|
So he replaced a clear, objectively quantifiable mission statement with:
to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.
BS babble speak! Maybe Microsoft is behind all those spam messages for "achieving more." (at least for the male half of the planet.)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
You beat me to it.
"to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more" is a waffly statement that can't be visualised precisely. To "empower": to make possible but not actually do it? "Organisation" - but what about people, you and I?
I despair at the state of tech companies these days. We used to have Bill and Steve J and Larry E and they were crazy and it was great. Then we had Steve Ballmer, and Larry turned weird, and Steve passed and it just became kinda sad and all we had was Tim, Mark Z, Larry and Sergey, with Elon Musk on the side being the only one willing to do crazy.
Who, outside of us, knows the name of the Microsoft CEO? Who actually knows who the CEO of Google is?
Where's the passion?
I hope it's in the people who are front and centre. ScottG at Microsoft is out there doing incredible stuff. That's awesome. Android is powering along, and Apple released Swift and is pushing that hard and that's great.
That the passion is only to be seen in the hands of the developers is a good thing and a sad thing. It means even if the bean counters take over we still push the agenda. I just hope those with the passion rise back up to lead and champion the causes again.
And bring back a bit of rough and tumble. Those days were awesome.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: That the passion is only to be seen in the hands of the developers
And the dark side is that I'm not seeing much of that either. Granted my experience is currently being colored by some contract work in the incredibly boring insurance (property) industry, but it surprises me that at the lunch table, I'm the only one that does anything outside of the 8-5 job.
Well, ok, perhaps comparing other devs to me is not a reasonable comparison.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
"on the planet" seems so limiting.
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, Bill Gates succeeded in that quest more than he failed. Nadella, on the other hand, has done what, exactly? Besides, losing the phone market and pissing off just about every desktop user.
|
|
|
|
|
Designers use "benevolent deception" to trick users into trusting the system. You mean the progress bars actually work in some programs?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: benevolent deception
Is that like "alternative facts"?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlantic: It looks like your browser is unable to display ads …
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna see you wiggle it just a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
It's about time UX designers took the feelings of procrastinators into account !
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Many of today's most common languages make it difficult for programmers to protect users' privacy and security. I'm sorry, accessing that variable requires 2FA
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that have to say that the easiest way to write programs that protect their users' privacy is BY NOT DEMANDING PERSONAL DETAILS!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: the easiest way to write programs that protect their users' privacy is BY NOT DEMANDING SNIFFING / "CAMOUFLAGEDLY" TAKING PERSONAL DETAILS! FTFY
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
How on earth data privacy has anything to do with programming languages? Maybe with features of data storage (SQL/ NoSQL)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
and how is the data gathered and sent to that storage locations?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The PHP team has unanimously voted to integrate the Libsodium library in the PHP core, and by doing so, becoming the first programming language to support a modern cryptography library by default. The bad news: it's still PHP
|
|
|
|
|
what? that they are cryptographing the library?... as it would not be enough obscure yet...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It'll be out of date in six months.
And isn't PHP dead?
Or is that windows?
Oracle?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, because no other programming language has a cryptographic library as part of its standard library.
Oh, wait. What's that "System.Security.Cryptography" namespace about in .NET.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Sodium is a modern, easy-to-use software library for encryption, decryption, signatures, password hashing and more.
Oh wow, that is SO missing from .NET!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with having a language define the syntax and rules and the libraries implement (updateable) implementations?
I see no good in this.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: What's wrong with having a language define the syntax and rules and the libraries implement (updateable) implementations?
Ah, I had failed to realize that subtle difference -- they're adding it to the language itself!
Chris Maunder wrote: I see no good in this.
Agreed - let's hope it's not contagious.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that's what's happening here:
"The proposal to embed Libsodium (also known as Sodium) into the PHP standard library came from Scott Arciszewski, Chief Development Officer at Paragon Initiative Enterprises, a man that has campaigned for stronger cryptography in PHP CMSes in the past."
So, they're just adding it to the standard library. Like .NET, C++, Java, and just about every other language.
Headline should read: "PHP becomes the last programming language to add modern cryptography to its core."
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Within five years there will be a headline about how PHP's encryption has had an unfixed compromising flaw since day one.
(This is like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.)
|
|
|
|