"Most teams/products I have been involved in, the stack always grows to the point that a dev can no longer test it on their own machine"
Isn't this problem solved by CICD? When the developer is ready to test, they make a commit, and the pipeline deploys the code to a dev/test environment. That's how my teams have been doing it.
This turns a 1 hour task into a 1 day task. Fast feedback cycles are critical to software development.
I don't quite understand how people get into the situation where their work can't fit on their workstation. I've worked on huge projects at huge tech companies, and I could run everything on my workstation. I've worked at startups where the CI situation was passing 5% of the time and required 3 hours to run, that you can now run on your workstation in seconds. What you do is fix the stuff that doesn't fit.
The most insidious source of slowness I've encountered is tests that use test databases set to fsync = on. This severely limits parallelism and speed in a way that's difficult to diagnose; you have plenty of CPU and memory available, but the tests just aren't going very fast. (I don't remember how I stumbled upon this insight. I think I must have straced Postgres and been like "ohhhhhhhhh, of course".)
It's likely you haven't come across these use cases in your professional career, but I assure you its very common. My entire career has only seen projects where you need dozen to hundreds of CPU's in order to have a short feedback loop to verify the system works. I saw this in simple algorithms in automotive, to Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and machine learning applications.
When you are working on a software project that has 1,000 active developers checking in code daily and require a stable system build you need lots of compute.
There's a lot of folks in startups who think 100 devs is a large org and can't comprehend the scale at which '100% tests pass' stops being a build blocker. I've migrated from such an org to a late stage startup and 'tests must pass' even if fifty engineers are blocked with their PRs and the release train is fully halted. 'But our pipelines must be green' no they don't, at least not all of them.
While that is a crappy thing to do, I bet tons of YouTubers are doing just that. Hell, most political YouTubers just read articles and make stupid comments about them.
It would be impossible to create daily content if you weren't just rehashing, or taking, information from somewhere. Again, not defending it at all, just saying it's probably a very common thing. Like how some crappy news articles are just a bunch of reddit comments, like that qualifies as news.
Agreed. Extra: I'd generally say, that comments on HN are often interesting and insightful (that's why we're here, no?). With the current state of social media, I'd wish for a little more HN flavor. But at least credit your source. The information you provide doesn't get less valuable only because someone else did the work.
I haven't watched this particular channel so maybe it's obviously shady, but I'm curious: why is this conceptually a crappy thing to do?
I mean, if you take the IP of others and redistribute it verbatim then I definitely see the ethical issue. So if the claim is that he's reading peoples' comments or posts verbatim without credit then yeah that's crappy. Don't get me wrong.
But if all we're talking about is "mining" websites like HN for topics and then creating original content that covers those topics in a different format for a different audience... where's the issue?
A few years ago I was feeling pretty burned out in the tech industry and created a tongue in cheek "luddite" channel called TechPhobe where I took an overly pessimistic view of the industry. At the time Elizabeth Holmes was on trial and a lot my videos involved me reading ArsTechnica articles on the subject (credited) while offering my personal opinions on the matter. While not successful, those videos got more views than anything else I ever created. Was that a crappy thing to do? I didn't think so at the time and I don't think so now.
I didn't stick with the channel because I realized pretty quickly that if I'm dealing with burnout the last thing I should be doing in my spare time is focusing on tech content lol
> But if all we're talking about is "mining" websites like HN for topics and then creating original content that covers those topics in a different format for a different audience... where's the issue?
Plagiarism, generally. I really enjoyed the semi-recent hbomberguy video on why it matters, and a later response (from another channel) on "The Somerset Scale of Plagiarism" for a more rigorous explanation of what the different kinds of "content reuse" can be. Those are generally where my current model of plagiarism comes from.
A specific concern would be the inaccurate telling of information that isn't understood. A video saying, "Here I will summarize this HN thread," is perfectly ok, and a good thing. A video saying, "Here I will tell you how $thing works," should be well researched and cited. Doesn't matter if the content's entirely from an HN thread for from 40 different SEO farms, it's low-quality content and it's wasting everyone's time at best, and probably actively misinforming people. (Because how true and complete is information gleaned from HN comments anyway?)
That's a good idea for how the ultra rich can pay taxes without forcing them to liquidate stock, and at least addresses the core of the problem.
But if the stock "shared" with the tax collector paid enough in dividends to cover the taxes, couldn't they just pay the taxes with the dividends to begin with?
How does sharing the stock help? Wouldn't the tax collector need to liquidate the stock to get any actually value from it?
A stock retains value even without producing dividends. Allowing wealth tax payments in the form of stock, rather than cash, addresses the liquidity issue, especially for large family-owned companies. The challenge lies in accurately valuing the stock for private companies, but that's where finance experts come in ! Furthermore, an agreement between the taxpayer and the wealth fund could accompany the transaction, including terms like holding the stock for a specified number of years, buyback preferences, or limited voting rights. At a discount on the stock price.
Given the financial and legal complexities, as well as the challenges in standardizing the process, this would only apply to payments of a highly substantial amount. But one could argue that these individuals are no longer equal to others in terms of their tax obligations, as they have some ability to negotiate to a certain extent. That's probably the main problem.
People considering $100,000 and even up to $200,000 rich is just idiotic, especially when considering where the person lives and if they have kids.
It can definitely be a comfortable lifestyle on a budget, but it is by no means rich. Housing costs alone makes it blatantly middle class. Add in kids which brings it own costs, and saving for college, which is basically a 2nd mortgage if you save what you're supposed to, and that income range is just getting by like everyone else
They just might have a bigger house, nicer cars, and can take better vacations. But they are busting their ass for those slight luxuries.
By any means, I don't see how that's "blatantly middle class", even considering housing costs. Housing costs are the same whether you're wealthy or not.
More money means more money, if you have more, you're not "getting by like everyone else". Everyone else also has to pay all those things, wealthy or not.
Also I'd argue that most people in that range aren't busting their ass more than anyone living at minimum wage.
I've been seeing a product we use at my organization roll out incomplete/trash feature fast to have a product, and then fix them after the fact.
We've gotten tons of blow back as other teams use the product and find it next to useless with tons of bugs, and I'm stuck trying to push it. Not a fun place to be.
Learned a lot about the software market and capitalism though.
For me, AI is like a documentation/Googlefu accelerant. There are so many little things that I know exactly what I want to do, but can't remember the syntax or usage.
For example, writing IaC especially for AWS, I have to look up tons of stuff. Asking AI gets me answers and examples extremely fast. If I'm learning the IaC for a new service I'll look over the AWS docs, but if I just need a quick answer/refresher, AI is much faster than going and looking it up.
I find that for AWS IaC specifically with a high pace of releases and a ton of versions dating back more than a decade the AI answers are a great spring board but require a bit of care to avoid mixing APIs.
I learned this as a teenager when I went from great at math to terrible because I got stuck with crappy teachers. Then, in 11th grade, I got put in algebra 2 with a great teacher and was tutoring other kids.
Math is completely different than other subjects. You can't catch up by cramming or reading a book over the weekend. You have to consistently learn and use it over the years. And have competent teachers to teach it to you.
Once you get placed in the remedial math, where they are just corralling misbehaving teenagers, and slapping out worksheets so kids can pass, you are basically screwed, unless you can get out of that situation.
I work for government organization that is constantly audited and I've seen this play out over and over.
An important aspect I never see mentioned is most Cyber Security personnel don't have the technical experience to truly understand the systems they are assessing, they are, like you said, just pushing to check those compliance boxes.
I say this as someone who is currently in a Cyber Security role, unfortunately, as I'm coming to learn cyber roles suck. But this isn't a jab at those Cyber Security personnel's intelligence. It's literally impossible to understand multiple systems at a deep level, it takes employees working on those systems weeks to months to understand this stuff, and that's with them being in the loop. Cyber is always on the outside looking in, trying like hell to piece it all together.
Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to add on with my personal opinions on the cyber security framework being severely broken because I deal with it on a daily basis.
> It's literally impossible to understand multiple systems at a deep level,\
No, it's not. It takes above average intelligence, and major investment in actual education (not just "training"), and actual depth of experience, but it's not impossible.
Do you think it comes from a fundamental misconception of how these roles should be structured? My take is that you just can't fundamentally assess technical elements from the outside unless they have been designed that way in the first place (for assessability). For example I educate my team that they have structure their git commits in a way that demonstrates their safety for audit / compliance purposes (never ever combine a high risk change with a low risk one, for example). That should go all the way up the chain. Failure to produce an auditable output is failure to produce an output that can be deployed.
I know of an important company currently pushing to implement a redundant network data loss prevention solution, while they don't have persistent VPN enabled and multiple known misconfigurations of things that prevent web decryption working properly.
The entry level market is getting more and more over saturated. It is bleeding upwards to mid level slowly. But if you are a skilled senior you are still in high demand. If not your resume probably sucks or you are not as skilled as most seniors.
