Yes, of course, I'm wasn't trying to claim the music/graphics was stolen by the cracker, or vice-versa, just that "show off the skills of whoever cracked a piece of software" isn't really accurately representing how the team's composition was, since they were different people.
These are a group that used outside signal chats to discuss war plans. What odds do you have that he didn't use a personal email to avoid future accountability?
One of the products my employer builds is used twice a year. People pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of using it twice a year. It's tremendously valuable to be used twice a year.
I think the supply shocks is the part of the pro-natalist view that is hardest for me to accept.
My counter-argument: the full expression of human achievement is not genetic; it depends on the resources given to the human; If we accept that someone cannot reach their entire potential if living in poverty, and we accept that a lot of the advantages of rich children are due to the environment and opportunities that wealth provides, then it naturally concludes that we could get all of the advantages that pro-natalists look for by creating a higher standard living for all existing children.
Only when we can provide the sustainable resources for all people on the planet can we accept the idea that we have room for more.
I guess I'm pro-natalist. I do agree with you on the goal of eradicating poverty, although to me that's a goal in itself that does not need to be justified.
But I don't agree that all people on earth are fungible, and a birth in Mongolia is the same as a birth is Sydney, Australia.
Your "human achievement" viewpoint is highly reductive. The culture of a place is maintained by it's local population. When you have a low birth rate situation to the point that you need to supplement the workforce with immigrants, that signifies that the local culture is slowly dying. While some mixing of cultures is beneficial, we should also try to perserve our local cultures. We should not turn every city in the developed world into a little NYC.
Because you see the IC side of the Atlassian toolkit. The management side is much more expansive and this starts mattering when you are coordinating larger projects.
That said, if you are a smaller company, you absolutely could kill Jira pretty quick.
The frustrating thing is I also thought about this as a natural conclusion - but as a natural workflow that corporations will do when they see AGPL dependencies they want to use. (I also think there's a world where we start tightening our software bill of materials anyway.)
I do not believe it will ever again make sense to build open source for business. the era of OSS as a business model will be very limited going forward. As sad and frustrating as it is, we did it to ourselves.
I mean, this is a task board and not a Kanban board - Kanban implies things like Work In Progress limits, continuous improvement, and measuring flow to get rid of blockers.
But you're right - you can visualize your workflow without using Kanban - I think it's weird how the term gets appropriated here.
People tried reinventing terminals, SSH, and tmux for phones. It's a pretty terrible experience using your thumbs. And it takes significant know-how to set up.
And in modern stacks, it almost necessitates a man in the middle - tailscale is common but it's still a central provider. So is it really the most inefficient way possible?
The cost of those remaining maintenance items are the issue. That said, it's a reasonable hypothesis to say that this is an economies of scale issue.
(Also, as I understand it, tires are used up more quickly on EVs still, but tire companies are learning to adapt to EVs so that may not be as true today.)
reply