intergalplan
They could still try! But you'd have options.
Take email, for example. I cannot imagine something like that coming into existence today.
I can use my own client to avoid ads and tracking from my service provider—did I download this message? Sure, the server knows that. How long have I looked at the message? Which message did I look at next? Did I follow any links (yes, someone might track that part, but my email provider's going to have a hard time doing that)? What mouse movements did I make while looking at it? No such luck there, and yes websites and closed-platform services do track that stuff.
I can switch providers. Say my email provider starts injecting trackers into all links. I can just dump their ass if I don't like it. I keep using email, and now they receive zero info about me (I mean, they might get a little if I send emails to their users, but you get my point). If I have my own domain name I don't even need to tell anyone I switched.
I can email someone using a different provider. Yes blocklists or whatever might cause a problem but, fundamentally, this does work.
Protocols force providers to act like a telco, at least, except that the situation's even better for software because the barriers to entry in the market are so low... unless all your competitors are giving away access to their strictly closed ecosystem for free, and not supporting open protocols. Then you're screwed, and that's exactly what's happening now and why the Internet protocols are largely frozen in time.
Now, whether asking users to pay for a social network at all is a viable business model, is another question.
I think a pattern where there are one or two great places at the lowest level of a Node program for program flow to act async, and then a bunch of business logic where it rarely is (probably running "under" the part where async makes sense, if you take my meaning) is far more common than those where async-friendly flow is what you want for over 50% of calls. "Call this chunk of code async, but run everything in it exactly in order" is super-common, and the interface to achieve that is exactly backwards in Node.
How?
It opens up the perfect opportunity for some competitor burning VC cash to swoop in and grab a ton of market share in a hurry, with a free iOS app.
FB knows this, so yeah, it's a completely hollow threat. But, just the idea that one of the tech giants has been backed into a corner by the risk of competition from paying-for-marketshare VCs or operating-in-the-red-on-purpose other tech giants, is really, really funny to me. No fun, eh Facebook? Hahahaha.
JS keeps coming up with new ways to make this less painful, but it's ridiculous every time because it's a fundamental problem with how Node presents itself. A comical sea of "await"s in front of damn near every call is the modern version of this, and is utterly typical in real JS codebases, but before it's been callback hell, or screwing around with promises all over your codebase when 90+% of the time you just wanted things to execute in order (from your perspective), and so on.
As for inflation, it's threatening to price people under your $150k/yr cut-off for "hardship" out of decent housing even in mediocre cities, ever, and may eventually hurt creditors some (which, I mean, that's a fine outcome according to most people, I'd think). Those with $150k+ salaries had damn well better have some assets to their name, including maybe a (mortgaged) house, and so will ride the inflationary wave alright. Those with little or nothing, on the other hand, may now never be able to afford anything. Young workers just starting out, who have high-ish income but only because they live in a place with insane housing prices, are getting screwed, too, sure, but established professionals will be fine, unless they've somehow managed not to acquire assets over the years.
Pity the normal couple with $60,000/yr household income. Believe it or not, they raise kids on that income. Go figure.
I wouldn't trade places with someone getting by on unemployment for their $12/hr job they were laid off from, certainly. I don't think they're "looting". We're clearly top-heavy on capital, given how the markets are behaving, so I think I've got a better idea of where the looting's happening.
A lot of JS in the wild favors putting everything in objects (maybe not explicitly, but they end up doing it a lot anyway) so gets away with a lot of "const" use that still lets them mutate the values of those objects. If you're dealing with primitives you're going to need "let" a lot more.
The key insight seems to be that you can hack the (as the research put it, by analogy) software of a set of cells and let the hardware (DNA, cell mechanisms) worry about exactly how to do what you told them to do, so rather than, say, figuring out how to read DNA and tell what kind of organism will come out of it such that we can start adding or removing bits here and there (very, very hard), you can instead screw around with inter-cell signaling to hijack functionality that the cells already have, but just aren't using, to get them to do new things.
I thought there were several "holy shit" moments in the video. The cancer thing—yikes. Reconnect genetically-broken, actively dangerous cells to the inter-cell communication network and they stop acting crazy, while still having messed-up DNA? That's a surprising result, and a powerful demonstration of what the technique can accomplish (may not be therapeutically useful for a bunch of reasons I can think up, but it still seems like a notable, surprising result)
Another was the sticky "memory" of a modified organism, that is, the worm that'd had its tail cut off then been instructed to make a second head there instead, and then had that cut off and... grew a head again, without further prompting, demonstrating that body layout and gene expression is some combination of DNA and a kind of cell-memory or cell-state across the whole organism, not something driven entirely deterministically by DNA alone.
The part about tricking worms into growing heads for 100-150 million-year separated evolutionary relatives, complete with the correct-for-the-other-species brain, was nuts. The "instructions" are still there, just dormant, and if you confuse the cell-memory (if you will) of what it's supposed to be it'll sometimes decide to be the wrong species. WTF.
The linked video in the grandparent post argues pretty convincingly that the body might know exactly that, actually.
Mobile Gmail's not just heavy—it's broken. Whatever stupid, misguided bullshit they're doing with scrolling makes it register clicks where they weren't intended if I'm not super careful.
Beyond that, it's an open secret (as in: it's been mentioned several times in available documents, but never deliberately disclosed or extensively discussed publicly, so far as I know) that since at least the mid or late 00s the US government has had contracts with multiple major tech companies that have a high level of access to citizen Internet traffic to basically search their databases of Internet activity at will. Which companies these are, I'm not sure—I suspect it's mostly telcos, personally—but it's another reason the existence of these datasets is inherently dangerous, and that they should not be permitted to exist at all, no matter who holds them.
1) "We love agile! We have coaches and everything!" (terrible)
2) "We're agile-ish." (we have performative, hellish standups that are mostly about micromanagement, in which we all get to nervously try to justify our continued employment every day by acting out little one-man plays about how hard yesterday was while going into way too much detail)
3) A range of noncommittal responses that may look a lot like 2 in some cases (often really good, but it's hard to distinguish from #2)
4) "We love agile!" (they actually do, and they actually do adjust processes and add/remove/modify "ceremonies" pretty quickly when the team asks for it; this can be good)
The trouble is it's really hard to tell which you're dealing with (aside from maybe #1, though that can be hard to distinguish from #4 unless they really do start laying out all the dedicated "agile roles" they have, then you can tell it's probably #1).
At this point I'd probably insist on sitting in for a couple "agile ceremonies" before I said yes to a place that "does agile". It's bad more often than not, but can be anywhere from OK to good. When it's bad, though, it's really bad. I'm not sure how to tell which it is without observing what they actually do.
Not to pick just on PG—that's more common than not, really.
It's bad because their strongest viable business plays seem to all involve leveraging their access to people's browsers in not-so-nice ways.
So you think it is a dragnet-surveillance get-acquired-for-our-data play, longer term? That's even worse, if so.
1) Not really, no (Napoleonic and Seven Years' have decent claims to being about as global)
But:
2) It's fair to dub it, at least, a World War, if anything is.
It's heavy-weight, fragile, lots of implementations are framework-specific, and most of them are horribly buggy, but it's nonetheless a must-have feature in many cases. It'd be a great candidate for better support in the browser, generally, if we're going to insist on using it as an application platform.