Under that definition, I wonder if anybody is `creative`. We would need to assess how many of what we call `original ideas` are not rehashes of other ideas.
No, it's been discussed to death and back with "everything is a remix" since 2012. Even the combination of previous ideas into a new one is an original thought. Doing it at the right time even more. Look at history, the invention of the bike, the airplane or the telephone. The technology needed for all of them existed for decades it just wasn't combined in the right way.
Glad you brought up "everything is a remix". As an artist, I have learned to remix, but at least put my own spin on it so it's not a complete rip. Then I can live with myself and I'm not some plagiarist.
Greatness comes at a very high cost. But to me greatness is not about money, or economic success. Greatness is a very subjective term.
For me greatness is about mastering my craft. Creating great things. It still comes at a very high cost, because practice is not free, and it takes away time from life, especially family time.
Now, Why? Look at life this way: Humans only care about the experience of life. Experience can be focused on family, money, personal achievements, material things, etc.
What you refer to a `great` experience is not really a `great` experience for another person. So `greatness`, IMHO, refers to the experience you wanna have. My great experience is becoming a master in my craft. That is my image of greatness. To Transcend. I trade time focused on my work, for time doing other things.
Now, there could be a person that has a vision of `greatness` that refers to being the greatest dad ever. That is still greatness. So basically, what I am trying to say is that everyone looks for their version greatness, and that not necessarily matches what you define as greatness.
Sometimes there is a need to refrain from actions that would lead to greatness in one area, in order to devote the effort to greatness in a different area.
IMHO mono-repo vs multi-repo should be decided based on the sources of change for each component in a product. For example, the cloud components of a product usually change at the same pace and for the same reasons, it makes sense to have them in a mono-repo. Even in a microservices approach. Even in the cloud certain components can change at a different pace and for different reasons. For example if you have grpc api that talks to your mobile app and a webapi exposed to your customers.
I believe that components that move at a different pace and change for different reason should not be in the same repo. It is difficult to setup CI/CD for different ways of deployment and specially if they not changing at the same time.
Now, regarding security, it is important to keep different components of a product in different repos, this will give you the flexibility to manage a more restricted set of credentials and reduce the number of people that have access to it.
In the end it involved 3 things: 1) Sources of Change, 2) CI/CD Processes and 3) Security. You can definitely mix and match.
It also depends on your deploy patterns. A microservice architecture embedded in a monorepo gives you false peace of mind that a breaking API change is okay because you’re changing both ends of the contract in the same commit.
But when that commit goes to be deployed and you don’t have atomic/transactional deploys across services, you get downtime between the first service’s deploy finishing and the second’s.
The moonlander looks awesome. The ergodox-ez looks nice as well. I wish there were some cheaper options out there for people who don't know how to solder.
Most of the good ergonomic keyboards are around the same price. Look at this one which it is good, but I personally didn't like: https://kinesis-ergo.com/shop/advantage2/
Basically what put me off was the way the keys are arranged in a semi circle. It was uncomfortable to code. I am not sure if it is because I have big hands or just the design didn't work for me.
