BC BUSINESS
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

Looks like we need to spend some time talking about the Parler lolsuit against Amazon and why it's deader than a Mitch McConnell comedy special. They've brought three claims - antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference. None will survive. Here's why

 Here's the meat of their intro: Amazon isn't being fair to us. They're holding us to a higher standard than Twitter - they say we allow violent content, but look what Twitter does!
There are a few problems with this approach. First, there's a factual problem: Twitter and Parler take very different approaches to moderation. Hell, *that's Parler's entire pitch.* So "we're the same as Twitter, why are you treating us different" isn't going to fly
ALSO, the hashtag was mostly people saying "these folks are calling to hang Mike Pence!"

https://t.co/3ixZYQ8nRc
And ALSO also, did anyone notice any prominent right wingers complaining about losing tens of thousands of followers yesterday? You know why they did? Because Twitter has been active in deleting accounts that violate its TOS
So factually, this complaint isn't going to fly.

But more fundamentally, Parler has a legal problem: There's no right to have a contracting party apply its rules equally. If you and I sign a contract with a supplier that says the supplier can stop providing us with beer if
we support the NE Patriots (and by "sign a contract" I mean we sign 2 separate contracts, 1 for me and 1 for you), and we both tweet out love for that horrible organization, and the supplier terminates me but not you, you know what happens if I sue them?
https://t.co/8aOSh2bTjf
The only thing that governs my contract with that supplier is my contract with that supplier. If they have discretion to terminate me, the fact that they exercised that discretion for me, but didn't for someone else, doesn't give me a cause of action. Not even a little bit
(Note: The one exception to this would be if I could show the company was exercising its discretion as a means of discriminating against a protected class - i.e. it terminated all white people who did X but no black people who did, ever. That's not and couldn't be alleged here)
So ... this is NOT what you would call a good start to a complaint. If your intro - which is the part of the complaint that should hit the reader in the gut, set the hook, and make them start thinking "you have a case" - is "they did something they were allowed to do"
Moving on. They then *specifically allege* that Amazon is motivated by "political animus" before ALSO claiming that it's an antitrust violation.

Folks ...
https://t.co/LDAxWRH5X0
Words can't express how bad a job this is. It really can't.

But I guess I'll try
First, "political animus" is NOT a problem in our society. Parties are allowed to choose to do or not do business with counterparties whose politics they dislike. "Republican Pollsters & PR R Us" does not have to take on the DSA as a client.
I don't have to take on David Duke if he comes looking for a lawyer. Tom O'Halloran's Irish Pub is allowed to boot out Unionists if it wants to.
So when Parler says "Amazon booted us because they don't like our politics" they are *specifically alleging* that Amazon was doing a thing it was entitled to do
This is a problem, because Parler is *also* trying to allege a Sherman anti-trust act claim based on wishes and innuendo. Essentially, Parler - which sued only Amazon and not Twitter - is alleging that Amazon is working with Twitter to shut down competition for Twitter
There are lots of reasons why this won't fly, and we'll get there as they get to the meat of the claim.

But when your core argument is "this conduct makes me think it's an anti-competitive conspiracy," DON'T SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE AN ALTERNATIVE, NON-CONSPIRACY EXPLANATION FOR IT
Also, it's worth pausing here to talk about Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which is the "Tw" in the term "Twiqbal", the cases that set up the "plausibility" standard we've discussed in prior threads. (Refresher on plausibility here https://t.co/RIwlukf497)
The claim in Twombly was that telephone companies were conspiring to reduce competition by not entering into their competitors' markets, violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Here's the wikipedia summary of what the Supreme Court held, which is good enough to work with.
Do you see the problem this poses for Parler?

If so, you're a step ahead of Parler's lawyers, who apparently completely missed it.
Onward for the rest of the intro, which sets out the claims: Aside from the Sherman Antitrust Act, they're also alleging breach of contract, based on a provision they say gives them a right to 30 days notice of termination (spoiler, it does not), and tortious interference
To show tortious interference, btw, you need to show that someone: Knew you had (or were about to have) a contract, and did something that you weren't allowed to do, or for an improper reason, specifically designed to cause your contracting party to breach the contract
Tl;dr, that's also not going to fly here, for various and many reasons
Now we move into the "Parties" section, where Parler tells the court who it's suing. This particular paragraph is basically "but your Honor, we REALLY REALLY want to use AWS"
The problem?
No, seriously. There is no cause of action for "a business we really want to partner with doesn't want to partner with us".

That's just not a thing.
Next, they describe what's happening: We built our product around AWS, they're kicking us off, and it's going to really suck for us.

Also, we're a competitor of Twitter. This is important, because we're about to segue into their evidence of an antitrust conspiracy
In my head, I call this section "This is Evidence of a Conspiracy, Right? (No)"
Let me explain.

No, it is too much, let me sum up:

Amazon serves us and also Twitter. It was afraid we would grow at Twitter's expense, so it shut us down to prevent that.

That's their conspiracy theory. All of it. One problem
Your ... your theory is that ... that Amazon has a financial interest in preventing your growth because Twitter is a client?

And that's why it kicked, you, ALSO AN AMAZON CLIENT, off their servers?
Idiots, user migration from Twitter (an Amazon client) to Parler (an Amazon client at the time) literally CANNOT harm Amazon. It's a zero net business effect for Amazon; whichever of the two of you the users go to, they're still on platforms using AWS
In fact, the only way that could possibly harm Amazon is if users migrate from platforms that use AWS to platforms that DON'T. On your "protect its business" theory, Amazon should be *encouraging* Twitter competitors on its platform, so it has a better chance of retaining users
Instead, you just argued that Amazon did the one thing that could *harm* Amazon, economically, in this particular environment: Cut off a within-Amazon-ecosystem destination for users exiting Twitter
Not only do you have a Twombly problem - nothing here comes close to alleging an agreement between Amazon and Twitter - but the allegations directly contradict any claim that could have possibly been the motivation
Or, in gif form
Also, they talked about Amazon's letter to them. Here it is. Note what it says: We've been raising issues about this stuff for weeks, you haven't responded effectively, and you've affirmatively told us that you won't be responding effectively
Because of that, you are in breach of the terms of service and we think you're a risk to public safety, so we're terminating you on Sunday.

Wow.

Can they do that?
In a word, yes.
Let's take a look at Amazon's relevant agreements and terms.

Amazon's AWS Terms of service, which expressly bind any customer to the Amazon Acceptable Use Policy
Amazon's Acceptable Use Policy, which says "nothing illegal, or that may harm others, or that may harm our reputation, or offensive"
And Amazon's AWS Customer Agreement, which has a few relevant sections. 4.2, which requires customers to make sure their users' content complies with the Acceptable Use Policy, and holds customers responsible for end-user content that violates it
4.5, which says, basically, you are responsible for your end users and you MUST ban end-users for violating the acceptable use policy if you know about it. So, for example, when Parler deleted Lin Wood's post about killing people, but didn't ban him for it, they violated this
6.1: We get to suspend your access to AWS *without any notice at all* if you violate the customer agreement (which, as referenced in the above Tweet, Parler inarguably did)
Section 7.2, which has the 30 days notice provision Parler is relying on - but which ALSO says (check the red) "except we don't need to give you any notice at all if we could suspend you under Section 6"
And also, just to cap it off, a limitation of liability that says "you can't recover any lost profit damages against us, you can just get a refund"
With all of this background, you can see why this case is deader than a year-old fruit fly. They're suing for breach of contract based on a 30-day notice provision that the contract EXPRESSLY says doesn't apply. And they are no-doubt unquestionably toast
Anyway, back to Parler saying "but we were positioned to do so well before we got shut down for violating the terms of the contract we agreed to"
More paragraphs of "but having consequences for breaching our agreements with Amazon will really suck for us", to which a court will reply ...
https://t.co/d3yAblmwsD
Seriously. Parler signed a contract that said "Do NOT allow your end users to post violent, harmful stuff that might damage Amazon's reputation."

They agreed that if they violated that contract, Amazon could terminate them without notice.

They violated the contract.
And now they're complaining that they are getting the consequences they agreed to for doing the thing they agreed not to do?
That's ... that's not gonna move the needle, son.
Back to "no fair, what about Twitter", which just isn't a thing that a court will give even 1 fuck about, let alone 2
Now they're arguing that "hey, we finally took this stuff down" should be good enough. But it isn't. Not under the contract they signed. And especially not when they deleted the content but left the users
And here we get to the actual causes of action. First, antitrust, which I've been mentally referring to as
"Let's Do the Twombly Again"
Seriously, look those allegations over again. They're even less meaty than the ones the Supreme Court looked at in Twombly and said "nah, that's not enough to let your antitrust claim survive in court". Basically "Twitter is now an Amazon client and this thing will help Twitter"
"They could suspend us without notice, sure, but this is really a termination so we needed notice" is NOT a good argument when your contract says "we can terminate you without notice for anything we can suspend you for"
Seriously, this is the worst possible version of this breach of contract claim; by conceding that they could've been suspended without notice, they affirmatively argued that there was no breach
Full disclosure - in my first run-through of the AWS agreement I missed 7.2(b) (the "we can terminate if we can suspend"). But, um ... I wasn't being paid to litigate this claim, so "we were just as careless as the guy reading it for sport" is not a strong argument, guys
"Give us an injunction, because this is really going to suck for us": sorry, that the contract specifically says you lose means no injunction.

Also, the fact that the contract says "your only possible damages are what you paid us" means they are very very easy to calculate
Seriously, did these attorneys just not bother reading the relevant contract before Leeroy Jenkinsing this filing? How do you build your irreparable harm claim around lost profits that the contract specifically bars you from recovering??
Last, we have our turtle law claim (tortoise interference, yeah, I got dad jokes). This isn't going to fly for any number of reasons.
For one thing, tortious interference claims are based on "you made Dave, who had a contract with me, breach it, and therefore harmed me"

This seems to be "you made me breach my contract with Dave"
That's ... um ... not a thing.

Also, and I guess this is a minor note, but when you're alleging tortious interference you need to show that there was an existing contract that was breached
Maybe I missed it in the Complaint, but did any of you see any paragraphs detailing what Parler's "contract" with its users are or explaining how "not being able to provide Parler for a while" is a *breach* of that contract?
Seriously - they're essentially alleging that any Parler user can now sue Parler for breach of contract due to Parler being down, which ... well ...
I mean, I haven't reviewed the Parler terms of service but I feel preeeetty preeeeetty confident that isn't a good faith reading of them
Also, as our returning Threadnought sailors know very well, you can't get to tortious interference based on "third parties doing things they're allowed to do"
If your contract says "hey, Amazon, you can terminate me without notice if I don't delete Lin Wood's account now that he's called for murder", and then you don't delete the account and get terminated, you can't say "no, actually, turtle law says that's a problem"
That's not "improper means" or "improper purpose"

It's (again) what you SPECIFICALLY agreed would happen if you did the things you actually did.
Bottom line - this suit is a heaping pile of garbage with no chance of any success at all. It won't even make it to discovery. Whatever they paid their lawyers for this - even if it was on contingency - was too much.
/fin

cc @DefiantlyFree you may be interested in the above

More from Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Let's talk about this North Dakota attempt to legislate around Section 230 and create a civil right of action for users censored by social media sites. CC @mmasnick

Forget, for a moment, that this law, if it passed would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 (Federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict). This bill is a really good example of why this stuff is hard

Here's the key provision of the bill. The various highlighting on these versions shows areas we'll touch on


First of all, let's look at the last of those images. There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law - and, in fact, if 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct). So it's incredibly stupid.


But again, put that aside. Let's look at the substance.

First of all, who gets to decide whether content fits into these highlighted categories? Do they actually think that the government will get to decide what counts as "otherwise objectionable"?
GOVERNMENT
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
OK, let's start talking about the House's 80 page brief on impeachment. It really is an incredibly well-done piece of work. There are some things I'd do differently and some pieces I didn't love, but overall, it's very very good.

Again - this thread will happen in fits and starts. I'm swamped at work and this will come in 10-15 minute chunks as I take a break

Let's start by taking a look at the table of contents. After a 4-page intro (that's relatively long, don't love it), the brief spends a solid 30 pages walking through the facts underlying the impeachment - and, the subheadings tell us, tying in Trump's general refusal to accept


the election results with everything that followed. This is a strong rhetorical approach, but it comes with dangers: the President not only had a legal right to contest the election results, but the GOP Senators pretty much all backed that right, strongly.

It's going to be important to thread a needle of saying "this set the stage for what came after" without putting yourself in a place where you're trying to convince the Senate that the challenges themselves were impeachable. That won't fly
CULTURE
Advertisement
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)

None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.

This particular flavor of wishcasting was written by Ted Noel. Unless there are two "Ted Noel"s writing nonsense for the American Thinker, Noel is a doctor, not a lawyer or scholar, who nevertheless writes about legal issues

This actually makes me feel a bit better, because the thought that a *lawyer* could think that Pence had "plenary power" to discard state election certificates for any reason he chose is - even after watching Wood, Powell, Kaardal, and the rest - somehow too hard to contemplate
ALL
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
The judge in this case has now issued an absolutely brutal smackdown that you'll enjoy reading. It comes complete with a well-earned threat of sanctions.


Here's the decision. Some highlights follow

Pretty sure I said this, using slightly different words!


Hey, @questauthority, it sounds like Judge Boasberg was about as pleased about the long "none of this matters but we want to say it anyway" section as we expected him to be


You CANNOT run into court claiming there's an emergency and you need an expedited schedule so you can be heard before 1/6 and then just not bother serving anyone for 12 days
FOR LATER READ
Akiva Cohen
Akiva Cohen
@AkivaMCohen
Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy

There are two very simple, very basic reasons executive orders are meaningless here. Understand them, please

1) the president cannot issue an executive order that grants himself a power he does not already have. For example, the president could not issue an executive order saying that from now on he can make laws they don't need to pass Congress

(I mean, he could sign an executive order saying that, but it wouldn't have any legal effect)

2) the president can issue executive orders at any time.
TRUMP

More from Business

Vijay Patel
Vijay Patel
@vijaygajera
Pratik Sinha founder of ALT news is trained comrade! He is working on Communist agenda!

Thread

How many fact check he has done about any left party?No he won’t do it!
He will do fact check of Congress and few other non Left parties just to tell the world that he is unbiased!

Mukul Sinha, father of Pratik Sinha was Comrade and her mother is also comrade. They were active member of left parties!

Mukul Sinha tried to pleased Musl!ms after 2002 Riots with his fake evidence for huge donation from Musl!m Countries.


Mukul Sinha contested Gujarat Assembly elections in 2007 from a Muslim-dominated seat Shahpur in Ahemdabad, but got just 255 (0.44%) votes, losing his deposit. 😂🤣

In 2012, Sinha contested as an independent candidate from Sabarmati in Ahemdabad, and lost again, securing just 1860 (1.23%) votes!🤣🤣

As per affidavit in 2007 he had total movable asset of Rs.23,82,309

But shockingly In 2012 he had huge hike in movable assets! He has Rs.1,08,65,799 movable assets as per affidavit.
(this information are available in affidavit. This is not privet information)
BUSINESS
S\u0142awomir D\u0119bski
Sławomir Dębski...
@SlawomirDebski
There’s rumour about confidential negotiations btn the Biden admin and the German gov. Their goal: to find a way out of the mess in which the whole transatlantic community finds itself because of Merkel’s support for Putin’s pipeline—Nord Stream 2

2/ The preferred solution for the Biden team would be to deny Putin the ability to exercise energy blackmail against Central Europe and Ukraine, while at the same time foregoing sanctions against Germany.

3/ Early in his career, Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony @SecBlinken had analyzed the decision of the Reagan administration not to levy sanctions against West Europeans for building the Siberian pipeline with the Soviets.

4/ See for example:

5/ Reagan decided to take a step back, calculating that the unity of the West was more important than the gas pipeline. Not even Lady Thatcher supported Reagan’s policy.
BUSINESS
Advertisement
Sahil Bloom
Sahil Bloom
@SahilBloom
THREAD: The story of the week in finance is how a group of retail traders at @wallstreetbets, with assists from @ElonMusk and @Chamath, took down the establishment short sellers at GameStop.

A thread on the underlying mechanics of the $GME saga...


1/ First, for those unfamiliar with the business, GameStop is a videogame and merchandise retailer.

It has >5,000 stores, primarily in malls, across North America, Europe, and Australia.

The business has struggled to modernize, hurting its financial and stock performance.


2/ For a variety of business reasons, a bull (i.e. optimistic) case regarding its future performance has formed.

It really came to the forefront after RC Ventures, an entity managed by Chewy founder @ryancohen, disclosed a large position and assumed three board seats.


3/ @ryancohen summarized his case, stating:

"We are excited to bring our customer-obsessed mindset and technology experience to GameStop and its strategic assets...expanding the ways in which it delights customers and by becoming the ultimate destination for gamers."

4/ At the time of that statement on January 11, $GME stock was trading at about ~$20 per share.

Since then, the stock has surged to ~$200 per share and captured the public imagination.

But how did it happen?

There are two dynamics at play: a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze.
BUSINESS
George Yury Revutsky
George Yury Revutsky
@george_revutsky
1/An interesting thing happened tonight. I was scrolling through clubhouse and found WileyCEO, Godfather of Grime (kicked off Twitter in July for antisemitic tweets) speaking. So I tweeted this (and included a screen shot, later deleted as I found out TOS don't allow it ...


2/ ... and several folks also asked me to remove it which I promptly did afterwards).... Coming into the CH room, I fully intended to confront him about how hurtful his comments in July were. But as I listened to the folks in the room, I decided to go a different direction ....

3/ the conversation jumped around, covered many topics and there were between 8-14 people up on stage. But a recurring thread was discussion of racism, bigotry, comparison of it in the US vs UK vs elsewhere.

4/ when I got a chance to speak, I had 5 bullets written down: a) we should harness technology and capitalism to make reparations for what America did to Black people. I gave https://t.co/SlrW8zCd58 (a project a couple friends co-started) as an example) ...

5/ b) capitalism and product know-how and technology can be harnessed for social justice c) historically oppressed minorities need to stick together and lastly, d) "Wiley, how could you say such hurtful things about Jews as a people?" That's what I had ready to say, anyway.
BUSINESS
Nik Sharma
Nik Sharma
@mrsharma
@jspujji @RomeenSheth @ampush @GatewayX Down!
BUSINESS

You May Also Like

Meet Shah
Meet Shah
@ms89_meet
Strong Monopolies:

IRCTC 100% Market share in Rail Network.

IEX >90% market share in power trading.

Zydus wellness >90% market share in sugar free product.

Eicher motors >85% market share in 250cc bikes category.

MCX >85% market share in commodity trading.

Coal India >80% market share in coal production in India.

ITC >75% market share in cigarettes.

Honda Siel >75% in portable power generators.

Hindustan Zinc >75% market share in primary zinc industry.

Asahi India Glass >70% market share in automotive glass.

NRB Bearings >70% market share in needle roller bearings.

Pidilite >65% market share in adhesives.

CAMS >65% market share in RTA within mutual fund industry.

Time Technoplast >65% market share in polymer based industrial packaging.

Concor >65% market share in domestic container cargo transport.

Exide >60% market share in lead batteries.

Naukri >60% market share in the Indian job market space.

Praj >60% market share in ethanol plant installing.

Indiamart Intermesh >55% market share in the online B2B Classified space.

Borosil Renewables >55% market share in Lab glass.

Vst Tillers >50% market share in
Power tillers.

Delta corp >50% in online poker games.

Vinati Organics >50% market share in IBB.
GENERICLEARNINGS , GENERAL TWEER , INTRESTING TOPIC
Lu_lu\U0001f498
Lu_lu💘
@luciame16
Some thoughts on episode 53 of #Hercai

Love,that is not real,has no passion. Its fire turns into embers, it doesn’t not smell. The day, the night, the moon&year burn without sun, light, comfort&sleep.
Ömer Hayyam

#Reyyan #Miran #ReyMir #EbruŞahin #AkınAkınözü
#HercaiThoughts


1
PRAISE
The praise in this episode goes foremost to Ebru because she portrayed Reyyan so realistically like a woman who truly lost her unborn child. I was in awe and pain watching her along the episode, all her breakdowns and tears were so real.
#Hercai

2
Of course also Akın took his part and did his part masterfully, but he rightfully was the one who stood aside in this specific episode that needed to be about Reyyan’s pain and thus concentrated on Ebru.
#Hercai

3
And last but not least, if I say thank you to something that B gave us this year, then it’s to have Ali as our director. Also in this episode we saw the artistic eye behind every shot and I loved it.
#Hercai

4
OVERALL COMMENT
I don’t know who wrote ep. 52 but ep. 53 was going strong once more on symbols: roses, stones, fire and trees were incorporated and especially the ReyMir dialogues were written very well. I truly loved every ReyMir scene.
So let's get into it.
#Hercai
CULTURE
Advertisement
Anshul Pandey
Anshul Pandey
@Anshulspiritual
Rig Ved 1.36.7

To do a Namaskaar or bow before someone means that you are humble or without pride and ego. This means that we politely bow before you since you are better than me. Pranipaat(प्राणीपात) also means the same that we respect you without any vanity.

1/9


Surrendering False pride is Namaskaar. Even in devotion or bhakti we say the same thing. We want to convey to Ishwar that we have nothing to offer but we leave all our pride and offer you ourselves without any pride in our body. You destroy all our evil karma.

2/9

We bow before you so that you assimilate us and make us that capable. Destruction of our evils and surrender is Namaskaar. Therefore we pray same thing before and after any big rituals.

3/9

तं घे॑मि॒त्था न॑म॒स्विन॒ उप॑ स्व॒राज॑मासते ।
होत्रा॑भिर॒ग्निं मनु॑षः॒ समिं॑धते तिति॒र्वांसो॒ अति॒ स्रिधः॑॥

Translation :

नमस्विनः - To bow.

स्वराजम् - Self illuminating.

तम् - His.

घ ईम् - Yours.

इत्था - This way.

उप - Upaasana.

आसते - To do.

स्त्रिधः - For enemies.

4/9

अति तितिर्वांसः - To defeat fast.

मनुषः - Yajman.

होत्राभिः - In seven numbers.

अग्निम् - Agnidev.

समिन्धते - Illuminated on all sides.

Explanation : Yajmans bow(do Namaskaar) before self illuminating Agnidev by making the offerings of Havi.

5/9
RELIGION
Khatvaanga
Khatvaanga
@khatvaanga
Starting my 2nd thread on Sringeri Parampara. This will cover the Jagadgurus after Sri Vidyaranya to Sri Shivabhinava Nrisimha Bharati.

It is really very tough to match the brilliance and achievements of Vidyaranya. After whom came 15 - Chandrashekara Bharati [1386-1389].

The next Acharya was Nrisimha Bharati [1389-1408]. Harihara raya found a town for this Acharya - Narasimhapuram. Acharya helped the king by guiding him in political affairs. He also initiated the kind with mahamantras for spiritual development.

Subsequent Acharyas were
15-Puroshottama Bharati [1408 - 1448]
16-Shankara Bharati[1448 - 1455]
17-Chandrasekhara Bharati II [1455 - 1464]
18- Nrisimha Bharati II [1464 - 1479]
19-Puroshottama Bharati II [1479 - 1517]

20-Ramachandra Bharati [1517 - 1560]. Sadashiva Raya was emporer of Vijayanagara during this time.
21-Nrisimha Bharati III [1560 - 1573]
22-Nrisimha Bharati IV [1573 - 1576]
23-Nrisimha Bharati V [1576 - 1600]

24-Abhinava Nrisimha Bharati [1600-1623]. When he visited Malahanikareswara temple for first time he noticed there was no Vinayaka there so he took piece of turmeric and drew outline of Ganesha on a pillar and offered puja.
ALL
Patrick McKenzie
Patrick McKenzie
@patio11
A thread on HN about bad code in legacy projects both makes me think how little we've learned as a discipline over the years and, honestly, how little credit we give ourselves for some pretty major

Fun going down this list and thinking: "Hmm, plausible at a well-run modern software shop", "Hmm, possible, but requires implausible tradeoffs", "Literally disallowed by languages", and "If you were to attempt doing that our test suite wouldn't let you merge."

I think we as an industry celebrate (not quite the right word) failure too much and don't celebrate success nearly enough. There is no DailyWTF for competent execution, word of which generally stays pretty local to the source while incompetence passes into legend.

Alrighty let me try to thread the needle on being the change I want to see in the world while not giving away anything that will get me in trouble:

Ruby has wonderful developer ergonomics. Typed languages are easier for machines to guarantee the correctness of. We built a type checker for Ruby (and I believe it is slated for OSS release sometime).

c.f.
TECH