iterminate
Shutting the project down gracefully doesn't mean it has to end, and it doesn't mean failure: shutting down the project gives invested community members the chance to fork it and demonstrate that they want to put the work in to run a natural successor to your project, and people will naturally gravitate towards the best fork over time. Afterall, without people with a vision leading it, it's just code.
Handing over ownership feels cleanest but it's rarely the best outcome (unless you're handing it over to a natural successor).
That's true of most work. Software engineering is much less work/effort than a minimum wage job. The higher you go, the easier it is.
I (a non-pilot) could use a vehicle to kill myself and dozens of others at the same time by driving my truck at full speed into oncoming traffic. If a pilot is considering ending their own life, they deserve sympathy and support and the opportunity to have treatment and continue their career... if a pilot is considering murdering passengers by flying a plane into the ground, they should never fly ever again and need to be in hospital -- as anybody should be if they plan to kill a bunch of people with their truck.
The necessity of re-watching to identify inconsistencies in a meeting is a problem with the medium. An inconsistency in thinking early in a meeting can invalidate the whole meeting but because a meeting has to move at pace it's much more likely for an inconsistency to slip in. Team meetings also bias the conversation towards whoever is most confident in speaking up, this is especially disadvantageous towards people new to a team or those where the dominant language is not their own.
I'm not against meetings outright as some people much prefer communicating using their voice instead of in writing, and a good team is one that is able to accommodate each member's preferred style of working... but if a team meeting is taking place that is both important and also stretches the capabilities of participants, it should not be a meeting. A meeting should only happen when every participant has decided that it's the best medium for that specific conversation.
A meeting is like sitting in front of a hose: details will be missed.
The cost of owning a home for the average person is primarily reflected in the amount they pay for their mortgage. The cost of a mortgage is based on the value of the property as mortgages are secured against the property. The value of a property is determined by demand which is driven up when the market is filled with players who have easy access to capital to turn properties into profit-generating tools.
> Historically, renting has existed for thousands of years. That wouldn't make any sense if owning was (until recently) always a more desirable prospect than renting.
Renting is a very useful tool that many people (including myself) value highly: I rent out of choice. However, renting as a necessity (because it is the only option to live) is the position most renters find themselves in. If you poll the people in your life who are earning an average income you'll find most would much prefer to own their home because it provides much more security and it's typically more cost effective over the long term.
If there's 10 families and 10 houses for sale, each family can own their own home. The most desirable houses will cost more but at the end of the day, every family will own their home at a price dictated by the amount that they can afford.
If there's 10 families and 10 houses but only 5 are for sale with the other 5 owned by a landlord, the price of the houses for sale is pushed up not just based on desirability but also based on necessity, up to the price that 5 of the families cannot afford. At that point, the remaining 5 families need somewhere to live and so they are forced to rent from the landlord who can set their own price. Everyone (including those who were lucky enough to buy their homes) is paying more all because a landlord is involved.
Home ownership isn't the perfect option and so landlords provide some value, however, that value could still be realised without interfering with the ownership market. Most property is built to be occupied by the owner, it's only later that it gets taken out of the ownership pool by landlords with access to capital. Landlords purchasing owner-occupied property are much like cats let outside: they kill everything around them.
The benefit of being a commercial operation responsible for open-source project stewardship is that you have a low-cost marketing engine and most importantly you're able to set the direction of the project, you're able to operate at the cutting edge, delivering the best service to end users, in a way that others cannot. For example, the work Chromatic do in stewarding Storybook means their service is by far the best paid Storybook service and the alternatives (regardless of price) are rarely worth it.
If you're executives at the commercial arm of an open-source project and you're incapable of differentiating so much so that what Cypress are doing here makes sense, you've failed in your duty to shareholders and employees and should be removed. Cypress aren't protecting employee's livelihoods, they're protecting the executives in the short-term at the expense of the employees in the long term. They've bought their employees at best another 6 months with this.
There's examples of egregious commercial behaviour in open-source (like Amazon's situation with elasticsearch) where it's pretty easy to moralise about reselling free software with very little value-add. However, the entire internet is built on people taking concepts and ideas and iterating on them: building a product that is compatible with Cypress is worlds apart from ripping off the Cypress commercial arm.
I think the decision probably makes sense for the executive team at Cypress at this point in time: the writing is on the wall for the company, and taking this drastic action gives them a little more breathing room to somehow salvage a future... but the justifiable decision is to actually use their very advantageous position. If Cypress are threatened by Currents, that's embarrassing for the leadership, because they started a marathon at mile 20 while Currents was still sat at mile marker 0.
If you're measuring based on output, sure, but... the value of any knowledge worker is primarily driven by the input, that is, a client doesn't want "10 ideas" they want "10 [valuable] ideas [informed by the understanding of the business and the market they're operating in]".
More broadly, prioritisation isn't about whether a piece of work will achieve its aim, it's about understanding which options are the best use of limited resources. For example, you may be able to say confidently that reducing CWV from 800ms to 600ms will increase your traffic from Google search by 5% but that's immaterial until it's compared against other options -- there's an opportunity cost associated with all work.
Personally, I would be surprised if reducing CWV from 800ms to 600ms is the best use of your resources, unless your business is one of the few that has a strong organic search strategy with organic search accounting for a meaningful volume of revenue -- nowadays, most companies find paid ads are much more effective.
The website doesn't include anything to reassure me that the service is as reliable (or more reliable) than Wise. There's no social proof. I found the news article with your first annual report and that's quite compelling.
- Add average transfer times so I can see what most people are experiencing when using the service
- Add social proof: positive reviews would be very helpful
- Add real time information about volume
- Shout about your reliability: Wise has reputation that does the work for them, you don't
- Mobile app only is a little concerning too for business usage: I use Wise for business and personal, business on the website, personal on my phone (I can't articulate why but using Wise for business on my phone "feels" wrong)
A question for you: which country in “the west” can you think of that has worse prisoner treatment than the US?
> There's a big difference between prisoners (who at least in theory are locked up as punishment for committing a crime) and people who've been trafficked into slavery[...] What's happening in SEA is kidnappping innocent people
Lots of people in prison are innocent, especially in the US. Prisoners are no less deserving of rights and fair treatment than victims of trafficking. Likewise, I'm sure many trafficking victims are guilty of committing crimes (as are most people).