5 ms·

It's relevant because it reflects their priorities and how they view developers. The giant banners say this: although these are technical docs you may need to

It's relevant because it reflects their priorities and how they view developers. The giant banners say this: although these are technical docs you may need to do your job, the most important thing you must see above all is an announcement of how morally pure we (think we) are. Once isn't enough. On our blog isn't enough. It must be the biggest and most eyecatching thing on literally every single page of our documentation. This indicates a lack of respect for the time and attention of devs. The implementation is also incompetent - the banner text appears to have leaked into search result snippets, thus reducing the utility of their docs search engine. When Steve Ballmer jumped around on stage yelling "developers! developers! developers!" he was ridiculed because the outburst of energy seemed absurd and out of place for a CEO. But many of us appreciated the sentiment - that if you're developing an operating system then developers matter and their time/attention matters. Ballmer knew that. Platforms aren't chicken/egg situations where it's unclear what comes first. Apps come first. Users come for the apps. Then more apps come to follow those early adopter users, but ultimately, there had to be some apps to kick things off. When the first thing you see at the top of the Fuschia docs is something totally unrelated to programming / the reason you were at that site, and which is irrelevant to most of the world as well, this sends a powerful message that the Fuschia devs are: a. Staggeringly US centric. Their mindset isn't international at all. This is offputting to those of us outside the US. Fuschia's front page claims it's "an inclusive, open source effort". Not only have they never even tested it with a non-English locale, but they ignored the critical locale bug for so long other people had to fork the project to even make the emulator start up for non-English users [1]. That's about as non-inclusive as you can get yet is also absolutely predictable. Did we really need the blog to tell us that? Not really, we could guess it quite easily. The sort of people who demand such banners always seem to be hypocrites. It's called virtue signalling for a reason - people who do it announce their principles but never seem to live by them. b. Not really rewarded for making developers happy. It reinforces a general impression about modern Google, that the personal success of the employees and executives is tied to things like the size of a giant black banner as much as whether their kernel is secure or their API docs are actually accurate. c. As such extremely likely to manipulate their platform to prioritize the happiness of activists over that of developers. It's a bold statement of ideological allegiance. Who in their right mind is going to write an app for Fuschia that's braver than a shopping cart when they see that? Nobody smart, because you can guess what will happen if Fuschia actually does get apps: half of them will end up banned for some inane, impossible to understand reason, probably related to mundane use of language that's inexplicably become unacceptable since yesterday in California. The financial risk of developing for this platform is huge. BTW: the Google doodles are pretty political these days, but in the beginning they were mostly reflecting things like national holidays. [1] https://github.com/assusdan/fuchsia-patches https://github.com/assusdan/fuchsia-patches

goodpoint 4y ago
> Steve Ballmer ... was ridiculed because the outburst of energy ... It was much, much worse than that. Putting aside the crass yelling and dancing; also putting aside any rumor of cocaine abuse; putting aside how cultish it looks... Having a large crowd of adults yelling "dentists! dentists!" or be it lawyers, accountants, etc in a frenzy would be seen as very unprofessional. > But many of us appreciated the sentiment I hope not. > It's called virtue signalling for a reason - people who do it announce their principles but never seem to live by them And how do you know that? Some people can be hypocritical, yes. Are all people with principles hypocritical?
- tester756 4y ago
  I think you're attacking weakest points of his comment, tbf.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    So?
- Banana699 4y ago
  >Are all people with principles hypocritical? I think the issue here is not "People With Principles", but "People With Principles They Are Dying To Tell You About". This makes the standard for judging you much much higher : You not only think those principles are superior to a lot of other competing ones, You not only advocate (sometimes, a lot of times to be honest, obnoxiously) for those principles, You do all of those things in times and places where it doesn't make much sense, and right in the middle of other people who might very well disagree with you to heaven and back on those things but choose to stay silent and cooperate with you on unrelated matters nonetheless, cooperation which you break and impede by loudly and non-ceaseingly declaring views they find disagreeable. This makes the people around you, understandbly, model you as the truest possible expression of an X-ism follower: you're at least as sincere as any other X-ist, so any failings or deviation from you principles you have or do is something that the whole X-ism movement along with all its followers also have or do. I'm biased against what typical US progressives advocate for, so I will choose one of my own principles to make an example of. I'm a (still booting up) vegetarian, I try not to eat any meat for ethical reasons. I did manage to successfully banish meat from my food for about 2 years now, but I'm not strong-willed enough yet to stop eating marine life. (Technically this makes me not a vegetarian at all, but the weird-sounding word "Pescetarian", but "vegetarian" is more well known and more in alignment with my mental self-image and future plans.) Now, if I started advocating for vegetarianism very loudly and in every single chance and place I find, not only will this make some people very annoyed, but they will start asking : What sort of life do you lead by following this principle you're very passionate about ? If my life deviates from my principles (and it does), I expect people will be even more annoyed, outraged even, and become resistent to and critical of my advocacy. A similar thing happens with nearly every major religion or religion-like ideology, which vegetarianism and progressivism indeed are.

goodpoint 4y ago

> Steve Ballmer ... was ridiculed because the outburst of energy ... It was much, much worse than that. Putting aside the crass yelling and dancing; also putting aside any rumor of cocaine abuse; putting aside how cultish it looks... Having a large crowd of adults yelling "dentists! dentists!" or be it lawyers, accountants, etc in a frenzy would be seen as very unprofessional. > But many of us appreciated the sentiment I hope not. > It's called virtue signalling for a reason - people who do it announce their principles but never seem to live by them And how do you know that? Some people can be hypocritical, yes. Are all people with principles hypocritical?

tester756 4y ago
I think you're attacking weakest points of his comment, tbf.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  So?
Banana699 4y ago
>Are all people with principles hypocritical? I think the issue here is not "People With Principles", but "People With Principles They Are Dying To Tell You About". This makes the standard for judging you much much higher : You not only think those principles are superior to a lot of other competing ones, You not only advocate (sometimes, a lot of times to be honest, obnoxiously) for those principles, You do all of those things in times and places where it doesn't make much sense, and right in the middle of other people who might very well disagree with you to heaven and back on those things but choose to stay silent and cooperate with you on unrelated matters nonetheless, cooperation which you break and impede by loudly and non-ceaseingly declaring views they find disagreeable. This makes the people around you, understandbly, model you as the truest possible expression of an X-ism follower: you're at least as sincere as any other X-ist, so any failings or deviation from you principles you have or do is something that the whole X-ism movement along with all its followers also have or do. I'm biased against what typical US progressives advocate for, so I will choose one of my own principles to make an example of. I'm a (still booting up) vegetarian, I try not to eat any meat for ethical reasons. I did manage to successfully banish meat from my food for about 2 years now, but I'm not strong-willed enough yet to stop eating marine life. (Technically this makes me not a vegetarian at all, but the weird-sounding word "Pescetarian", but "vegetarian" is more well known and more in alignment with my mental self-image and future plans.) Now, if I started advocating for vegetarianism very loudly and in every single chance and place I find, not only will this make some people very annoyed, but they will start asking : What sort of life do you lead by following this principle you're very passionate about ? If my life deviates from my principles (and it does), I expect people will be even more annoyed, outraged even, and become resistent to and critical of my advocacy. A similar thing happens with nearly every major religion or religion-like ideology, which vegetarianism and progressivism indeed are.