Yes. 100%. And the fact that you're not seeing why it does is confounding to me.
This person has shown that they are willing to harm society (for their own benefit, presumably); by active choice. And, as such, anything they say needs to be viewed through the lens of "is this person lying for their own benefit".
1. Their previous actions do mean that we should not trust what they are saying outright, we should do (more) work verifying the information they provide.
2. Their previous actions to _not_ mean we should avoid holding other accountable when the information provided turns out to be true.
You're asking your question like someone is arguing that this person's information doesn't matter (2); but the point being made is that we should (1).
The fact that someone actively worked against the welfare of society as a whole, in significant and impactful ways, _is_ a criticism of their credibility. It speaks to their morals and empathy for others.
It doesn't mean that what they're saying is a lie, but it puts them firmly in the bucket where what they say needs to be verified.
The message is that they're bad and the fact that they did these bad things proves they're bad.
And the key thing here is that we need to decide if we believe "they did these bad things". If the person reporting them is well known as someone the is truthful and trustworthy, we're likely to believe them with little proof. If the person reporting them is well known as a bad person that does things to harm others for their own benefit... we're less likely to believe them until we can verify the truth of their statements.
You're completely skipping over the "is this person telling the truth" part; I assume because they're saying things that fit in with your pre-existing view of the world. And that's not a good thing.
> But once you’re dealing with multiple users (tens or hundreds) it’s a different problem. How confident are you writing auth and password reset flows? How sure are you that the AI got it right? How solid is your approach to roles and permissions? Are you implementing 2FA? Supporting drafts, scheduled publishing, editorial workflows? Now you are also tech support writing the infrastructure as issues come in.
And that's only the start of where it gets complicated
- Ingesting data from 3rd party systems
- Translating content to other languages
- Front end user auth and preferences
- Personalized content
- A/B testing
- Multiple sites in the same CMS, sharing the same content
The list of things that add on to make a cms (and the sites it is used to create) more complicated is enormous.
I built a production forum from scratch with thousands of real users.
For years I thought of doing it. Can’t be that hard. You can imagine how every component would work. You just need a few tables, right?
But it turns out a polished forum that people want to spend time on has infinite polish. Every feature explodes into a fractal of micro polish. You could spend your whole life improving it and handling rough edges and making it nicer to use.
The WYSIWYG editor being a good example. You could work on just that full-time and never run out of things to do. Or the daylight between a MVP notification system and a mature one that sends PM/email notifs, tracks high water marks, lets users mute certain threads, infinite polish.
I also thought about this but decided to go with Simple Machines Forum and I'm glad I did. Just looking at the dearth of options in the admin area is enough to make my head spin.
That being said, I probably will embark on a custom form just because I'm highly opinionated and capable.
Isn’t this true for any project ever attempted? The only reason this project exists is because millions have already been wasted on trying to do this in house
Yes, but the comment I was replying to sounded like it was saying that the large cost wasn't an issue, because it would have such a big impact. But the odds of it actually accomplishing anything useful need to be taken into account, too. If it has a low chance of success, then a large price tag isn't worth it.
> At some point, a business should shift from growth state to a steady state.
I was on a department-wide call; many, many years ago. The person talking was telling us how well we were doing and how we needed to grow. At the end, they asked if there were any questions (which, thinking back, seems odd given the size of the meeting, but.. it was a long time ago). I asked them "Why? Why do we need to grow? We're doing a good job at our core business. We're making money doing it. Why do we need to expand; specifically expand our offerings into something that _isn't_ our core".
My question didn't get answered. But it _is_ a valid one, imo.
Businesses do not always need to grow at all, neither do investors as a class, demand that business keeps growing. A mature business generates a stream of dividends and everyone is happy. There are many, many such businesses.
One famous example is See's Candy, which Warren Buffet famously discussed in one of his newsletters. See's is a mature company with zero mandate to grow. It turns the profits over to Berkshire and Berkshire uses that to invest in other companies.
The economy as a whole keeps growing because human desires and ingenuity are unlimited. But a specific firm reaches its natural limit, at which point it turns into a cashflow machine to generate dividends for owners.
The problem you are facing is that Management does not want to acknowledge that it's time for them to start paying out dividends and leave growth alone, because that would be an admission that the profits of the firm are best invested by some other firm, and not by them.
It is all about management ego, in not recognizing their limitations, and then destroying the core company as they invest in areas where they can't compete. Shareholders and boards need to replace management when this happens, but it is hard to do because Management keeps insisting that they can earn an above average return if they keep the money rather than returning it to shareholders. And people love to hear stories of above average returns.
Sure, I like chained method calls too, for simple things. But it gets ridiculous sometimes where people write a ten-stage pipeline in a single expression and then call that "readable."
I'm with you 100%. The main thing is that sometimes a "break point" (using a variable rather than _more_ chain) can help readability. And sometimes it makes things worse. It's really a case-by-case type of thing.
The original reasons for not putting your elbows on the table (limited space, as well as some others) just don't apply anymore. There's no reason _not_ to put your elbows on the table other than "that's how it's always been done". As such, at least in my opinion, the rule no longer applies.
It has been shown time and again that, for most people, teaching them to be better and giving second chances is more effective than using forever-punishment as a warning for others.
> one input for the instructions/conversation and one "data-only" input
We learned so many years ago that separating code and data was important for security. It's such a huge step backwards that it's been tossed in the garbage.
Yes. 100%. And the fact that you're not seeing why it does is confounding to me.
This person has shown that they are willing to harm society (for their own benefit, presumably); by active choice. And, as such, anything they say needs to be viewed through the lens of "is this person lying for their own benefit".
1. Their previous actions do mean that we should not trust what they are saying outright, we should do (more) work verifying the information they provide.
2. Their previous actions to _not_ mean we should avoid holding other accountable when the information provided turns out to be true.
You're asking your question like someone is arguing that this person's information doesn't matter (2); but the point being made is that we should (1).
reply