This is a talk turned into a web page done right. It seems like it should be a simple thing to do, but often the results are confusing and hard to read. Not here, well done!

I'd love to know if jvns has a library or something she uses for this. I've seen this kind of slide thingy on https://boringtechnology.club/ too, and I'm really curious!

Another lovely example of this format is https://idlewords.com/talks/.

I recently noticed that Youtube has been adding videos to my watch history that I didn't watch. Not just random videos, but ones the algorithm keeps pushing that I'm not interested in.

I know I didn't watch them, but there they are on my history page. It feels kinda icky and I don't know how to stop it.

Are you saying replace the volunteer moderators with Reddit staffers? Or empower a large group of new, untested, volunteer moderators?

Neither sounds like it would help achieve their profit goals.

Do you then fix the typo with no attribution to the original reporter? Or do you just choose not to fix a known error because you question the motives of the reporter?

Usually this is stuff like fixing "// TODO: this fails reguarly in the CI" (real example from the last such PR). It's the kind of thing I'll fix if I see it, but not really worth going out of my way fixing something like that: it's just a comment in some test code (not user-facing) and the few people that will ever see that comment understand "reguarly" as well. It's a non-issue and basically just spam IMHO.

These are always either bots or people looking to bolster their CV by bragging they "contributed" n PRs to n repos. I signed up to collaboratively make some (hopefully nice) software, not to deal with a stream of PRs like this.

Typos in README or publicly facing docs are different; I usually merge those (and those are almost always good faith too, because usually a real human picks up on them before the bots/script kiddies do).

This seems like the right answer. Either pay for the service or use something else. There's no sense in paying for one account, then secretly using it as two accounts.

I always assumed having to type the smile domain was more about making sure they didn't have to make both an affiliate payment and a smile payment on the same order.

Seemed like an easy way to cut off affiliates while appearing to be generous. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

This is exactly what I always assumed. Forcing you to navigate to a different URL killed any affiliate cookies.

Oh but they weren't forcing the customers to go to smile and strip the affiliate attribution for their session. Why, they don't even provide a link for the customer to click! The customer is choosing to actively navigate to smile themselves (when prompted by t he reminder at the top of the amazon page). So obviously that means Amazon can't be accused of doing anything nefarious to screw their affiliates (or, more seriously and litigiously, their advertising partners) out of their due credit for the sale. The customer simply chose to switch to smile. And it's all for charity so who could possibly complain?

www.amazon.com sets cookies for (*).amazon.com, though. Session cookies (and affiliate info) could therefore still be accessed on smile.amazon.com. I think affiliate attribution is just discarded regardless of cookie presence.

Exactly. It was also a way to train customers to navigate directly to Amazon instead of through search engines (where Amazon pays for ads).

The results may look similar, but they call for very different responses.

Firing productive engineers isn't going to fix managers whose vision is not aligned with business needs.

This is the part the really got to me once I started to realize that my contributions started really impact a team in a positive way, but the vast benefit of that impact was bestowed upon the manager. More annoyingly, even when the manager was poor ( and, I do not understand why, there seem to be a lot of those around ), the blame was always that of underlings. I was under clearly deluded impression that leaders gets blame and glory.

In my corporate life, I saw total of two exceptions to that rule ( now and my previous boss ).

That's the exact opposite of what a good manager would do. They'd take the blame for things that go wrong and credit the team for everything good that was accomplished. They'd be an advocate for their team and their reports individually. I've been fortunate to work with a few of those managers and they've been the ones that have been really successful long term. Keep searching or take the management route yourself and show them. It's very rewarding!

Managers gets promoted by getting credit for accomplishments, any manager who got promoted a few times will be good at getting credit for what you do in some way or another. Some deserve the credit, others don't.

Also known as non-repudiation[1] and, as you point out, not something to be used without considering its consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repudiation

What consequences? Something like "if you push to a repo that gets taken down for DCMA requests, you can't deny in court that you made the commit"?

You can't deny you authored commits even if somebody steals your private key?

I don't understand why a corporate death penalty is seen as untenable. For some crimes, yes shut the business down and zero-out the folks who sought to profit from the unlawful activity. If some of those people were defrauded into believing the business was lawful, the should seek the same remedies other defrauded people do.

You ask if the folks who depend on the company's product should go without. No, they should move their business to a competitor. If there is no competitor, maybe that's evidence that the business plan is not viable while acting lawfully.