So says the narrative. Mozilla has money, but prefer using it for C-Level salaries : Mitchell Baker raised her salary from 2.5M$ to 7M$ within 4 years, all the while laying-off developers and spending a shitload of money on seminaries and others BS expenses. Meanwhile, the market share of Firefox dropped.

And I assume you have noticed that privacy is not their main concern.

Such a pity because Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox brought a lot to the Web. But I guess this happens when Corporate people take over any organisation.

I hope to be wrong, and I'll probably give it a chance, but I definitely have no expectations regarding the games.

First, behind the term "newspaper", you have journalists. Not all of them are equal. Some are professionals, some have connections, and some are not good enough. Like every human. Yo also hae some journalist that specialize in some areas, when you better have solid arguments to avoid a lawsuit when publishing (and usually, only part of it is published to be able to react). I know the ones that I consider to be good. To drop a few names, Kevin Arfi, Laurent Mauduit, Martine Orange, etc. I mean, their career and their work speak for themselves, their papers are detailed, well structured, they provide facts and proofs, etc.

Then, sometimes, facts speak for themselves. You have so many evidences on a scandal that there is no point arguing. You may object that some other facts are deliberately hidden, but more often than not, the accused people never answer on the substance, always on the form. It speaks volume. I mean, Mediapart is not a young newspaper anymore, and they have their track record.

Also, in any case, you're free to form your own opinion based on the facts provided. I have sometimes - as I said on the "woke things" a different interpretation of the facts that the journalist. But to be able to do that, you still need the facts, and they are provided. I "just" read the things differently.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt, whether I like or not the newspaper, whether I pay for it or not.

But let's go. Tell me some cases when Mediapart was wrong ? It should not be difficult for an "unreliable" source. Oh and tell me also what are your reliable sources, especially on the subject of investigations. I'm curious. Because apart from the "Canard enchainé", I don't find any.

Because it will always be easier to discredit a newspaper like Mediapart, than to provide alternatives and fact. And if you want me to give some examples when scandals published in Mediapart proved to be true, I have many.

Regarding Mediapart, it is indeed strongly opinionated newspaper, but you know that beforehand.

They have significant issues, but I'll never say it's not quality journalism (part of it actually). I've been a subscriber for years because of the quality of their investigations. For the record, none of these are pursued by big newspapers in France anymore: "Le Monde" and all major newspaper just relay the general information/propaganda, with no strong analysis. When they talk about scandals, they are never at their origin, and mostly relay the work done by others.

And when you know that most of them are owned by billionaires who have their own agenda, and that a significant chunk of their money (several millions per year) comes from the French state, you understand why.

You cannot be independent if your owners are billionaires, and if your income don't exclusively come from people who are paying for you to be independent (ie. subscribers). Everyone that argue against that is a liar. And you have in France 2 newspapers matching this criteria : Mediapart, and of course "Le Canard Enchainé".

The main issue I had with Mediapart (which led to cancel my subscription) was indeed the fact that on some subjects (mostly the "woke' things), they twist the facts to match their agenda. Some would say it's another view on the same facts but my opinion was that sometimes, they tried to make allegations on something not strong enough. Regarding the other subjects, I had nothing but praise for them.

First because human are notoriously bad at estimating the workload, and then because you never know what can happen in the meantime : it can be literally everything : a bug in the frameworks you use, someone who get ill, an hardware or network failure, etc.

When you have the luxury to set the deadline, you always choose a safe one, that will guarantee you to be on track or ahead the schedule. As much as you can, never late.

And yes, you also have to be careful before communicating to the client an estimate. he may then think that each of his request takes "one hour", and, as he now know "how to estimate", he would make you waste your time negotiating something that he perceive to be easy to do while it's not.

Honestly, despite the fact that I do not think highly of Accenture, nothing shocking here regarding the management.

Of course the fact that he charged for a full week of work is just a scam.

I've highlighted something that makes no sense. Do you expect a car manufacturer not showing one of its cars on its website ? Apple not to how its iPhone ? A SaaS company not showing screen captures of its product ? I don't. Those images should be easily available without having to browse YouTube, or do a search on google.

FWIW, I would actually welcome any concurrent to eInk and its monopoly. I totally share the point of view of the top comment, as I've seen this tech stagnate for years. Most of the supposed alternatives 10 years ago(PlasticLogic, Liquavista, Mirasol, etc.) either never produced something relevant, either failed the expectations.

I actually find your comment quite disrespectful: if you want to promote a product, you can do that without having to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Anyway, thanks for the YouTube tip: I was able to see what I wanted to see.

Edit: if some employee of ClearInk see this message, do yourself a favor and update your website with some pictures of your product, or even a embedded Youtube video. It will speak more than stock photos.

I checked their website to see what their technology looks like. I wanted to see how their product compare to a eInk screen use in many devices (such as Kindle/Kobo/ReMarkable), as this is the kind of products that interests me. It turns out that all the pictures shows the back of what I expect to be tablets/phone prototypes (or maybe it's just stock photos), and not a single time the screen.

It's almost comical : you advertise for a screen tech, but you carefully avoid to show how such screen looks like. Definitely a red flag.

We know that more than 80% of the infected people do not show any symptoms, and that around 0.5% (mostly elders) die from COVID.

Do the 90% addresses the death rate of those 0.5% ?

The previous one was done on May 5, 2020: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/76.0/releasenotes/

And the one before on April 7, 2020: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/75.0/releasenotes/

More or less, one release per month. Hardly "every week".

- When you have some "complex" technical code. Using natural language is sometimes the most effective way to explain what is done by the related code.

- When you deal with some business logic that can become weird an one point (process all these things in some ways, excepts these ones, weird edge cases, etc.). From a developer perspective, it does not always make sense, but it's always useful to have some background explaining why the code has been written in such way.

- When you have to consider history on a large code base. I know that people on HN mostly work on new shiny projects, but with legacy applications, you have to deal with all the bad/incorrect choices that were made before, and refactoring is not straightforward and is costly. I'm not saying it should not be done, but sometimes, you can work on it only in an incremental way. Comments allow you to add some perspective on the code (explaining the reverse engineering you've done, the initial assumptions, why they turned out to be incorrect, what should be done to improve the situation, etc).

Also, I disagree with the facts that comments are born out lazyness. "Lazy" developers don't bother writing comments. Actually, there don't care, and most of them do not even realise that at some point in time, someone will have to browse, read and understand their code. The only kind of comments I've seen from such people are "commented code", because "it might be useful" (it never does).

I see comments as a way to engage a (one way) conversation and provide useful and meaningful information to a future code maintainer. Sure, such comments should not clutter the code, be relevant and meaningful, stay up-to-date but it's - as many other things - a skill that require time to get it right.

Looking to eliminate all of those is not an approach that I think should be followed (but it's just my opinion). Focusing on allowing the code to be understandable by an hypothetical maintainer in the future is more relevant. If extra comments have to be added, so be it. These are tools, not ends.

Sure, a default has to be provided, but most of the people who will activate this option knows what they're doing, and which provider they want to use/avoid.

And this is the big issue : no one learn has told you, neither taught you how to play it. But some people were. Those are fine.

For the others (me included) we had to figure out on our own. Learn that we played the game the wrong way, or find another place. It took time, and a lot of investment and efforts are wasted in the process. And some people never learn. Meanwhile, those people stole undeserved credit. And if you ask them, they will tell you its thanks to their leadership and all that bullshit.

Actually, the most important thing you said is that : life is not fair. 100% fully agree.

I'm pretty sure there is some bias in the selection. I've never knew someone who has effectively passed a real IQ test around me, and I guess it the same thing for most people in the western world.

On top of that, we must do not forget that we're talking here about outliers, people whose intelligence (whatever your definition of it it is) is - to quote your own words - too obvious to ignore. People at the far edge on the "Bell curve of intelligence". Nobody will argue that Hawking was brilliant, he was not in good health though.

Of course, saying that being smart helps you achieve something in life is obvious. As well as being well connected. As well as being healthy.