Skyzyx

Copyright is literally the definition of “who has the rights to determine how copies are made.” If you were to believe most people who publish content on YouTube, you might think that copyright means authorship, but it does not.

When you purchase a movie on Blu-ray, you don’t own the film. You own a piece of plastic which represents a license to watch the film. But you can’t turn around, make copies, and start selling those copies without violating The film studios “right to determine how copies are made.“

The only difference between a physical Blu-ray (license) and a digital license is that digital license is revocable. It’s not fair. It isn’t just. But it’s literally part of the contract that you agreed to.

There’s a separate discussion to be had around “fair use.” Backing up stuff that you have paid money for does fall into “fair use,“ unless third-party encryption is involved. Because it is against the law to circumvent encryption. (Unless, of course, you’re the FBI.)

This is the only characteristic that separates ripping CDs from ripping DVDs — CDs missed the boat on encryption.

I’m not necessarily arguing for or against anything here other than to simply explain how it currently works (in the US, at least). There’s a separate discussion to be had about perpetual versus revocable licenses after money has been exchanged. Beyond that, there’s a discussion to be about how to protect the intellectual property of the things that you spent millions of dollars creating; and how that fares with the consumers of said intellectual property.

These latter discussions are far more nuanced than most Internet commenters are qualified to decide.

• Based in the US.
• Salary employee (overtime doesn't apply).
• We embrace "shift-left" methodology, which means that we own our stack, soup-to-nuts.
• It makes zero sense for us to build an application, then toss it over the fence to another team that knows nothing about it.
• We partner with specialist teams for any skill that we don't have on the team. While many of us have Dev and also Ops skills, we partner (for example) with our SRE team on certain matters. We still own the work, but we "sub-contract" it out to our SRE team.
• We devs are on-call, and the SRE team that supports us is also on-call. Both teams get paged for any production incident. Our team is ultimately on-the-hook, but SREs are there to have our backs.
• It empowers/enforces us to make sure that we don't ship crap. And if we do, we get paged.
• We think about SLIs, SLOs, error budgets, and work to identify trouble spots in the application.

Based on the way you wrote your questions, I sense that your situation is completely different from mine. But we work hard to eliminate silos, eliminate fence-tossing, and partner together with experts to ensure that what we ship is of a high quality so that we don't get paged in the middle of the night. The better we do our daytime jobs, the more we can sleep in the nighttime.

I think that instead of "forcing tests", you should instead focus on "proving quality." You think that works the way you thought? Cool. How do you know? What if they were to use 128 NUL bytes? Would it still do the right thing? Cool. How do you know?

Ensuring quality is a larger concept than simply writing tests, but writing tests is definitely part of it. I think if you aim higher and teach the provability of quality, then the better engineers will self-select by starting to write tests.

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Additionally, if you're one person against the world, you're going to have a tough time. Build alliances. Partner with people who will reinforce the message. If you are the only one telling them something they don't like, they will shun you for it. But if you partner with allies who all have the same message, people are more likely to start to listen. It starts to become a community.

And if all else fails, prove the value of tests by going first. You can't force anyone to do anything. But you can start doing this yourself. At some point, if code gets called into question, you can look at the tests together to see what's covered and how that thing is supposed to work. It's all part of letting the robots do what the robots are good at, which frees you up to do the things that you're good at.

I think it depends. If you have to refactor in order to test, you probably built it poorly the first time around.

Right. "Move fast" means that it's going to get progressively worse, and 2 years from now it will all collapse under the weight of its bugs.

Think of tech debt as cancer, and tests as chemotherapy. It might suck for a while, but it can also make you much better.

Sounds like a bunch of junior engineers with senior job titles.

"Senior" is the new mid-level.

Whatever. Comments are helpful, which makes pure JSON a poor choice. JSON5 or JSON-C are better, but linting and static analysis are important to every form of code, so make sure that what you use for that will understand your syntax.

My current preference is generally TOML, but I've started dabbling with custom HCL2 DSLs. (I write a lot of Go and Terraform.)

I build software that is used by nearly all engineers in our company. We own hundreds of web applications and websites. We've grown by acquisition of smaller companies, and we have an extremely heterogenous environment.

25 years ago, I started my career as a web designer. Today, I'm a Principal Cloud and Platform Engineer. Still to this day, I regularly leverage lessons when building tech that I learned from the world of UX.

"Design is not how it looks. Design is how it works." — Steve Jobs

Naming consistency helps to reduce the mental friction that people have when learning how something works. For example, one my projects is a suite of Terraform modules that are designed as building blocks which cover all of the fundamental pieces of any app's stack. We have designed these 20-ish modules to work well standalone, as well as when used together. Certain patterns are the same across the board.

(1) We strongly favor dependency injection, and limit the use of ternary statements. In the world of Terraform, this is via variables or a .tfvars file. Everyone knows that this is how it works, so it reduces the mental friction when adopting a new/additional module.

(2) Variable names which do the same thing are named identically across all modules. Their descriptions are identical. For example, tags = [k:v] works exactly the same way across all modules, and people don't have to think about it.

(3) Modules have a naming pattern. Among other things, they begin with the name of the service that the module talks to. (If we find that we're talking to multiple services, we need to break the module down into smaller chunks.) So aws- or newrelic- or datadog- or github- or pagerduty- are all examples.

This overall "design" has not only helped reduce mental friction and made the modules easier to understand and use, but it also makes them easier to manage across hundreds of repositories supporting hundreds of apps. Collaboration, cooperation, and communication are all improved as a result. And if something is difficult to understand, then it means that we screwed up. We need to do a better job listening to the app-engineering teams and SREs who support them to streamline and clarify as much as possible.

"Customers" come in all sorts of shapes and forms.