$$('span.commtext').forEach(span => {
        const frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
        span.textContent.split(/\s+/).forEach(word => {
          const len = Math.ceil(word.length * 0.3);
          const leading = document.createElement('strong');
          leading.textContent = word.slice(0, len);
          const trailing = document.createTextNode(word.slice(len) + ' ');
          frag.appendChild(leading);
          frag.appendChild(trailing);
        });
        span.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, span);
    })

    function bionifyPage(){
        function bionifyWord(word) {
            if (word.length == 1) {
                return word;
            }
            var numBold = Math.ceil(word.length * 0.3);

            // return "<div class=\"bionic-highlight\">" + word.slice(0, numBold) + "</div>" +  + "<div class=\"bionic-rest\">" + word.slice(numBold) + "</div>";
            return "<b>" + word.slice(0, numBold) + "</b>" + "<span>" + word.slice(numBold) + "</span>";
        }

        function bionifyText(text) {
            var res = "";
            if (text.length < 10) {
                return text;
            }
            for (var word of text.split(" ")) {
                res += bionifyWord(word) + " ";
            }
            return res;
        }

        function bionifyNode(node) {
            if (node.tagName == 'SCRIPT') return;
            if ((node.childNodes == undefined) || (node.childNodes.length == 0)) {
                if ((node.textContent != undefined) && (node.tagName == undefined)) {
                    var newNode = document.createElement('span');
                    var bionifiedText = bionifyText(node.textContent)
                    newNode.innerHTML = bionifiedText;
                    if (node.textContent.length > 20){
                        node.replaceWith(newNode);
                    }
                }
            }
            else {
                for (var child of node.childNodes) {
                    bionifyNode(child);
                }
            }
        }
        bionifyNode(document.body);
    }

You can customize the css attributes of highlighted text and rest of the word using the two input texts.

The real reason that microservices are so prevalent is that they became fashionable, for exactly the same reason a particular item or brand of clothing becomes fashionable - influential people were seen using them and so regular people aspired to start using them too. At a certain point in the popularity curve, _not_ using microservices becomes a controversial viewpoint.

They also suffer from being what I call "conceptual crack". There is a certain kind of idea that really tickles some kinds of engineer's brains. Microservices seem like a such a clean solution, each service having its own single responsibility, so easy to draw on a whiteboard, so neat and tidy. Other ideas I place in this category are blockchain, redux, and V=f(s). Clean and tidy ideas that are compelling conceptually but result in nightmarish levels of hidden complexity when they're put into practice.

Imagine you were the founder of a business you've now realised... isn't going to be the next Google.

Your product hasn't failed! By some metrics it's very successful! You've got investors who value your company at $10 billion, and they're ready to loan you $1 billion.

But also, you've never made a profit, you've tried the most likely routes to profitability without success, similar businesses have suffered sudden implosions, and you'd have gone bankrupt years ago if it weren't for the fact there's chumps who'll work for you for free. You've got no plan for how to pay back that $1 billion.

But so long as you keep your mouth shut about that last paragraph, and accept the $1 billion? You get a high-status job, a thousand-person empire, and a fat compensation package. 1000 of your colleagues stay employed too.

Why would anyone climb off that gravy train?

Most founder either want to run a profitable business or make their way to a big exit. Company valued at 10b? Great, sell or IPO. If the founder really realized that there was no profit ever to be made and genuinely didnt believe in the future of the company then the best move for their own self-interest would be to sell and gtfo.

Not only if your premise impractical, but it's inherently illogical for your antagonist to act as you imagine.

The new owners have a different threshold, which you are about to learn. The exchange of money is fresh in their mind, they don't have a history with the employees, and they have a story in their head about how they can turn this money into a pile twice as high. They may well get the company to profitability, but if things were a little ridiculous before they may be a proper circus now.

There's some magic algorithm they use for figuring out options and vesting periods to retain staff, and there's some inflection point where if you stay this long then you get the most extra money per month. This is the trap they have set for you. It's practically an optical illusion, which you can only see once you've stepped past it. You will underestimate the relative value of month 3 versus month 13, and you will forget that 6 months may be worth $6N dollars but 5 months is worth $0. And so with one month to go you will be willing to put up with 4x as much bullshit, forgetting that most of that extra money was already buying the last 5 months. In effect, double spending your bonus. The moment you leave you will wonder why you didn't do it ages ago, even as you are spending the cash.

If it seems like you should stay for 2 years, then you will probably be happier with 1. If 3 years, then 2 years, maybe 18 months if there are increments smaller than a year. Of course, nobody can really tell you this, because your brain will keep asking you 'what if I had stayed' until it's happened to you at least once. But I think maybe you can tell people not to repeat that mistake. Trust your instincts from last time. This one won't be different.

Most people love to be looked up to, loved, payed nicely. They won’t quit.

If I actually believe I can't deliver the stress alone of feeling like a fraud and waiting for the hammer to fall seems worse than the interim reward for me, but I can certainly see people built different who would tolerate that. I think more likely is that people let themselves be convinced it will work out during the process of convincing investors.

Decency?

Can you believe it? The audacity! A business charging business people, for a course of knowledge both sides know they will never use...

This suggests either:

- the investors [think they] know something you don’t know

- the investors are profoundly careless with their investment

- the investors don’t exist, this is completely implausible

- you’re actively misleading the investors about that paragraph, not just keeping your mouth shut

Sounds plausible to me.

For example, consider WeWork - the CEO was literally buying office buildings with his shares, and having the company rent them off him. These investment funds are astonishingly careless.

This scenario you've described is such a stretch that in all likelihood it has never happened.

CTOs and engineering managers care about their own visibility at said cloud provider's conference so it gives them bonus points for their next gig.

Individual contributors want to take the place of the aforementioned engineering manager/CTO so they'll double-down and learn the current stack and "best practices". They may not even be aware that there's any other way or how unefficient it is, as they've started their career during this madness.

If any of those people have stock options, keeping low and going with the flow is a sensible strategy if they don't want to lose them by getting pushed out for speaking against the groupthink.

There's rarely explicit malice involved at any specific stage - it's a market-level problem. The music will stop at some point though and we'll see a readjustment.

Are they really? I think they're workaholics chasing an escape. True success is the worst outcome they could imagine, because then they'd have to tend to the rest of their life. Why be a serial founder, if its so horrible and stressful? Why keep working yourself to death after your first $10M, $100M, or $1B? Why is it never enough?

People have self-destructive instincts that are disguised in socially acceptable (or worse, praised!) forms. We shouldn't ignore the actions of founders when trying to make sense of their words.

I'd say it's one of my favorite properties of component frameworks as opposed to raw element modification, templating solutions or classical MVC.

EDIT: Oh I get it, you aren't talking at all about the consequences for the implementers. Only the massive effort required to turn the alluring V=f(S) into the React we have today. Got it.

If that's true, I'd like someone to explain Craigslist.

When you start, you choose between investors+growth=exit or profitable+steady=tidy

Greatly simplified of course but Craigslist chose the second path.

Every company was once a startup.

A small business is one designed to be tidy.

All business start but not every one that starts is a Startup.

Include tangent here about Lean Startup vs Startup.

Also, I'm using Startup which is different than startup - the Proper Casing I think implies the Venture-to-Exit part.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company

[0] https://github.com/glimmerjs/glimmer-vm

This would have been much easier if I'd had ts-regexp at the time :)

Some time ago, Tesla entered into $1.5 Billion in Bitcoin. They need that money to build cars and factories in the long term, they had the money raised from stock offerings and bond offerings.

---------

Someone out there wants actual dollars, not this USDT or USDC fake dollar crap. Sure, my financially illiterate coworkers who can't tell the difference from USD, USDT, or USDC may not care, but the people who actually use USD on a large scale care.