I made (refined an existing one I found in a gist) a little script recently that does this more efficiently with bare repos and bundles: https://github.com/JarvusInnovations/fed-git-backups

The thing is, there really is no such thing as a "free market" as most who are in love with the term envision

ALL markets are BORN of regulations. A market is what emerges when you lay some shared ground rules: here's what a pound is, here's a standard currency, here's some laws about commerce, here's a court system for mediating disputes.

So the question isn't ever really about free or not free—it's what are the rules and who sets them

99 out of 100 times the people spending money pushing the virtue of a "free market" really just want to be the ones setting the rules and steering them in their favor

Replace "free market" with "competitive market"—what most people actually want when they talk about free markets—and suddenly a lot of what Bezos is going to argue for stops making sense

> Replace "free market" with "competitive market"—what most people actually want when they talk about free markets

I wish this was recognized more widely. I feel like the public versus private thing is kind of a red herring; the real issue is competition and cultivating it. Sometimes this means the public intervening in various ways (to support individuals in their skill development and ability to take risks, or break up monopolies, offer a competitive alternative in a public service, etc.) and sometimes it means the public stepping out (as when public regulations stifle true competition or a public service exerts too much control over pricing and services).

The problem with competitive market ideals is that money is a positive feedback loop. The more money you have, the more you set the rules, the more money you get, ad finitum until eventual money singularity.

Capitalism is useful, like fire is useful. You just need to be careful to keep your fire under control and doing useful things.

Yes and part of it being a _free_ market is that you don't have to trade with these people.

I also note that the examples of regulations you give are all regularly agreed upon voluntarily without some higher (i.e. state) power telling them to.

Financial markets have conventions, for example, because they're useful, not just because some lawyer in an agency says jump.

Yes, everyone has their own agenda. The idea of the thing is pretty straightforward though; Companies succeed or fail on the merits of their product. The government shouldn't seek to give undue advantage except insofar as to incentivize things we as a society care about (eg. carbon taxes). Prices are the arbiter of resource allocation, and should almost never be controlled or subsidised.

That people seek to use an idea to garner support for their agenda without embodying that idea is nothing new. Just see current American politics.

Sorry to hear you are out.

I've found "T/F" vals are not always portable between languages ("True" in Python vs "true" in JS) whereas integer comparisons are always interpreted correctly.

> I've found "T/F" vals are not always portable between languages ("True" in Python vs "true" in JS)

What? Booleans are booleans, they are converted to/from the language's boolean type when you encode/decode to JSON.

^ This right here. This article is pretty hogwash IMO

Points 1 and 3 aren't relevant if they aren't recording the data. Companies in other jurisdictions have no magic invulnerability you can trust to their data getting out (legally or illegally) if they're storing it.

Points 2 and 5 are equally true of any open source project unless you run it yourself from source. There are _plenty_ of examples of users getting phished by maliciously built/hosted open source tools

Point 4 is obviously not malicious tracking and a mistake any project could make

At the end of the day though, unless you're going to run everything yourself (which most people aren't) you have to pick who to trust -- some random person running a server somewhere, or a company with hundreds of employees recruited under the premise of working on a privacy-centric search engine who could all turn whistleblower

You can use it to load or compute derivatives of environmental configuration once

Chef's Habitat is a really powerful nix-like system that I find to be a bit more practical. Like nix though it suffers from being a complete paradigm shift that people coming in from the imperative OS world struggle trying to map their existing patterns into

It's kind of sad because it's a far better way to manage deployments and environments...but it takes 1-2 years of practice to really get proficient at

> you wouldn't learn all the meta of a language like C++ in a couple of months.

I think this reinforces OP' point though: what we really need are descriptions more specific than "software developer" but less specific than "$language developer"

> some languages force you to learn so much other "stuff" before you can be professionally productive in it

And it's exactly that stuff that should be the focus of describing the role. e.g. you're looking for a low-level network software developer with proficiency in memory management. If you were recruiting someone to help you with a Go or Rust codebase in that domain, you wouldn't pass over someone with a ton of relevant experience via C++ who hadn't spent much time with Rust/Go yet.

Focusing on the language rather than the skills/application (even when there's a heavy correlation between the language and associated skills) excludes good candidates and includes irrelevant ones

I hope the team is thinking of dusting of GitBook Editor too

I've switched from GitBook mostly to mkdocs-material for technical docs

Chef Habitat might be more what you're looking for in that regard, it very much feels like an intellectual derivative of NixOS and focuses on the cloud native story