ConorSheehan1
People were desperate for an alternative, and ran with the first semi-viable one that emerged.
AI is arguably worse than SO for precision. It will hallucinate, and agree with you when you're wrong. But stack overflow is so unwelcoming to newcomers that people switched anyway.
AFAIK named after the character "Ming The Merciless"
Started off as a student campaigning against his landlord, and for cannabis legalisation. Now he's in European parliament!
1. This is a strawman. Mention a startup but not what it does. Wave your hands at growth as much as you want, but it doesn't prove you didn't hurt anyone to make your billion. I think people would find it quite easy to pick apart the actual named companies like AirBnB, Facebook, Apple, Google. Lots of people got hurt by these companies in the name of growth and profit.
2. The distinction between having and earning a billion is irrelevant. You make a billion? Cool, now stop. Give someone else a slice of the supposedly infinite pie. We. Are. Starving.
I'm using the free tier and have no billing info set. According to this https://github.com/netlify/ask-netlify/issues/6#issuecomment... > if you have an event that puts you over the free-tier limits, Netlify will ask you to update your billing information and add a CC
Although worryingly > We just had this happen and our site didn't stop working.
Is there any way to ensure if you hit the limit sites just stop working and you don't get billed?
Still having everything in one place would make things much simpler. Great idea!
Plenty of tech companies do post mortems. This is almost certainly a failure of management. If a single engineer caused this, the process is broken.
What the tech industry needs is professional indemnity insurance and competent management.
It's odd to put the introduction of hand washing at hospitals in 1800s Vienna and doubt over mask effectiveness against the spread of covid19 in the same category. They seem like opposites to me.
Sure they're both going against the scientific consensus of the time but there are some key differences.
In both cases, people don't want to change their behavior, but questioning masks is on the side of doing nothing.
There are no downsides to wearing a mask. When there's a new disease and we're not sure how to slow it's progress, but we have something that might help with no downside i.e. mask wearing, might as well try it right? And in retrospect it's pretty clear it was effective.
During the pandemic, I'd rather see scientists coming up with new more effective measures than squabbling over whether the existing measures are effective.