271–280 of 305 posts
Until the people on the board vote to replace you and the silence is deafening.
Brutal what business has come to
Docker is a reflection of some of the side effects of HN. Self driving cars and AI are other tech being pushed in a misleading way. All these aggressively promote SV funded companies without proper technical scrutiny. The lack of scrutiny means questionable technical decisions and complicated tool chains that add layers of complexity with little benefit are passed on to users with little knowledge of the trade-offs i…
How's Kubernetes a wrapper? Wrapper on what? The ones you listed are dependencies. What projects don't have dependencies?
> Docker initially wrapped the LXC project without proper credit ...
Docker hasn't been a wrapper for lxc for a long time (at least 3+ years, which is a long time in tech world). Also, the debian package at the time was called lxc-docker.
> Many commentators even today are not clear about containers and think Docker invented containers.
Misguided people are always going to be the majority, especially in the tech world. People actually working with these technologies, they will bother to figure out the differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any reasonably smart CEO Sorry but this is extremely naive and I'm sorry that your naïveté has caused you conclude things which are simply not true. This is a very strong assumption, and a lie that is peddled by the media (Zuck is the greatest example of this) to create a novel story. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a dangerous assumption. For the record, I've interviewed over 75 software founders (CEO/CT…
"I can tell you right now that there is nowhere near even 50% of them who have the ability to scale their companies." You assume that they all want to scale. There is a place for us boring people. We are the ones who do something well and are reliable. We don't blow the profits on fancy cars and houses. We have shit loads of cash in the bank at all times relative to t/o. In 18 years of trading there was one month tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had to pick a more common phrase to research on HN, it would be "growth hacking". By marketing-first I mean growth hacking/PR is priority #1. I'm not saying anything against this person professionally or personally, it is more a textbook example of marketing hustle as key to financial success. I prioritize technology ahead of marketing, and am currently struggling to flip this around. PS. I didn't know Docker wa…
> I prioritize technology ahead of marketing, and am currently struggling to flip this around. May I ask why you feel strongly about a technology-first approach? I can think of someone that tried your exact approach, but it didn't end well. He happens to be a member of this community [0] and he wrote a great blog post [1] introspecting as to the reasons why technology-first approaches don't work in the world we live…
I'm glad that RethinkDB seems to be headed toward a happy ineding as a community, and thanks for the pointer to the write up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "prove" has largely changed its meaning, it doesn't mean "test" anymore, although a few usages from previous centuries survive, such as military "proving grounds." So yes, it's very interesting that an old phrase that once meant 'a circumstance that challenges or makes one doubt a rule', gave birth to the modern phrase that means pretty much the opposite: "makes one more confident of the rule, in the end, af…
Most idioms I am fine with shifting, or being nonsensical when broken by time. I couldn't care less if people use "I could care less", as there is no mistaken meaning. My problem with the current use of "exception proves the rule" is that it is factually untrue. Not only that, but unlike other factually untrue phrases such as "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.", its current meaning promotes bad scien…
Basically, you can name the exceptions off the top of your head, but you could never do that with the non-exceptions because they're so numerous. Kind of like how in your parking example, you don't need to name the hours that parking is allowed, because it's a rule. It's always allowed, with some exceptions. You only need to point out the exceptions.
I would take your charitable interpretation and say you're misunderstanding the phrase. Since there are examples of this usage all over the Internet and a very long Wikipedia page detailing the various forms, I hope we can move past this wildly off-topic conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any reasonably smart CEO Sorry but this is extremely naive and I'm sorry that your naïveté has caused you conclude things which are simply not true. This is a very strong assumption, and a lie that is peddled by the media (Zuck is the greatest example of this) to create a novel story. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a dangerous assumption. For the record, I've interviewed over 75 software founders (CEO/CT…
"I can tell you right now that there is nowhere near even 50% of them who have the ability to scale their companies." You assume that they all want to scale. There is a place for us boring people. We are the ones who do something well and are reliable. We don't blow the profits on fancy cars and houses. We have shit loads of cash in the bank at all times relative to t/o. In 18 years of trading there was one month tha…
If they've taken outside investment based on a business plan of scaling, then it doesn't matter whether they want to scale. They either need to do it, or hand it over to someone who will.
I love nicely sized companies that are profitable and long term viable without the need to chasing after constant growth, but you only get to do that if the investors agreed to it. That's much easier when the investors are just the founders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any reasonably smart CEO Sorry but this is extremely naive and I'm sorry that your naïveté has caused you conclude things which are simply not true. This is a very strong assumption, and a lie that is peddled by the media (Zuck is the greatest example of this) to create a novel story. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just a dangerous assumption. For the record, I've interviewed over 75 software founders (CEO/CT…
And likewise, I can tell you from experience that nowhere near even 50% of the people brought in that supposedly have the ability to scale a company don't really know anything other than just enough pattern matching to cosplay as Jack Welch in front of investors, and how to minimize their blame when shit hits the fan.
What direct experience do you have with this to justify that claim?
Obviously sometimes people brought in are nothing more than sacks of potatoes that make noises, but I think its insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved to believe even a significant proportion of people fall into that category.
It's just a different set of skills to the ones for 'technical founder' and involve things like... organising, collaborating, compromising and socializing... you know, grown up things that leaders are expected to be able to do without screwing up.
Scaling a company is lot more than just scaling the tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I believe you could make it clear.
There's irony in complaining about unfair standards applied to CEOs, whose primary aim is essentially to extract the maximum possible surplus labor value from their employees!