Oracle and stating trademarks are bad and then to be maintaining similar themselves.
Why do they need to ask for money from the public if they are VC-backed?
Assuming that the Deno Land Inc. company would benefit from protection from Oracle's trademark
As a member of the public I see no "material gains" from "freeing Javascript from Oracle"
But I may be biased. I do not use Javascript and avoid others' use of it as best I can. I use a different object-oriented, garbage-collected scripting language with C-like syntax that is faster than JS, and faster than Lua (not LuaJIT)
> So what if they are a VC backed company? If you perform a public service
VCs have no public service - it’s an oxymoron.
Hence the “hate” though I think cynicism is the more appropriate term
The reality of finance driven organizations is that no matter what, anything that looks like public good will eventually -if not immediately- be used to capture value on behalf of capital to control
> If you perform a public service, it's fair to ask the public for money.
I think the order here is reversed: If you ask the public for money, it's fair to perform a public service. If you just do something you wanted to do anyways, and probably would have done anyways, then it might be viewed as less-than-charitable to ask others for money to help you achieve your goal for yourself (even if other people might benefit somewhat too). Especially when you are far richer (like 100+ times richer) than the people you're asking for money.
As a volunteer organizer for a weekly meetup that helps local entrepreneurs, I and my team have never "asked the public for money". Occasionally we have private companies that like what we do and throw some money our way for coffee. It turns out that passion and effort from volunteers and attendees and other members of the startup community are the critical parts of the meetup, and money is not.
So, that gets me wondering what could be done with those $200k besides pay people to get agreement on one particular word being free-er to use. For example, that would fund coffee and breakfast for the meetup for hundreds of years, perhaps even forever. Or fund plenty of other charitable causes with a direct positive impact on people.
> I think the order here is reversed: If you ask the public for money, it's fair to perform a public service. If you just do something you wanted to do anyways, and probably would have done anyways, then it might be viewed as less-than-charitable to ask others for money to help you achieve your goal for yourself (even if other people might benefit somewhat too).
I don't think it's reversed.
I coach a high school robotics team (volunteer, unpaid) and last season I went into my pocket for an unknown amount of money, but was not less than $5K and probably closer to $7K.
I'm clearly going to do it anyway; is it wrong for me to go out and seek sponsorships for the team so I don't have to dig quite as deep into my own pocket?
I don't think it's even the tiniest bit wrong nor in any way less-than-charitable.
>I think the order here is reversed: If you ask the public for money, it's fair to perform a public service. If you just do something you wanted to do anyways, and probably would have done anyways, then it might be viewed as less-than-charitable to ask others for money to help you achieve your goal for yourself (even if other people might benefit somewhat too). Especially when you are far richer (like 100+ times richer) than the people you're asking for money.
I get the where you're coming from, but it's this exact attitude that ends up with critical infra like OpenSSL being maintained ad hoc by some devoted geek for a pittance, who inevitably can't keep up with critical patches.
If the $200k were going towards such a geek, or towards maintaining code that everyone uses, that'd be better.
As it stands, the money is going to lawyers, who will argue over the right to utter the word "javascript" in a commercial context (rather than, say, "JS"). So zero coding or maintenance.
You're assuming that arguing in court over being allowed to use 1 specific word in a commercial context is a good thing to spend $200,000 on at all, which is quite an assumption, regardless of who does the arguing.
I agree with you that it'd be better if Deno took your suggestion, and spent the money on a Programming Geek, rather than being distracted from their core mission for trivial, semantic matters. The latter is how we actually end up with critical infra like OpenSSL being maintained ad hoc by some devoted geek for a pittance, who inevitably can't keep up with critical patches.
I mean, I'll be the first to admit that I've argued about a word on the internet before, but at no point did it ever cross my mind that I should spend $200,000 doing so.
You have just convinced me to stop using the word J8t. It is not worth even $1 to me to be able to use that word. If Oracle wants to claim ownership, that claim can just be added to the legacy of Oracle. It's a bit stupid to be legally forced to stop using the word, but such is the nature of any discussion involving Oracle.
How about Deno put up $10,000 to sponsor a renaming contest? In honor of Deno, I propose VajaScript.
They don't have the right to do this. Oracle safeguards the JavaScript trademark against abuse with it's powerful legal teams and has a track record of good stewardship. These guys want to hijack their property and let it loose to the wild west. Who knows what unethical actors will do with it..
In my Bizarro world, that is a good thing. Not doing things includes:
* Not monetizing
* Not advertising
* No agendas
* No lawsuits
* No enforcement (other than annoying organizations with C&D letters and then retracting them)
I agree that Oracle has been a perfectly fine trademark holder in all of these regards in that they are entirely irrelevant to JavaScript and have been for as long as I can remember.
The point here is that them not doing those things would be codified. Deno's not trying to take the trademark from them for themselves, they're trying to get the USPTO to agree that JavaScript is a generic term at this point and unable to be trademarked or owned by any one entity.
I'm not sure how that changes any of the bullet points you've got above. It's nice that points 4 and 5 would become completely impossible and not just improbable because the trademark owner currently doesn't care enough to do it.
If they are not using the trademark for anything, at least by US law, I think they do not get to keep it. The point of trademarks is to promote the production of public good, and if they are not in use they are not producing public good, but will consume public resources, like people dealing with C&D letter or the current time and effort from the government on deno's filings.
Most people just call the language "JS" cause Oracle doesn't own that trademark. That's why you wouldn't be able to have a JavascriptConf but we do have JSConf. This is a long-winded way of saying that we already know what people would do with the freedom to speak the name of the language and it's nothing worth fearmongering over...
It's for the courts to determine who had what rights, but it's Oracle that is credibly accused of greatly exceeding the rights given them under the law
I can't imagine any scenario that justifies an out-of-the blue demand of $50k within a week or your data is deleted. The only way this isn't an awful thing to inflict on a teen education nonprofit is if there have been conversations happening that weren't disclosed in the post - conversations that would have illuminated this possibility.
Although frankly this is a good lesson for a bunch of young hackers to learn.
Not saying this is the case, or that slack thinks it is, but -
If slack found out that the company isn't really a non-profit, or that it violated the requirements in the non-profit agreement (such as promoting discrimination) it would justify a demand for immediate payment in my opinion.
I don't know about Mac, but windows had WPF, winforms, UWP - all blessed by microsoft (I'm sure I'm missing a few), and often maintained at the same time.
A huge amount of windows apps were built with Java, you had to install the JDK separately - one such thing that comes to mind is Minecraft, another is Jetbrains IDE.
Most of the major native apps you use most often, like browsers, render things directly using DirectX and similar, not to mention games which are made almost entirely in third-party engines that are far from Microsoft display frameworks.
(There are also 2-3 competitors to DirectX - such as Vulcan and OpenGL )
And of course there are quite a lot of popular apps that use other frameworks like QT
I concur that Windows has always been a mess, but at any given point, wasn’t one of those things the “prescribed way” of doings things? Like, I get that Win32 is never going away, and some of the ideas were busts.
The Java phase I think is more analogous to modern React Native and Electron apps.
They were newer. I don't know if they were prescribed.
It took a long time for newer frameworks to reach feature parity
and even longer to get deprecated.
Microsoft would routinely suggest both, I think there were articles in MSN showing how to do stuff with each side by side. Like programming language flavors.
Linux is even more of a mess I imagine. I think Mac, and especially iOS, were the odd ones out. The Apple ecosystem is built on making sure everyone does things their way. And that translates to having one blessed framework you must use.
I assume if you are running multiple SaaS you already discovered this - but the expectation is that you will amortize the cost of a chargeback into your price if you are a legit business.
Card-not-present (I.E. internet transaction) has a lot more merchant fraud then friendly fraud (what we call these cases) and the incentives for both merchants and banks is to make sure the customer never loses trust in the system.
If people were afraid to use their cards on the internet everyone loses.
It doesn't make sense for both the merchants and the banks to arbitrate every 10$ transaction. I doubt your case even reached a human, or if it did they even gave it a minute of thought - you are just someone who does not know the rules to them.
Now if a customer abuses the chargeback mechanism, he'll have is card revoked, probably be blacklisted and his life would be an insane amount of complicated from now on.
But you'll never see these cases. Be sure that if someone could abuse the chargeback mechanism to the extent you mentioned, the system would be unusable, the fact you get chargebacks only rarely is a testemant that there is policing going on at the bank side.
It's just not 100%. Like Patio11 says - the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero[1]
If you have a large chargeback (let's say 1000$ and more) you might actually get someone to review it, and there's a slight chance you'll win if the case is good. But the system is not geared for that.
It's geared towards you amortizing the cost of chargeback into your price - and eventually the people who pay it is always the customer, not the merchant.
I guess domains might not mean as much as they used to, but xyz? To me that's something you get for experiments and one-offs, not something you use for a serious enterprise you want to get people onboard for.
I honestly thought this was fake and not from stripe the first time I saw it. (I kinda still do with that domain.)
There are different dynamics at play in each role and reading the guy's bio I'm getting the sense that he is a freelancer? or has a consulting company? which would have a whole different dynamic.