la_barba

41 ms·

391.
by la_barba 7y ago
I think there are intermediate steps possible in some workflows. For e.g. A business app that accepts an excel file as input for further processing. So now you can let them keep the excel file with their existing macros/features, but g
392.
by la_barba 7y ago
Thanks for your comment. I used the word soft guarantee, which is meant to encapsulate those caveats. Maybe I should have used a better term since I guess people were confused as to what it meant.
393.
by la_barba 7y ago
But in return for that, the services that choose to employ this will get a soft guarantee that the person signing up is unique/real. Its a way to get real-name/real-id with some amount of privacy.
394.
by la_barba 7y ago
Ironically, I work in a regulated industry and every software we use has to be compliant with certain government regulations. We would actually love it if we got to use excel in our business workflow, but we're forced to deal with some
395.
by la_barba 7y ago
Out of curiosity, what industry are you in?
396.
by la_barba 7y ago
It is extremely hard to convince someone they're doing it wrong, when what they're doing is working for them and is making them money. Its pretty much ingrained in our human nature, I think. Instead of telling them their solution
397.
by la_barba 7y ago
What common scenario do you envision where version control is useful?
398.
by la_barba 7y ago
>Exactly....I was like, people are surprised by this? How did they think gmail worked? The problem is Google continuously changes the terms of the deal. For e.g. If in 2006 I looked at what Google did with my data, and decided to create
399.
by la_barba 7y ago
"You should have been paying attention" can be said with respect to all such incidents. If we don't have the outcry and register our protest then you can pretty much guarantee that nothing will change. In this case, Google&#x
400.
by la_barba 7y ago
Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that then. :) Edit: Upon re-reading the thread, I may have misinterpreted your original point. Disregard my comments.. sorry
401.
by la_barba 7y ago
I don't know what scenario you're envisioning, but I'm envisioning a scenario where the task a programmer works on is assigned to them by a supervisor, a project manager, a lead, a project planner or whatever other similar de
402.
by la_barba 7y ago
A lot of anti-cancer and anti-bacterial drug labs. Probably gene-therapy too..
403.
by la_barba 7y ago
Its not that I didn't understand your point. I just don't think this applies to most software engineers.
404.
by la_barba 7y ago
I think you specifically mean web companies that take VC money, and not just "SV companies". If you take someone else's money they probably want it back.. with interest. The unethical monetization just reflects the fact that
405.
by la_barba 7y ago
That sounds like a contrived scenario to me personally. Most programmers simply do the task that their supervisor or manager has assigned to them. Its not like they can refuse to do a task simply because it was worded poorly. They would jus
406.
by la_barba 7y ago
>That is definitely not the problem. Email you send is owned by its recipient. Generally, the recipient can do what they want with it, including delegating to Google and allowing Google to scan it for purchase information. I don't a
407.
by la_barba 7y ago
Can you explain how storing the dollar amount, and item purchased helps with tracking anything?
408.
by la_barba 7y ago
>So I've rehashed this argument a lot recently: Google has to snoop on your emails. Every email provider does. Spam classification, automatic labelling/filtering, things like the "we think this is phishing" banners, e
409.
by la_barba 7y ago
Fair point, competition can sometimes provide pushback.
410.
by la_barba 7y ago
>Useful features attract users. Users are a good thing. I think its a bit of a stretch calling this feature useful but I suppose you can re-define anything to be useful. Ads are useful too, because you can save money by buying the exact
411.
by la_barba 7y ago
> They claim the list is there purely for your own personal consumption The problem is that they are constantly thinking along these lines, and building products to enable this. Also, they are an advertising company, so this is something
412.
by la_barba 7y ago
I think the problem also is that Google scans incoming emails sent by non-google users who haven't agreed to such scanning. (Edit: also with personal domains, a sender may have no idea if this email will eventually find its way on Goog
413.
by la_barba 7y ago
The other thing that has happened is the internet and the free flow of information. It is no longer the case of manipulating 3-4 media outlets. People get their information at thousands of different places. I think its not really a loss of
414.
by la_barba 7y ago
I can't help but read most of this as corporate double-speak. In my mind there is no principle (other than greed) that justifies grabbing 30% of all sales on a digital store. Its especially greedy to grab money from future sales via su
415.
by la_barba 7y ago
You also have to trace the actual live code, to see if its actually running the code you think it should run. And not just with N=1, maybe with N=100 or a sufficiently high number.
416.
by la_barba 7y ago
Ideally, what you say makes sense, but at some point you're just going to have to place your trust in someone, or something. Realistically, a vendor won't be able to satisfy every single curiosity. Someone else might ask how do we
417.
by la_barba 7y ago
I don't know if this law applies retroactively. But anyway, its a good step.
418.
by la_barba 7y ago
Touche!
419.
by la_barba 7y ago
That works if there is a single source from where people learn about your product. If you product is popular enough someone else will simply make a nice table comparing your 7" screen with your competitions 8" and 9" screens.
420.
by la_barba 7y ago
Well, all I can say is thanks for explaining your position, but I don't agree with your points.

More ›