« La glorification de l'efficacité en toutes circonstances est une valeur qui sert en premier lieu les intérêts du capital, en nous poussant à considérer notre propre existence comme une machine productive qu'il faut donc sans cesse optimiser, pour réduire à leurs minimums les temps d'inactivité, d'inefficacité, d'improductivité. »

Pas faux.

faire les choses comme on veut les faire, pas pour être efficace, pas pour être productif, mais parce que ça nous procure de la joie.

Why not?
Nuclear waste going deep into the Earth so we don't have much trouble with it anymore.

Much like QEMU, new trends in the industry are taking it into a completely new direction: the rise of use cases around Edge compute, due to its limited resources and limited environments means that SQLite fits the bill perfectly.

It lists some distributed data project based on SQLite. The most promising project seems to be LiteFS: https://github.com/superfly/litefs. However SQLite is not open to contribution...

That'S why the author starts a new project, open to contribution named LibSQL (https://libsql.org/). It can be merged with SQLite if they change their code of conduct. They want to add async interfaces for example, or WASM support.

I agree with many folks here on HN in that null and undefined have important differences. undefined appears when you access an invalid field, while null appears when you access a valid, but empty field.

Some principles:

1. Work on something that matters to you more than money.
2. Create more value than you capture.
3. Take the long view. →There is no small here. (read the story about it)

You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself

That’s why a time like this, when the bubble is bursting, is a great time to see how important it is to think about the big picture, and what matters not just to us, but to building a sustainable economy in a sustainable world.

We should all be very concerned if some websites are indeed implying that anything other than a Chromium-based browser is now obsolete. The prospect of an Internet that is only accessible with Chromium-based browsers should horrify everyone.

Indeed

He uses ESLint and it is more than good enough.

In my opinion, what is the cause of our anxiety, emotions, sadness, anger, sense of disappoint, and so on is that we don’t fucking know our priority.

“Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” — Abraham Lincoln

Lesson: learn a lot, as much as possible.

As John C. Maxwell said, “Live to learn, and you will learn to live.”

Code itself won't tell you about the decisions and rationale behind it, nor about about higher-level structures and abstractions. All this needs elaboration in documentation.

La question devrait être “Pour quelles raisons, malgré les preuves de corruption, les morts, l’horreur sociale et écologique, pensez-vous que cette Coupe du monde de football doit avoir lieu ?“.

En moyenne, les ouvriers ont travaillé plus de 10h/jour, 6/7 jours, et ont été payés 1€ de l’heure, quand ils ont eu la chance d’être payés.

Depuis que ce chiffre de 6 500 ouvriers morts a été publié par The Guardian début 2021, la FIFA et les organisateurs n’ont cessé de vouloir le minimiser, expliquant que ce n’était pas le vrai nombre de morts pour la Coupe du monde, que la façon de compter n’était pas la bonne, etc. Sauf qu’en croisant les sources, vous retombez bien sur cet ordre de grandeur, et retrouvez les mêmes méthodes que d’autres évènements tragiques pour en minimiser les impacts.

Si cela ne suffisait pas, lorsqu’il a été interrogé sur les 6 500 morts, le président de la FIFA Gianni Infantino a déclaré “les travailleurs ont gagné de la dignité et de la fierté“, puisque grâce à eux, les conditions de travail se sont améliorées depuis 2010 au Qatar.

Parmi les réactions les plus indignes, Karl Olive (député LREM) avait tenté de relativiser le nombre de morts, en prétextant que la construction de la Tour Eiffel “avait causé plus de 300 morts“. C’est faux, réfute l’AFP. Agnès Pannier-Runacher avait aussi menti le 11 septembre dernier au micro du Grand Jury RTL-Le Figaro-LCI

Et le post démontre pourquoi.

En réalité je ne décide pas vrai­ment. Même quand je le fais, ça ne suit pas toujours. Le travail c’est juste­ment faire avan­cer tout le monde dans le même sens, pas décré­ter des choses dans son coin.

C’est à moi de faire en sorte que l’équipe aille dans le bon sens, d’ex­pliquer comment et pourquoi, de convaincre, de guider et de former. Je peux éven­tuel­le­ment repro­cher les déci­sions à ceux qui les ont prises, mais pas m’en reti­rer la respon­sa­bi­lité.

On parle agilité et ça sort peut être du cadre mais il y a quatre rituels que je ne saute­rai pas, dans cet ordre d’im­por­tance :

1. La rétros­pec­tive
2. Le 1–1 avec le mana­ger
3. Le daily meeting avec l’équipe
4. Les kick-off pour donner du sens et lancer les projets

1. When you need to release a breaking change—any breaking change—you do it in a major version. Period. No excuses.
2. You need to find a different way to communicate more significant project-wide changes and improvements. Major version numbers can’t do double duty as both breaking-change indicator and marketing hook.

About the second point, I would argue that giving an name is greater :D
Ubuntu uses it... Hahaha I read it as I write it.

Physical properties (margin, paddings) seems wrong: we need to specify intent in the design. That's why flow-relative or directions were introduced: inline-size, flexbox, block-size, ...

By graphing the acquisition of knowledge in SuperMemo, he has realized that in a single lifetime one can acquire only a few million new items.

Philosopher William James once wrote that mental life is controlled by noticing. Climbing out of the sea and onto the windy beach, my skin purple and my mind in a reverie provoked by shock, I find myself thinking of a checklist Wozniak wrote a few years ago describing how to become a genius. His advice was straightforward yet strangely terrible: You must clarify your goals, gain knowledge through spaced repetition, preserve health, work steadily, minimize stress, refuse interruption, and never resist sleep when tired. This should lead to radically improved intelligence and creativity. The only cost: turning your back on every convention of social life. I

The problem is that there’s a tension between our needs and our capabilities. We cannot focus and coordinate at the same time. Focus demands attention toward problems, while coordination demands attention toward people. Focus and coordination are opposing forces, pulling on the single thread of awareness. This tension creates the focus-coordination tradeoff.

People strive for focus (concentrators), other for communication (coordinators)).

The best way to navigate the focus-coordination spectrum is to constantly harmonize these dimensions as they dance. We can impact it through:

• group size
• people (managers, ICs, rotating coordination responsibilities, stand-up leaders, meeting scribes=.
• how we communicate: synchronous vs asynchronous communication; medium
• time: Healthy teams know which moments require more focus, and which ones require more coordination.

These statements of architectural principle explain the thinking behind the specifications. These are personal notes by Tim Berners-Lee: they are not endorsed by W3C on anyone else. They are aimed at the technical community, to explain reasons, provide a framework to provide consistency for future developments, and avoid repetition of discussions once resolved.

You have already a lot of features, so don't loose your time.
That's what I think.

And I also totally agree with this blog post

Set expec­ta­tions appro­pria­tely before reviews are deli­ve­red. If someone is under­per­for­ming across the board, the review should not be his first time getting that feed­back.

a première diffi­culté du lead est de savoir arbi­trer son temps, et c’est bien la compé­tence fonda­men­tale pour réus­sir à chan­ger de rôle. Il doit avoir envie d'agir et prendre la respon­sa­bi­lité qu’il faut pour ça. Les anglo­phones ont un mot pour ça : owner­ship.

"Part of your leader­ship is helping the other stake­hol­ders, such as your boss and the product mana­ger, respect the team’s focus and set up meeting calen­dars that are not overw­hel­ming for indi­vi­dual contri­bu­tors."