But I’m also surprised to see so many comments advocating for the CTO disconnecting from the code in favor of doing more people management. As soon as they stop writing code their skills start decaying, their advice and technical direction is reduced to platitudes and thought leadership. It may seem like a CTO who doesn't code will stop making technical decisions and just delegate, but I’d posit that they make decisions regardless, just worse ones.

It seems like this sentiment relates closely to the ideas around dual track career progression, and having technical leadership tied to hiring and managing people. Hiring engineering talent is certainly important to the company, but is quite orthogonal to technical decision making and it seems like a natural place to split the role.

Chrome is such a complicated piece of software that the “forks” are highly dependent on Google and when Google unilaterally makes decisions they have to follow suit. Brendan Eich explains that Brave will continue to support Manifest V2 as long as Google doesn’t remove the underlying code paths: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152

I think a lot of people don’t appreciate how delicate the balance of web standards is right now. We have it so good (three high-quality implementations of an open spec) and I’m not willing to throw that away just to run Chrome on my iPhone.

After that, Google leverages its other service monopolies, Chrome goes to 95%+ market share, standards fall by the wayside, and nobody has any choice.

I guess the answer to that is antitrust against Google, but I’d rather do that first than go through the Chrome domination phase.

Especially with AI copilots getting better, it feels like we’re headed for a point where you’re either capable of architecting complex systems, or there isn’t much software for you to write: other industries tend to have rote work for beginners while they gain skills, but in software rote work tends to get automated away. AI can help people learn faster, but given what AI has proven good at, I expect more of the gains will go to expert productivity. (or non-programmer domain experts)

> Link Tracking Protection in Messages, Mail, and Safari Private Browsing > "Some websites add extra information to their URLs in order to track users across other websites. Now this information will be removed from the links users share in Messages and Mail, and the links will still work as expected. This information will also be removed from links in Safari Private Browsing."

Note that it says "links _users_ share". That part seems unnecessary if it's _all_ links in emails. I think it points to this feature being more about protecting a user from inadvertently forwarding their email to someone else, while not realizing it has personal identifiers in the links? Preventing others from unsubscribing them, or even auto-logging-in etc.

Though, I personally haven't seen iOS17 remove any query params from emails at all, maybe will have to wait for the next beta to find out.

I investigated Cloudflare and the $200/mo plan seemed to good to be true so I contacted sales who verified that yes, it was too good to be true and my usage of the $200/mo plan would violate their ToS. They initially quoted $5k/mo over the phone, and then came back with a formal quote with a number much higher than that.

My take is that Cloudflare's product is so good that they can get away with any kind of sales practices they want. It's like shooting fish in a barrel: just analyze customers on the $200/mo tier and find the ones that look like they could spend way more. It's not even wrong in concept: sales upselling is SOP, and the low-cost tiers provide a lot of value to people who couldn't otherwise afford what they're offering. But the combination of the two sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

AWS doesn't have transparent pricing either, but in a different way. Yes, you can use more and more bandwidth and know exactly what you'll get charged, but once you get to Cloudflare Enterprise levels of bandwidth the AWS sticker prices would be astronomical and everyone negotiates non-transparent lower rates.

With the original takedown, Microsoft would be worried that the relative nobodies disappear with Microsoft left holding the bag. If Microsoft instead knows that it’s backed by the EFF who is itching for a Supreme Court fight, they might instead tell the USG “here’s their mailing address, you guys settle it in court”.

It seems like you could build out a CDN on OVH using 1-5Gbps unmetered+guaranteed bandwidth and place servers in the US, Europe, and a few PoPs in Asia for relatively cheap, then use GeoDNS for balancing traffic. But it seems like OVH's pricing offerings have been shifting over the last year to remove the "guaranteed bandwidth" in favor of "unmetered bandwidth" (potentially throttled 50%) on more machine types.

It would still require monitoring and managing bandwidth saturation per host, and it's unclear how much extra hassle OVH adds. But in theory it seems easier than setting up and managing colos in many countries?

On the other hand, $0.0021/GB is far on the cheaper end of the spectrum, who is it that offers something that low?

Agreed all around that the pricing is frustratingly opaque.

If you’re not actively looking to sell, _definitely_ don’t bother taking the meeting unless there’s a champion high up who is personally interested.

Come to think of it, recruiters aren’t all that far off this either…

Every company you'll ever interview at will negotiate, and most will do so whether or not they have leverage. They usually do this via a recruiter or in-house HR, to try to disassociate any negative vibes that the candidate may feel towards their potential new boss due to hardball tactics in the negotiation process.

Your stance seems designed to deter any candidate from negotiating at all, and you can probably do it because there are enough people out there that are hesitant to negotiate. Which is exactly what this article is trying to fix.