> 3) if your code is broken for 11 sloc, maybe you depend too much on others work and you have no value yourselves.
That is very out of touch with the reality of development on the modern JS stack. Babel is a key transpiler that allows people to target multiple browsers with consistent JS, and it was completely broken by this move. Are you suggesting that everyone rewrite their own babel? I guess if they don't they have no real `value`.
I worked in ad industry. We had are own 3k lib with code inspired by jquery to deal with that problem of "fixing the browsers incompatibility", because vanilla JS does ,not exists when DOM/browser functionalities are added to the equation.
I learned to use CSS without framework, and it helps a lot both writing efficient CSS selector and fast loading HTML that is reactive ... and maintainable easy to fix/deploy CSS. Once you learned it.
Yes I suggest that it can be done. But I cannot do it anymore because no modern coders want to learn all that. Thus my CTO, and colleagues always complained that it should not be done this way.
Well ... I used to complain to much dependency is fragile, vulnerable and they say, let us follow the hurd.
I say, your code is expensive to write, maintain, support.
They said no. Else we find no one, and no one wants to learn this ol' shit.
Look where we are today?
The mass can be wrong I guess. Being right makes you jobless but at least when the bubble will explode I will be valuable again. And I will make people pay a lot for my skills of having no skills in babel, angular 2, react ...
I guess my analogy is being scrutinized (so to speak), that being said; YES!, that WILL happen if the carpenter doesn't know any better (or is a crook).
A smart/savvy (or whatever you want to call it) carpenter will easily do the modification[S] without tearing down the entire kitchen. Just like you can drop React into an existing project.
Discussions like this get extremely emotional and dialogue reduces to the lowest common denominator. Tragedy of commons is very relevant to the forming of morals. This is evidenced by hundreds and thousand of years of various abuse of humans. And while humanity is arguably in the best shape ever, there is uncertainty if we are heading to global or only a local maxima.
So no. Argument from community consensus is a bad heuristic for searching global happiness maxima. Of course, if morals are means to an end, not a goal in itself.
I wasn't trying to make a plea for community consensus. I think individuals come to their own conclusions about morality, but those conclusions are informed by the information that they receive from their environment and community. A person who never experiences meaningful debate, thought, or contemplation is going to be morally stunted compared to those who engage in regular debate and discussion. That doesn't mean every person who argues a point is morally superior, but in the aggregate, engaging in moral discussions will enhance an individuals expertise in determining moral veracity.
If you treat community discussion as a search for optimal morals, I fully agree with you. However, I stand by my original point as top voted comment already decided on the immorality of the JFK-Mimi affair as immoral without meaningful debate.
I think you are improperly comparing community consensus with tragedy of the commons. Community consensus is more akin to regulation than it is to nash equilibria. It's the nash equilibria that has been a bad heuristic for finding the global happiness maxima, because it's through the nash equilibria that the tragedy of the commons occurs. In contrast, effective regulation can better ensure the global happiness maxima. So that's why community dialogue and a rough consensus of mores can be useful and productive towards the health of a society.
I think we live in an age of such people. It was easy to stand out as a brilliant polymath when we didn't know ANYTHING. I think we have more geniuses than ever today, but there are so many of them that it no longer feels special. We are advancing our knowledge and technology with dizzying speeds, but we are so accustomed to it that we sit around and go, "Meh, there are no geniuses anymore".
Also, in northern climates, the water will get in the pores then freeze and expand. It may be self healing, but in a matter of weeks the road would be still be completely rubbish
Even if the video is highly pirated, I wonder if he will make more with his $5 per distribution then with the $0.XX he would get otherwise. People say that the internet will destroy creative enterprise, but I think just the opposite. I think artists will be more empowered once they embrace the opportunities of this new medium and learn to cut out the middlemen.
Oh there will still be middlemen in the entertainment industry. The difference is that instead of entertainers working for the middle men, once they reach a certain popularity, the middle men will work for the entertainers.
And really, this is nothing all that new. Musicians have been creating their own labels for decades, often selling as an imprint to larger labels.
I think the key takeaway here is the distribution model, not necessarily the organizational model. The Gaffigans and Radioheads and Louie CKs of the world don't have the organizational baggage that the big content producers have. They also don't have the supposed things to lose that the big producers have. So, they're freer to experiment.
I hope, and I'm sure many media consumers agree with me, that as these big acts begin to diverge from their former masters and build their own organizations, that the distribution model that survives long term is the one that doesn't ultimately attempt to screw over us consumers.
Ask most companies how much they are spending on their web-dev teams and they might disagree with you on that one