Self determination is a sacrosanct right, and this punishment crosses the line.

That depends very much on the efficiency of software your architecture. A well-architected web app can scale up RAM and CPU utilization much more closely than something modeled on zero shared state independent processes.

Additionally, even if your scaling model of RAM before CPU is the only possible one, that doesn't make the utilization effecient, and implies that higher efficiency could still be reached by scaling up RAM per machine.

Machines consume a baseline amount of power whether they're used or not; that power usage obviously increases with utilization, but ideally you'd have full utilization across the board.

If memory usage is so much higher than CPU usage, I have to wonder what it is that Mozilla is doing wrong with their architecture. Are they using pre-fork-style servers? Are they just provisioning poorly? What is it?

> CPU use is irrelevant to most internet servers.

Why? The CPU is used when the machine does anything. Ideally you're operating the machines at full capacity, less overhead to handle load spikes.

> Over the week, I operate my car engine at about 1.2% capacity. Maybe they should write about that.

What you're doing is inefficient, and they do write about that. The solution is called car sharing and public transportation.

It's incredibly naive to assume you know best.

We have our job ads republished by job sites with user bases that are far outside what we're interested in, and it results in a massive waste of our time in filtering those candidates.

This just puts you back where you started.

None of these situations are the same as an interview. If you're providing an explanation at the behest of the interviewer, why not also depart on a tangent, also at the behest of the interviewer?

On top of that, even if PadMapper had not been slimy, I don't see why it's "right" to pay a sum for something you're perfectly capable of building yourself for less time, money, effort, and headache than what an acquisition would cost.

According to the ToS, you don't own a license to the comics, so you can't export them, or even hold onto the comics if comiXology disappears.

The problem might be hiring the younger or less brilliant engineers, and also placing them in positions where they cause significant damage, as it's driving your brilliant engineers to be toxic.

This kind of management strives to guide the now-profitable and low-risk venture towards a state of permanent mediocrity; the remaining smart, stellar people merely stand in the way.

The new management's desire is to secure their position in the organization by instituting policies that require that information and knowledge flow through them, amassing a greater base of direct and indirect reports, and redefining their internal metrics of "success" in a way that's genuinely divorced from external reality.

The Brilliant Jerk in this situation should be promoted, the new management should never have been hired.

Instead, you're writing a bunch of code to deal with data that may be in the old format, or may be in the new format, or may be in the new-new format.

I don't see that as an improvement.

A) closed development breaks the OSS community model -- that's not anecdote, just fact.

B) We have a past example of the slippery slope of closed development.