While this is true, I see no reason why the contents of the rest of the video might be untrue or affected by the sponsor.
It would have been better for the creator to use a different sponsor for the video, or choose to not sponsor this video due to the journalistic value of the content. They have also adressed this in the pinned comment under the video, stating that the sponsor didn't get any editorial say.
Sometimes I wonder if we are the last generation that can still code by hand, and if more companies start to implement the same hiring rules as this guy, soon there will be no more junior devs since nobody can get a job, so give it 10 years and the amount of senior devs will be a finite resource that will slowly die out.
Can someone help me better understand the ultimate goal here? I'm thinking through the AI influence and how it would replace the engineers at my company and fail to see it. However, that is likely just pure ignorance on my part and I'm likely just missing the obvious.
Say someone from the business side wants an external Api implemented into some ingestion pipeline. What would this look like without engineers?
I guess a new industry of "prompt engineers" comes to fruition that is just a middle man between the business and the AI. Because we know for 100% certainty that zero executives are going to spend the time to interface with these chat prompts to build the ingestion pipeline. The prompt engineers will just be what we called application developers.
Seems like a non-issue to me. People using Oracle JDK for their applications can easily switch to one of the OpenJDK variants (Temurin, Corretto, you name it, heck even Microsoft or AliBaba if you really hate yourself), if they haven't so already (Oracle has been charging money for their JDK for quite some time, while there are more than enough free alternatives). The only reason to stick with the Oracle JDK would be to use an application that only supports that specific JDK (like WebLogic), which probably means another Oracle product, so you are giving them $$$ already, so that won't make a difference.
> I recall hearing recently something along the lines of- assuming you'd made the mistake of having signed up with Oracle in the first place- the contract you agreed to states that in the event of switching to another compatible variant, you're still required to pay Oracle their fees regardless.
> I also vaguely recall that this clause was indefinite(?)
Their lawyers will argue that the consideration was that the allowed you to use the Oracle software in the first place.
They'll probably also argue that you continue to benefit from using the Oracle software to develop your software even if you stop, although that's not necessary for consideration. That's more of an argument against unconscionability.
I don't know if their contract actually has that provision, but if so, it's another reason to stay away from Oracle altogether. I really don't understand the companies that seem to say "You know what would be great? Working with Oracle!" It seems insane to me.
I don't know if that's true, but that would qualify as a "suckers clause".
Most people would not only laugh at that but also terminate every business with Oracle just because of that.
But.. there's a percentage of clients who just say "Ohh dear.. ok then." and in many of these organizations the people who make these decisions aren't even close to the source of revenue ( mostly public sector )
They're all well aware. But companies like paying for things. They don't like legal gray areas about licensing, patents, copyrights. They just want to pay for a license and get indemnification and some kind of assurance they won't get sued or extorted later by some trolls.
A lot of it is also they like having the capability of picking up the phone and getting someone to prioritize / look at an issue they care about. Good luck trying to get an OSS dev to do that for you if you're in an industry that dev doesn't like (i.e. military development).
With a negotiated support contract you have assurances that developers are willing to deal with you, that they're probably not going to just up and vanish, and that they've at least agreed to at least consider issues that you run into.
Almost all of them say that their tickets are attended to within hours of filing, and Oracle offer support in over 20 languages so they must have a pretty big team to be able to do that.
Yes, the Oracle support is probably the best among the large software distributors.
And no, it won't solve some problem you detected. It will only help you if it was already solved by development.
Anyway, time to attend to a ticket is a useless metric. I bet Microsoft fares better on this than Oracle, but their support is absolutely counterproductive. (What I mean literally, you will get your problem solved faster if you don't try to deal with them.)
This. And the second reason is "We have KPI's with Microsoft about teams: they guarantee that it works in x% of the time, and they guarantee that it complies with our security guidelines". Notably the security is something that can never be beaten by any other application, be it on of off premises. No matter how brilliant it is. It can never beat Teams, because Teams is "good enough" and "free" at the same time.
Had to scroll down quite a bit on the HN page to find your comment, obviously it has been downvoted because having this opinion is apparently not allowed in this world. That being said, I fully agree with you.
I've tried watching this movie multiple times. When it originally came out so many years ago, friends of mine recommended it to me and they were absolutely lyrical about it. I've tried watching it high, I hated it. I've tried watching it sober, I hated it. I've tried watching it many years after it came out, I still hated it. There is something about this movie that totally grinds my gears, and I cannot put my finger on it.
> There is something about this movie that totally grinds my gears, and I cannot put my finger on it.
Spirited Away is beautiful, in the artistic sense of the word. It has no real story, and is just a hodgepodge of Japanese folklore pieced together to half-resemble even a mild plot.
The rest of the stuff that isn't folklore-related is just the anthropomorphic elements Miyazaki added in as filler because of "kawaii".
-----------------
And as an aside.... "Had to scroll down quite a bit on the HN page to find your comment, obviously it has been downvoted because having this opinion is apparently not allowed in this world."
It's not the "world" that has this problem. It's hacker news. This place seriously has a groupthink problem. For this site, "Disagree(opinion)" == "Disagree(factually incorrect)" == "Disagree(against group opinion) == "Disagree(no reason)" are all given the same weight, and the same gray-on-offwhite text.
At work, we have a permanent channel in Jitsi (a meeting in Teams will work too) that people can join when they have no other meeting going on. It's silent sometimes, but also the place where people ask silly questions that they would normally ask when standing at someone else's desk, or where people share non-work related stuff and discuss random things.
After two years of almost permanently working from home, it's grown to the place where the whole team just hangs when they're working to have someone to talk to when sitting alone at home, but also to ask serious questions, and equally so to talk non-work related banter from time to time.
Since the last few releases of Jitsi, we're also using breakout rooms to discuss some more in-depth things without annoying the rest of the team. Previously, those people would move to another meeting and come back when they're done. Now, they can stay in the one permanent meeting, and the rest can see them sitting in a breakout room, and go in and ask them when something urgent is going on.
I honestly think this approach has kept the whole team sane during 2+ years of full time working from home.
It's been a long time, but I see we've returned to "I'm not an epidemiologist or virologist but a software engineer, and I'm writing a blog post because I know things better".
It would have been better for the creator to use a different sponsor for the video, or choose to not sponsor this video due to the journalistic value of the content. They have also adressed this in the pinned comment under the video, stating that the sponsor didn't get any editorial say.