I appreciate their work on native/wasm, and I think it's great if they could be financially rewarded/sponsored for that work. It's just unfortunate that it has to be in the shape of an IDE dependency.

But is government oversight getting better?

Is this a story of local corruption, or of a larger corrupt system?

And if it has "millions of views" on Weibo, is this an indicator that the government takes it seriously, or just a means of entertaining the public with the latest scandal and establishing legitimacy of government intervention?

I sometimes wonder if we'll replace traditional design patterns, especially OOP, with new patterns, that are neither OOP or FP, but perhaps a different paradigm (e.g. how Prolog is wildly different from C++).

But I've met many people who hated onion architecture with a passion.

I have a few theories:

- Maybe a lot of programmers have ADHD, are autistic, or suffer from dyslexia, and find planning, naming, designing abstractions as excruciating activities.

- Onion architecture etc. is a long-term strategy that mainly benefits the company/project owner, but not the individual contributor. So it basically has to be forced upon programmers, who will resist it in every way possible, because they have no real incentive to use it.

- It's supposed to make writing software easier. But it really requires an IDE that's designed for abstractions, such as IntelliJ, and also requires a different way of working with the code. It's also verbose. So it's really a different paradigm, and it won't work if you use a plain text editor. You'll drown in code and a vast number of files.

- Onion architecture is not OOP, but often mixed in with enterprise OOP, and therefore bad associations that come with enterprise OOP.

Any other thoughts on why people resist it so much?

And what changes in how we work with code, would make onion architecture more practical?

In practice, however, the source code can be overwhelmingly large or complex, e.g. Chromium.

And yes, even if you're blocked from contributing to the project, you could 'just' fork it. But it would be incredibly hard to maintain a fork, and to get users to use/support it.

It is therefore important to distinguish between community-owned projects (e.g. Linux Foundation) that aim to be inclusive, and those that are privately-owned, and can easily have political behaviors (e.g. intentionally ignoring contributions, e.g. VSCode, because it goes against your interests, e.g. .NET, Copilot, etc.).

Yes, open source is now common place.

But I sometimes wonder if it, too, is a market failure, in that many projects are governed by, or mostly funded by, single entities, e.g. Facebook (React), Google (Flutter, Go, Android), Docker (Docker), and so on...

Is C++ a better example of open source, with broad industry contributions?

What about WebAssembly? Major browsers (Chromium) can pretty much refuse to support some functionality, and that'll be the end of that. The power centralization has severe consequences for openness.

I'm not convinced that community/industry-driven public-good type of FOSS will continue to flourish. If anything, I worry that we'll end up with a bunch of "open source" projects that in reality have built-in limitations (or as the author said "a carefully engineered bottleneck"), that prevent truly open adoption (like HashiCorp preventing contributions that compete with their commercial edition feature offering).

Edit: Could this have been used to hijack/create TLS certificates?

Similarly in football, by studying your opponents in previous matches, so that you can identify weaknesses during the match, even if playing in isolation.

So it's important that the penalties are significant enough to deter non-compliance.

I'd argue that this was a cheap business decision to make. Keep the price gouging on parts, while satisfying regulators on "right to repair", and even get some free marketing from iFixit.

It only takes one part to break for you to have to buy an entire new device.

I wonder what caused all this madness. Doesn't it degrade productivity? And thereby hurt profitability? And thereby the attractiveness of such strategies?

It sometimes seem to me like profit motive has been replaced by a power motive, like money isn't real anymore, but the legitimacy of private ownership is. Basically aristocracy 2.0.

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this, and why there aren't competitive alternatives in an otherwise free market.

They get to use her voice for some time, generating hype. Then get even more coverage over the controversy, for free, while talking about their new product.

Not desperate at all.

This is modern marketing.

This is bad journalism.

Regulation tries to restore a free market by reducing barriers and allowing other companies to participate, such as in the app store market. Especially where limitations are not warranted, i.e. iPhone being hardware, the coupling with Apple's App Store is arbitrary and self-serving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#%22Discontinuous_mi...

I imagine that it's increasingly hard to contribute or even participate in the ongoing research, which is dominated by major companies?

I work in a different field, but the way of working now is so different from when I started. It feels like factory work / hamsterwheeling. It used to feel more like the work of an architect, a mixture of art and engineering.

Do you use specialized equipment and processes, e.g. PDF-to-PNG rendering, one-way diodes, and such?

Also, I'm surprised to hear so many stories about crypto theft. Aren't there any airgapped solutions? And why aren't they mainstream?

(You have to physically remove the wifi and bluetooth hardware)

Also, one-way diodes are fine, mostly.

But I agree completely. There's a major lack of awareness.

I'm quite angry that firewalls on phones isn't a thing - and that you have to use a VPN workaround. Why is such a basic feature missing? (Oh wait, I know: advertising revenue, and uh, intentional vulnerability)