My comment is one bit of opinion in a terabyte stack. You don't need (and won't get) 100% support from every bit on every forum.
If by "us" you mean women in general, you're assuming women in general want such a place where only women are allowed. If you are successful, then a pattern may emerge where more places are set up that exclude groups based on gender or other differences.
If it were bathing facilities or medical clinics and so on, where the needs of women-only services are based on practical reasons and obvious differences, nobody would question it. When the service is "technology", there is nothing inherent to that medium that warrants gender isolated services.
I'm male, but I don't comment or code from that point of view. I wouldn't want to frequent a place mainly intended for women coders. But I wouldn't want to be stopped at the door either. It's wrong to do that, which is why we have laws protecting against such discrimination. I believe a good-faith model and honesty system would serve you better in the long run rather than official gender verification, which is quite a hard-lined approach. Good luck with it anyway.
"Sucking" doesn't actually generate any thrust - In highschool, my physics teacher did a demo with a T-shaped pipe with a fan in the middle, suspended from some string.
Without the T, the pipe moved as you'd expect. With the T directing the airflow in equal proportions perpendicular to the axis of the pipe, the pipe stayed still as if the fan wasn't on at all.
that's very interesting! but it's about angular momentum and I'm not confident that I can take the lesson over to linear momentum.
Here's my caveman f=ma thought experiment:
1. make it 2-d.
2. replace the fan with a person sitting on a chair on a frictionless surface.
3. instead of air it's an endless field cinder blocks ahead of him.
the person reaches out, and pulls in a cinder block. f=ma says they each move toward the other while the center of mass of the combination of them does not move.
Now, if he throws the cinderblock behind him, he moves further forward - this would be analogous to an airplane propeller. or a fan in an open pipe.
If he, um, splits the cinderblock in two and places each half directly off to his sides there is no net force exerted on him by this. This is the fan in a T-shaped pipe.
the fan+pipe grabs air from ahead, moves this mass backward and then sets it aside. it's not a jet-engine, but it is moving the air mass toward itself and must be moved equally and oppositely.
I don't think it's essential to worry about how the air/blocks rearrange themselves after this - but if the blocks surround and jostle, that's just another effect layered in super-position over this one, and if we don't agree so far then it will only make things more confusing
You have to look for the equal and opposite reaction. A normal jet creates a stream of fast air behind it. There's no such thing for a reverse jet that sucks air in.
With your concrete block example, as I start pulling the block towards me I experience an impulse forward. But when it approaches my body I slow it down to zero speed, creating an opposite impulse. So although I might have moved forward a few inches during the motion, my momentum is zero at the end. When you scale this up to large numbers of air molecules, the result is the same.
thanks for following up. I think this is one of those conversations that works better in front of a white board - it's surprisingly tricky to express in words.
if the demo was mainly to show that it's the jet of air expelled out the back that's providing thrust, then, fine it does that and its a valuable lesson. I guess I'm hung up on the technicality that there is actually a real movement of air mass even without that rearward jet and that has to be felt by the apparatus - I guess it's just unnoticeably small in the real world demo.
anyhow, my confidence in physics intuition has been shaken. thanks bunches.
Nah the demo was right. The impulse from the sucking (ie air molecules bouncing off the inside of the fan blade) is countered by the impulse from the air molecules bouncing off the inside off the back T-pipe. Different at a low Reynolds number with a reversible flow.
Reynolds number, compressibility, reversibility don't really matter for this - the principle under discussion is a simple momentum-balance. Find the force on the pipe by analyzing what is happening at the boundaries, you can ignore what happens inside. (in engineering this is called control-volume analysis).
The exiting flows out the sides neatly cancel. So what's happening from front-to-back? There is air flowing in at some velocity x cross-sectional area x air density. this momentum has to be balanced completely for the pipe to stay still - but there is no source of momentum in the other direction so the pipe will feel this force and move.
if the pipe was open at the back, there would be momentum exiting the pipe balancing the incoming momentum - or even over-balancing (as in a jet engine)
Background refresh doesn't work if the user "force closes" the app, i.e. they go to the task manager and swipe it away. Anecdotally, it's super common for people to do this as they have read somewhere that it helps battery life (not untrue, but also not really effective). So if you were writing an e-mail app you wouldn't be able to guarantee that you'll actually deliver e-mail to users, which feels kind of important.
But it comes down to this: if a user explicitly kills an app, should it keep running in the background?
If the answer is "yes", then what you're really saying is users shouldn't be able to kill apps if the app doesn't want to be killed.
I get that some users don't know what killing an app means but do it anyway for some reason.
But that's not a problem with background refresh. E.g., maybe iOS could warn/explain about the implications of killing an app (with a checkbox so you can opt-out of further warnings).
Edit: just realized I left the word “not” out just above, which reverses it’s meaning
The problem is that nothing is self-evident. An app that sends remote notifications to notify you of an e-mail looks exactly the same as one that locally generates a notification as a result of background processing. But the former will work after being swiped away from the app switcher and the latter won't.
I just don't think it's reasonable to expect the average use to "get" that.
Sounds like user error at that point, I would popup a message after the next force quit saying that doing so will pause email notification until the app is reopened.
How on earth would that be a feature? If you have to show a popup on launch for something like that then it's a user experience failure, no matter if it's your fault or Apple's. Either way, it means the user has to treat your app differently to every other app on their phone. That is bad.
"It's user error" is a weak excuse if any kind of significant number of users are doing it.
An app that has been force quit can still receive remote notifications just fine. I don't think the average users knowledge is so nuanced that they understand the distinction between a remotely-sent notification that always appears and a locally generated one that's the result of a background process that doesn't.
I think most users expect to receive notifications from apps (especially communication apps) even if the app doesn't appear in the App Switcher carousel. What people expect from their phones and computers are wildly different here.
The feature in my mind was an easy way to temp silence an app without going into settings.
I still think of it as user error if they force quit an app but still expect it to run in the background. Why force quit it?
I could see how it could be a UX failure for the OS but I don't think we can blame the dev for that. Apple should clarify what force quit does. I think the advent of webapps that don't really exist on your phone at all also causes confusion: the app has been updated with more content each time you use it, even if it's not running in the background, but to the user that's indistinguishable from the app running in the background.
This reads like a creative writing exercise from
the same people who were hurling violent abuse on social media at (ex-)SV people, mainly women and people of colour, who spoke out about abuse and similar attitudes they'd experienced in SV/tech in general.
Zero sources, zero verification: This isn't HN-level content.
Private subscriptions were a direct revenue stream for Github, and explained directly how they can afford the infrastructure that provides the service.
Generally when previously paid stuff becomes free, it's because the paid service is no longer a product - it's now a tool to attract users. How will users be monetised now?
The private repositories are limited to three collaborators. I think most people who would pay for private repos rather than simply use them as a factor in selecting among free hosts are going to need more collaborators than that before long (if not immediately).
Meanwhile, if people that just don't want to share their solo tinkerings focus on Gitlab or Bitbucket free plans for the private repos, then when they are ready to move up, GitHub is in a worse position to try to monetize them than if they were already in the GH ecosystem.
They're now owned by Microsoft. Critical difference between Microsoft and Google - Microsoft makes all of their money from direct sales and enterprise contracts for their primary products, including Windows, Windows Server, SQL Server, ActiveDirectory, Office, etc, while Google makes their money from selling ads to you with as much targeting information as possible. So this is now a loss leader for Microsoft, primarily to draw your attention to their primary products, and any money it makes or loses is on too small of a scale for Microsoft to care probably.
There's plenty you can criticize Microsoft about for sure, but they aren't trying to gather boatloads of info about you, just keep you buying Microsoft software.
Now that I think about it like that, maybe Google is infact becoming more evil than Microsoft.
(disclaimer, I work for Google, opinions are my own)
Depends on the product you are using and what kind of data you're talking about. For Google, GSuite (the old Google Apps and GCP) are more business focused and don't really capture data about you. Free-tier products will gather more data to better target ads to you or to provide useful features.
For Microsoft, they do try to sell you products... but you have to look at other products where they do gather data on you. I'm not sure what kind of data they get out of Bing and outlook.com/Hotmail. Then you have LinkedIn, which is all kinds of data gathering (though more Facebook style).
It's sort of hard to give blanket statements about many of the large tech companies, as they have multiple divisions and products that operate differently depending on the target markets.
Agreed but I hesitate conclude that Microsoft wouldn't care about making some extra buck by placing ads. The amount of crap I've seen with windows 8 and 10 was disgusting
> Generally when previously paid stuff becomes free, it's because the paid service is no longer a product - it's now a tool to attract users. How will users be monetised now?
Does anyone remember how Microsoft purchased GitHub in 2018? This is part of Microsoft's strategy now. Microsoft cares about developers using their platforms. Getting people hooked early on their ecosystem is part of that strategy. GitHub is now a part of that ecosystem. My prediction is that Visual Studio is going to get tied closer and closer to GitHub, that a lot of people are going to learn how pull requests work because of Visual Studio integration with GitHub.
Microsoft then turns around and sells GitHub + Visual Studio to software development firms, along with Windows Server and SQL Server licenses, MSDN subscriptions, etc. Managers won't hesitate to buy it because all of their employees already know how to use GitHub and love it.
As mentioned in the article, this only applies to repositories with a handful of collaborators and as such organisations with private repos will still need to pay a subscription.
GitHub enterprise will also continue to provide a revenue stream.
Random, entirely baseless speculation: they want all to put all your code to do machine learning on. Seems like ML based code checking and refactoring tools are slowly becoming a thing. Imagine an assistant that tells you something like "what you are writing right now might be bad code because 80% of similar instances were later modified based on bug reports and this is how that would look like for your code"
Teams with more than 3 people will still need to buy a subscription:
>Private repositories on free accounts are limited to three collaborators apiece. So, while this might work for a small project (like, for example, a team competing in a hackathon), it isn’t particularly well-suited for actual commercial usage.
Think of it as marketing expense to attract people that went to Bitbucket and Gitlab. A % of these users will convert to a paid plan. No need to get concerned here.
Art is inherently subjective, and you have to accept that a lot of it just _sucks_.
It's up to you to curate your own taste, and you do that by trawling through the terrible art until you find something that you like.