Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | gitonup's commentslogin

> If I had a choice between React (Facebook) and Kubernetes (Google) I would pick the former anyday.

Can you elaborate on why these are at all comparable techs to use as a developer?

React seems to be the frontrunner in FE, but what do you see the BE equivalent to be?


They aren't directly competitive (you wouldn't pick one or the other as product) but they are the premier open source projects of the two companies in terms of industry impact and they both reflect the engineering culture. (e.g. I am picking one as an exemplar for other software... like I want to make something like React instead of make something like Kube)

With just a little bit of hyperbole:

The culture of Google is that you hire "the best" developers (say top 0.1%) and hamstring them with process and cumbersome tools so that you need 10x as many of them as another company would need and pay them 3x market rates, but it is OK because (1) at the scale they work at they can amortize the cost over a large user base and (2) they make monopoly products. Google's systems are highly scalable, I grant that, but they have the first mover disadvantage that their foundations are first-generation and not based on experience and still slowing them down... but the market can't discipline them.

Facebook on the other hand, cares about internal DX, sees it a problem when developers are stuck with cumbersome processes, and greases the skids. They benefit from huge scale and monopoly profits but Zuck is keeping more in his pocket than he would be if he did things like Google.

The problem with React is that mediocre developers can use it to build big things that are too big for them to handle. The problem with Kubernetes is that above-average developers can use it to build small things they can't handle. And the scalability of Kube is more than almost all of the industry needs. That is, a system like what Hazelcast was before it became an analytics play could support clusters of 30 or so big nodes (two racks) and there are probably just a few 100 systems in the worlds that really need to get bigger than that.


> The culture of Google is that you hire "the best" developers (say top 0.1%) and hamstring them with process and cumbersome tools so that you need 10x as many of them as another company would need and pay them 3x market rates, but it is OK because (1) at the scale they work at they can amortize the cost over a large user base and (2) they make monopoly products.

This describes basically every FAANG / MANGA company. Or even past that, any company that hit it big with a cash cow and now needs to come up with something new to satisfy shareholders.

In Meta's case, they have 3B MAU, they absolutely hire from the same tier of developers, and (pre-layoffs/economic downturn) they throw 10x more of them than they need at a problem. They even outcomp Google. The number of employees is more because employee growth was an indicator for company growth and only once that became a liability against the stock price it stopped.

Meta is just a newer company than Google.

> Facebook on the other hand, cares about internal DX, sees it a problem when developers are stuck with cumbersome processes, and greases the skids.

I am married to a Meta engineer and have mentored folks that have gone to work there. This might be the case if you work for a product that drives their cash cow of ads, but if you are doing anything that doesn't fit within that narrow bucket ... let's just say our viewpoints diverge significantly.

> The problem with React is that mediocre developers can use it to build big things that are too big for them to handle. The problem with Kubernetes is that above-average developers can use it to build small things they can't handle. And the scalability of Kube is more than almost all of the industry needs.

The problem with the Chrysler 300 is that bad drivers run over people. What does that say about the engineering culture at Chrysler?

Look, I agree that most cloud stuff is overkill, but I have a hard time indicting Google's entire engineering culture over a project they released into the wild 12 years ago that just happens to not fit your use case and that theoretical "above-average" developers wouldn't be able to tell that.


I’m grateful David Grand for your wonderful masterclass strategy which has help me earn at least $10,000 weekly using his masterclass strategy and has also helped me recover all my lost money in binary options trading, i recommend his help to each traders whose point is to succeed and make good profits in binary options and also for those who wants to get back all their lost money and for those who are new in trading or have any issues in trading’s, you can contact him on: Email: wizardhackersunion@gmail.com.

> Things people mostly do when they feel good.

This sounds like an inversion of cause and effect.

> All three activities are hobbies. [...] It's nothing that gives life a purpose.

I find this to be a dire outlook, myself.


Hustle culture. Everything has to have a purpose. Ideally commercial.


Measurable responses to the environment lag, Moore's law has been slowing down (e: and demand has been speeding up, a lot).

From just a sustainability point, I really hope that the parent post's quote is true, because otherwise I've personally seen LLMs used over and over to complete the same task that it could have been used for once to generate a script, and I'd really like to be able to still afford to own my own hardware at home.


How many times have we implemented Hello World?

I'm using local models on a 6 year old AMD GPU that would have felt like a technology indistinguishable from magic 10 years ago. I ask it for crc32 in C and it gives me an answer. I ask it to play a game with me. It does. If I'm an isolated human this is like a magic talking box. But it's not magic. It doesn't use more energy than playing a video game either.


Which models?



Thanks! I've been playing with some of the qwen models via openrouter as well.. I'll have to give 9b a go at some point, I've been mostly playing with 27b and coder-next up till now.


Disclaimer: raised Catholic, now Atheist, married to devout Catholic.

The Church as defined by the institution is a community. I do not see it as a contradiction that the head of the institution is instructing the leaders to not add more layers of abstraction between them and the community, especially when those messages are on the subject of what it means to be human.


> Your boss, asking for a project to be finished early, may be an overdemanding boor – or just an Asker, who's assuming you might decline.

I don't pay for the Atlantic and thus am limited by paywall, but this ignores power dynamics.


Only if you’re a Guesser ;-)

Seriously though, it depends on the boss and the relationship you have with them. It can really fall into either camp and it might even be situational with the same person!

I would say that, generally, I would prefer to be direct in these relationships unless you both know each other really well. It does make things easier for all involved.


> Seriously though, it depends on the boss and the relationship you have with them.

Those are the power dynamics the GP is referring to.


That wasn’t the intention of what I wrote. I was referring more to how people speak. It’s very common in British English to phrase a request as a question. The “relationship” I refer to isn’t “they’re your boss,” it’s “how do you and your boss communicate,” which is a different thing altogether.

That’s not to say power dynamics can’t exist, just that it’s not a thing you can apply to every conversation or situation.


> The “relationship” I refer to isn’t “they’re your boss,” it’s “how do you and your boss communicate,” which is a different thing altogether.

No, they're impossibly intertwined and cannot be treated separately.

> That’s not to say power dynamics can’t exist, just that it’s not a thing you can apply to every conversation or situation.

To the contrary, it's not something your can ignore in any conversion between subordinate and a boss, which is the point the GP was trying to make.


For your hypothesis to work, it would mean it’s not possible for me to tell my boss “no.” Yet I do this all the time without repercussion. Trying to boil every relationship down to “power dynamics” is outright childish.

Do my boss and I have a formal relationship based on expectations we have of each other? Yes, absolutely. Are there consequences if I repeatedly go against those expectations? Yes. Are we friends? No. Does that give him unlimited control over me? Also no. Are there consequences for my boss repeatedly going against my expectations of him? Yes. Are they the same?

Are there people out there that abuse the position of boss to extract unreasonable concessions? Undeniably, yes. Is this relevant to a discussion of your boss asking if a task can be finished sooner? Not in the slightest.

I hope this clarifies things for you.


> Do my boss and I have a formal relationship based on expectations we have of each other? Yes, absolutely. Are there consequences if I repeatedly go against those expectations? Yes. Are we friends? No. Does that give him unlimited control over me? Also no. Are there consequences for my boss repeatedly going against my expectations of him? Yes. Are they the same?

What you are describing is what we call power dynamics, the effect of a power differential on the dynamics of a relationship.

> I hope this clarifies things for you.

This seems oddly passive aggressive and dismissive. I wonder would you speak to me this way if I was your boss, or the CEO of your company, or the majority owner.


> What you are describing is what we call power dynamics, the effect of a power differential on the dynamics of a relationship.

My wife and I have a formal relationship: our marriage contract. If I violate that contract then there can be consequences for me. Are there power dynamics at play?

I sign a contract with a supplier (or vice-versa). If one of us violates that contract, there are consequences. Are there power dynamics at play?

> I wonder would you speak to me this way if I was your boss, or the CEO of your company, or the majority owner.

I have done, yes.


It seems from your comments that you are confusing power dynamics with coercive control. Power dynamics doesn’t refer to coercion, but to asymmetric authority wielded, social status, risk distributed, or cost borne by individuals in a group. Even when refusal is possible, where the one or more of the above is uneven, power dynamics are at play.

> My wife and I have a formal relationship: our marriage contract. If I violate that contract then there can be consequences for me. Are there power dynamics at play?

I'm not sure this is landing the way you think it is, as yes, of course there are power dynamics at play in personal relationships, including between you and your wife.

>I sign a contract with a supplier (or vice-versa). If one of us violates that contract, there are consequences. Are there power dynamics at play?

Yes, of course.

> I have done, yes.

And of course you would speak to each differently as you would to me or to a subordinate, due to the power dynamics at play.


Power dynamics are definitely a factor. There have been many scandals around people in power asking subordinates to sleep with them, and it appears that the majority of the (Anglo) public now considers this morally wrong.


This analogy nails the problem.

The theory is predicated on askers being OK with a "no" and will move on.

This doesn't hold up for me.

I don't think you can refuse advances, a request from your boss to cancel your dinner to finish a presentation, etc. without repercussions.


You can read the original forum discussion that inspired this article: https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet...



It’s conventional around here to share these sites. But they are basically unauthorized copies of the articles, right?

IMO it is totally fair and fine to just respond to the part of the discussion that the publication decided to make publicly available.


> IMO it is totally fair and fine to just respond to the part of the discussion that the publication decided to make publicly available.

This wastes the time of people who read the article.


The publicly accessible article is the article, it isn’t the reader’s fault that the publisher decided to only make a little bit of it accessible to us.


> The publicly accessible article is the article

No.

> it isn’t the reader’s fault that the publisher decided to only make a little bit of it accessible to us.

It is a commenter's fault if they comment on an article they did not read.


a link to the non-paywalled article is at the top of the hn post


Reminiscent of the Vogon plans for the highway through Arthur Dent's house being on display in Alpha Centauri for 50 Earth years.


> “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.


This is largely "false dichotomies: the app".


It boggles my Detroit-grown mind that so many people claim this about so many thriving cities.

I live in the PNW and regularly visit most of the major cities there and in NorCal. What exactly is more depressing there than any other city of any economic relevance in the nation?


This is the God's honest.

I worked on the MS Word core team for a little over three years from 2010-2014, and de-facto owned a significant part of implementing ODF / OOXML Strict support.

The binary format was a liability for Microsoft to begin with, because of decades of cruft lining up with actual memory alignment. During my tenure there I ran into code my GM had written as an intern and was still intact -- he had 20+ years of tenure (mostly on Word) when I joined the team.

The translation of the file format to XML involved a significant amount of performance degradation if you weren't careful. Hundreds of millions of people use the app monthly, and MS still tries to maintain backwards compatibility. Given that open APIs were a relatively late development for the app, I really don't think in the current reality of what's expected by boards of directors for the companies they oversee that _anyone_ would take years to:

a) define a spec that maintained that backwards compatibility

b) reach whatever nebulous simplicity metric today's HN article wants

c) not get whoever greenlit the project fired for taking that many engineering hours for a and b


In cultures with more normalized haggling there's a conversation happening between two humans with agency, which this doesn't even have.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: