> The guy gives me chills, he reminds me of every sales douche who has ever tried to pull the wool over my eyes, or sell a customer something so horrendous and undeliverable as to be actively business ending.
The thing is, Joe is supposed to actually have substance and vision. He's not faking it. The difference is that all those sales guys are pretending to be someone like Joe.
No, Joe wants to have substance and vision. The tragedy of his character is his slow realization that he just doesn't have it. Indeed it's the tragedy of all the main cast that each has some of what it takes to make something truly revolutionary, but they lack some key aspect. They each know that another has the missing piece they need, but they can't sustainably maintain a relationship with them.
There's a line in the first season that runs as an undercurrent through the whole show ("Computers aren't the thing. They're the thing that gets you to the thing"). Joe originally says this to make the viewer think about technology, evoking the dawn of the personal computer and subsequently the internet. But later on, you're invited to re-interpret that statement as being about people: computers and technology were the thing that got the main characters to work together. It's the -people- that are the thing.
Part of what makes the show so good is that it's one of the few renditions in TV / movies of the joy of engineering something, and the constant tension that comes from working with great people. Great people inspire you, but they also challenge you. The show does a great job of portraying realistic conflicts that arise between different personality types and roles, as well as cleverly exposing the limitations of those personalities. With just Gordon, you'll get a stable and well engineered product but it won't be revolutionary. Joe has the vision but he can't actually _do_ the substantive part. Cameron has great substance and technical ability, but she's impractical and inflexible. Donna is responsible, effective, and clear-eyed - but unchecked, purely rational decisions erode the soul of a company into nothing. These differences frustrate our characters, and yet there can be no success without them.
I think many of us spend our whole careers chasing those rare moments where the right people are in the room solving problems, butting heads, but ultimately doing things they could never do all by themselves.
He's basically supposed to be a Steve Jobs character - manipulative, with weak technical knowledge, but with high charisma. The part where he takes credit for Gordon's work is very much a reference to the Jobs/Wozniak relationship.
I dont know about substance, but possibly vision. Its an old pattern, he kept selling more until the technical reality caught up with him. And he would abuse the technical staff to try and squeeze more out, but mostly because his reputation was riding on having sold it.
They have essentially nothing in common, other than the fact that both rapidly degrade over the seasons and both are nostalgic looks back at recent eras of America.
Absolutely. One of those shows where I went to check what the songs were playing in specific scene often, and ended up with lots of new tracks added to play lists. Whoever did their music selection was top notch.
Mostly because the kind of people who run and advocate for programs like this are actively hostile to the idea of merit. Prioritizing talented people would be antithetical to them.
Prioritizing merit would be fine if there was some way to measure merit empirically, and if that measure couldn't be gamed by anybody with money and/or connections. But this is for artists, so...
And thinks that s/he's a winner and the stuff s/he enjoys is made by winners, and the stuff s/he doesn't like is made by losers. Merit, universal, objective = ME; Worthless, narcissistic, special interest = YOU.
GitHub has a long history of being extremely unstable. They were down all the time, much like recently, several years ago. They seemed to stabilize quite a bit around the MS acquisition era, and now seem to be returning to their old instability patterns.
We're going to need decentralized open source alternatives with E2EE for any major communication services, unfortunately. It's just too temping of a target for Governments. They're never going to give up trying to destroy anonymity online.
They already exists except that most people don't know about it and also it is extremely hard to move over all the existing users from Whatsapp to something less popular and less user friendly.
Until that changes, then the governments around the world are going to keep pushing to get access to all our messages in order to "protect the children" TM and ask you to prove that "you are not a child" TM
Hard no. Reality is that this push is everywhere. Authoritarian governments are cracking down hard on dissent, they're not going to leave huge platforms for communication untouched. We'll need open source decentralized alternatives.
I’m always amazed that despite decades of evidence… there are people that not only don’t know that you can do anything if you say “it’s for the children” but they’ll actively support it.
Children generally have these things called "parents" who are supposedly responsible for their well being. Oh hey, suddenly there isn't a contradiction.
Empower parents. Parental controls are a minefield - especially with competing companies (ea, microsoft, steam, nintendo, apple) all doing their best to get you to turn them off so they can push lootboxes and other junk more easily.
reply