Not investing into your people is a sure fire way to be ineffective and signal to people that they’re not worth training and should leave. Couldn’t agree more with you.
I have made the claim in support of transparency before that it matters little if even my competitor would be able to get ahold of my road map as an extreme example of transparency. My forecast is that sure, they might zig or zag a bit differently but the reality is that their road map is already full of the things that they need to build next as well as their best ideas. They are my competitor, and generally they are going to consider their ideas superior to my own, so why would you expect them to change and copy my road map?
succinct and accurate, transparency triumphs, though there are some details that should be kept among a few until the deal is done. It definitely depends on the size of the company
The title is kinda misleading. "[W]ith user's permission" probably should be "with user's action" instead.
By default, you can copy to clipboard in all the major browsers when user takes an action, like click some buttons or links. So all these "copy code" buttons won't stop working. What does not in Firefox (and shouldn't in Chrome) is to do so without user's action.
Note: I have no idea what the rigid definition of "user's action" is. But clicking a button counts.
This is good for fetching a single item. What if you want to list resources?
Eg. List all comments of a blog?
It has to be GET /blog/:blogid/comments
Then, how about creating a new comment?
It'll be POST /blog/:blogid/comments
When both of these have the blog's hierarchy in the URL, should we take it away when fetching a single item? Or the stay consistent, we should simply do:
> This is good for fetching a single item. What if you want to list resources?
You're just asking for one of the most basic features in resource-oriented architectures: query a collection resource with a filter predicate and possibly pagination.
GET /comments?blog=<blogId>
> Then, how about creating a new comment?
Same thing: just POST it to /comments with a relevant request document, such as
{"blog":<blogId>,"comment":<blah blah blah>}
Your POST request then receives a response with a link to the newly-created comment resource, and that's it.
> When both of these have the blog's hierarchy in the URL, should we take it away when fetching a single item?
Resources do not have a hierarchy per se. You've just been passing request parameters through the path. That's it.
> It's hard.
Not really. It's a matter of understanding that resource-based architectures just deal with resources, and not resource hierarchies which don't really exist per se.
What you mean by hierarchy is actually just passing parameters through the path, but those parameters can be passed elsewhere.
List all comments of a blog: GET /blog_comments/:blogId
Creating a new comment: POST /comments (blog_id, author_id, category_id all in the post body)
Single comment: GET /comments/1234
You can pretty much follow all the same normalization rules you would for a SQL database. /blog_comments is a kind of query in a virtual N-to-N resource that maps blogs to comments, get it?
Consider for example, "all posts that this particular author commented on". That would be insane to put into a hierarchy URL. For a flat one, you can just:
GET /commented_by/:authorId
Boom, done. Sometimes, you'll need more than one id, of course, but that does not imply "nesting". Consider "all posts where these two authors interact on comments":
GET /discussions_involving/:authorId1/:authorId2
There is a cap in what you can do with a hierachy, and the web is not a filesystem with folders, it's a graph with unlimited possibilities.
Yes! Query string parameters are great for this kind of stuff.
I guess the choice on the URL format depends on how you're going to route that on the server side, so there are multiple ways of doing it.
Depending on the nature of the resource, you might have to be careful with URI canonicalization.
Consider for example the "diff between account balances" endpoint:
GET /account_balance_diff?accid=1&accid=2
Should the diff be presented as from 1 to 2, or from 2 to 1? Query string parameters don't have a particular order to them, and when canonicalizing, some user agent might decide to reorder these parameters.
If you do:
GET /account_balance_diff/1/2
Then, there are two distinct URIs (one for diff 1->2 and other 2->1) and no ambiguity on meaning.
You could also use some kind of index on the parameters to preserve order:
GET /account_balance_diff?acc[1]=123&acc[2]=456
Your other example using a comma should also be fine:
GET /account_balance_diff?accs=1,2
Let's go back to the "discussions" example. What should happen if I GET /discussions without any author id? Our inner guts tell us that there should be something there (after all, I'm filtering _something_), but REST implies absolutely nothing about this relation. To REST and HTTP, you could have a /discussions URL that is completely unrelated to /discussions?filter.
Having a concise, clear URL forming pattern is great. It's not REST though, it's a separate thing, incredibly relevant to us humans, but irrelevant to the architectural style.
A similar confusion happens with error codes. I've seen a lot of people answer 406 Not Acceptable as a status for lock errors and invalid requests. It sounds nice, but it's not designed for that. 406 means the server can't deliver that media type (you asked for PNG but I only have JPG, for example). That 406 is part of the content negotiation mechanism of HTTP, not a lego block to reuse as application logic. The URI is the same, it's role is to be a primary key for the web, not to express hierarchy.
(btw sorry for the long post, I ended up venting a lot and got into several tangents completely unrelated to your comment)
Cold starting a new identity on the internet is a huge pain. Also, a single point of failure for someone who has gained an audience on just one platform. What if the platform kicks you out?
After reading your comment, I went to the bookmark manager in Firefox. Looks like Firefox supports tagging bookmarks. But finding them again using tags seems a bit cumbersome. You have to go the the menu to search bookmarks and then enter the tag.
I have had an opposite experience. Daily notes makes no difference. I was in a relationship for 2 years and have written a poem every day for 400 days straight to her. But it failed nevertheless. In fact, I was told by her that these notes put her in guilt. Weird.
Gestures like these amplify whatever the relationship there is to start with.
If there's a lot of love, they amplify it.
If there's a lot of lack of commitment, they amplify it.
They do not change lack of commitment into love magically.
Sorry for being the party pooper. I understand where the OP is coming from and I truly respect that. Just wanted to add a bit of more context.
> But it failed nevertheless. In fact, I was told by her that these notes put her in guilt. Weird.
I think you're missing some perspective here. You make it sound like you were the one really trying, and your partner is the one who was weird for not "getting it".
I would honestly be pretty freaked out if my partner wrote me daily poems for 400 days. It would come off as very needy and obsessive, and if it continued after me bringing it up, I could see it as a reason to break things off.
Of course some people might really like daily poems. But from what you wrote, it sounds a little like you've failed to read the room, and are now blaming others for that.
I would honestly be pretty freaked out if my partner wrote me daily poems for 400 days. It would come off as very needy and obsessive, and if it continued after me bringing it up, I could see it as a reason to break things off.
Same. Occasional poem? I'm not necessarily a fan, but it is thoughtful and boy, does that thoughtfulness go a long way. But daily is intense, and I'd much rather daily communication to be fairly direct and daily thoughtfulness being small things that are optional but nice (making me a cup of coffee when I'm groggily heading to the toilet in the morning, for example).
If my wife were the poem-writing type, I would love a poem a day for 30,000 days, let alone four hundred.
But paying attention to people when you give them something is very important. People are different. You may cringe at poems, but I love them. I brought one that someone else wrote for me on my first date with my now wife. We talked about getting married on our first date it went so well.
So I guess what I'm also trying to get at here is that your contribution of your opinion to the conversation may be valid, but it's more kind if it's not so universal as to be judgemental, since mamoriamohit may take it quite personally even though there is a kernel of useful information in what you're saying.
It's kinda a long story, but there is a semi-well known poet in Toronto that writes poetry for hire and she works near a park that we both walk by with some frequency.
I described how I felt about the person I was about to go on a date with, but told the poet not to write directly about my date, but to use it as inspiration for a story of some kind.
I can't really describe how I knew it would go over well, but I knew it would. I try to tailor gifts to the person I'm dating, and I wasn't the type to usually bring something to a first date, but we had a ton of chemistry and I wanted to show how interested I was.
i thought that poem was by a previous friend about you, but instead it was commissioned by you specifically for this date. that makes a lot more sense and is a rather lovely idea.
Yeah that sounds overwhelming. They better be consistently good poems too if you're pulling that move!
Imagine having to keep to yourself that you're not really into poems but your partner is doing this. It'd be heartbreaking to piss in those cheerios but how long could you keep it up?
Personally I'd have had to say enough with the poems already at day 6 or so
Read the comment again. The recipient clearly didn't like the poems, and yet he still wrote four hundred of them.
> In fact, I was told by her that these notes put her in guilt.
No healthy relationship has one partner who cares so little about the other's feelings that they do something 400 times without finding out if it's welcome or not.
> have written a poem every day for 400 days straight to her
I'm sure this was a painful lesson to learn, but I hope you took the right thing away from it.
No healthy relationship is going to include 400 daily poems. It makes it seem like the subject of the poems is being put on a pedestal and idealized, not perceived as a real person with flaws.
It comes across as obsessive and, perhaps, insincere -- how can someone have 400 poems' worth of feelings for someone they've known for less than 2 years? And if they don't have those sincere feelings, what are they trying to accomplish?
Read a little bit about "love bombing" (not because I think you love-bombed anyone, but because it might help you understand how the recipient of this behavior might feel about it).
> No healthy relationship is going to include 400 daily poems.
A bold and absolutist claim. The GPs relationship was clearly not healthy, but the idea that no healthy relationship could exist where there is a daily poem is kinda ridiculous?
If you've written 400 daily poems and it doesn't seem to be having a positive effect, then it's certainly time to stop. If it's going well, then fair enough, you do you.
I agree with this. It made me think about the Adam Sandler movie where he finds out his lover suffers from a condition where she can't retain new memories, and at the end of the movie the conflict is solved by them going to live on a boat and him re-seducting her every day for the rest of their lives.
Watching it as a kid made me think it was a heartwarming ending to the movie, but the older I get the creepier it gets. It is essentially a hostage situation if you think about it.
Anyways, not saying this is what OP did, but I guess it's an example of how seemingly sweet and well intentioned actions can also be overbearing. I can't say I would enjoy having someone write me poems for 400 days straight.
Obviously it's not quite the same thing, but reminds me of an old neighbour we had.
She used to love baking, and would bring round cakes/pastries/bread for us all the time.
It was really nice at first, but also made us feel very awkward/bad that we didn't reciprocate (neither of us really cook much), even though we'd never asked for the cakes.
Eventually we had to ask her to stop, since we just didn't want to eat that much unhealthy food. She took it as a bit of an insult, and ended up being a lot colder to us after that.
It was a shame, but I'm not sure what else we could have done - she was giving us something unasked for (which we felt burdened by, even though she said she never expected anything in return), and got upset when we asked her to stop.
Debts are what bind neighbors and communities together. You felt bad because you were in debt to her giving but didn't want to have a relationship with that person by reciprocating. Often, the worst thing you can do in relationships is to get out of debt. Debts are a reason for people to see each other. By telling that person to 'stop baking', you told them essentially 'i don't want to have a relationship with you'. (see Debt, the first 500 years by David Graeber)
Great book. Another good one is Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein, which covers some of the same ground, in terms of understanding the dynamics that tie together people and communities, ensuring fairness and an appropriate level of redistribution, but with needing a formal money system or taxation. (Potlatching, for example...)
My mother likes to give cheap things found in op shops. Definitely more about her than the recipient: the satisfaction of a bargain and seeing things be continued to be used. I think it’s also a subtle way to try to control others’ spending because … hey, you don’t need a new X anymore.
Anyway, after seeing the relationship futility of resisting the unwanted gifts too persistently, I now just give some approximation of a warm thank-you, then donate the items to a charity shop.
The baking thing is real. People think they're helping you by loading you down with carbs and sugar. It's like someone buying you drinks - no, asking you to drink another round of his homebrewed beer - when you've already had enough. Upon reflection here, I think the best thing to do is probably to say "great, I'll eat this later" and feed it to the wild beasts.
This is called a “covert contract”. It’s perhaps the key part of “nice” behaviour that is everything but - you can’t tie someone up in a “deal” that they never agreed to. Even worse, punishing someone else for not keeping up their side of the non-negotiated “deal”
> Though, I’ve set that expectation, and she holds me accountable to it, so I do it very often.
This is a shared ritual, which I feel is powerful in any type of relationship. You have rituals at work and with your friends. These rituals are an ingredient in the glue which give relationships meaning.
They need that shared sense of importance to work though. Other parts of the relationship should be healthy. Good communication is a must. Did she tell you that the notes made her feel guilty during this 400 day stretch? If not, then maybe communication was off.
I'm sorry for what you went through. When one person is giving more that the other relationships can be a real struggle. I've been there I gave 110% and it scared someone off. The entire thing felt awful.
Some years later I found my wife and she responds very differently. She would love a note every day. Any attention I give her is welcomed.
> I was in a relationship for 2 years and have written a poem every day for 400 days straight to her.
While there may be some people like you enjoying maxed up romantic relationships I would run away in no time from a partner just trying to hard. Imagine getting home everyday to be greeted with a "gift of a day", 10 bullet points in refined calligraphy how much he/she loves me, new scent, yet another laborious make up etc.
Most of us will never be able to match that, be it because of no time/energy or a simple "let me rest after work, read a book/go for a walk". Relationship imho is not an attempt to create a Siamese twins in a mental space. Satisfy the needs of your partner, top it with extra stuff, but do not try to kill it drowning him/her in a waterfall of attention, gifts, questions about everything, etc.
this is part of the problem though. the expectation that the contributions to our relationship should somehow be equal. yes, both partners should contribute something, and it is possible that one (or both) of the partners are not contributing enough, but wanting to limit my partners contributions because i can't keep up is a problem in itself. the proper response is to talk about it, to share how these poems or whatever it is, make you feel. and come to an understanding that both can work with. the most important thing to do is to listen what the partner has to say, and how they feel. as with all these things, it comes down to communication.
In order for a relationship to remain healthy, the communication has to be bi-directional (and both parties need to feel that it is bi-directional). Writing a poem to your partner every day can be fine; if it makes your partner feel like it drowns out or undermines their signals to you, it's insensitive.
If you have an issue with your communication to your partner (either in not producing it consistently or not feeling that it's received consistently), changing it up to something you can generate (and/or your partner can receive in the intended spirit), building a habit that changes up your communication can help. On the other hand, if that habit makes your partner feel inundated, overwhelmed, or drowns out their communication to you, it can make things worse.
This isn't really context it's more a subjective and singular viewpoint from somebody who's relationship failed and perhaps was always going to fail regardless of the poems.
Not trying to be horrible here...just pointing out that this is not context.
Writing a poem is a bit different than the writing OP doing which is communicating in general about everything and everyone.
I don't want to dunk on the act of writing poems which is perfectly fine, but that's the creation of art. If you look at how he structures his communication, there are active day-to-day issues/problems being addressed that if left unresolved prevent the appreciation of something like a poem.
And as everyone else said, sometimes relationships don't work out and you did your best.
Regardless of outcomes, your faithfulness is still virtuous. Living completely in inner truth is what you want to aim for. Sometimes that means persevering in truth over a period of time. When it doesn't work out, you have trained yourself to be faithful. The most important thing is probaly that whatever you are doing is truth for you, but without dependency on the other. There is no dependency when reciprocation is not necessary in order for you to feel loved by the simple act of doing what is true for you. I've met a person with an imaginary relationship and it keeps him focused on his creative output. It's very important to be able to maximise creative output (perhaps through your muse?) and to not overrationalise. That is because we live in the age of DALLE and artificial imagination, and you need all the entropy you can get!
Sure but if your problem is that you don’t think about your spouse enough, this might help. There’s a lot of reasons relationships fail, this seems to try to address one or more ways it can fail.
this is probably related to the effect of different ways we perceive love. see the five love languages. we need to talk to our partners about that and try things to find out what makes them feel our love. and also tell them how we receive them.
I think it's well understood at this point that it's pretty much about giving people some shared language to talk about needs in a relationship. However, even with that, there's some contention— "words of affirmation" specifically seems to get a lot of heat.
Like, yes it's valuable to be aware of your partner and use those observations to uplift them, but it can also swing into some pretty unhealthy territory too ("when you raised that issue with me, I felt criticized, and then my words of affirmation need wasn't met any more; if you love me, you need to demonstrate that by not raising things with me") or even becoming a demand for unrealistic, toxic positivity ("I need you to be positive about/to me no matter what; I will be dependent on you for my emotional well-being, and if you're ever not positive to me, I'll become sullen and depressed and it will be your fault").
So yeah, love languages can be helpful as a starting point, but you still need guardrails in place (for example, a professional counselor) to make sure it doesn't get used in a manipulative, unhealthy, or unfair way.
If you say stuff like "people communicate and reciprocate love differently", then it's neither science nor pseudoscience.
If you say stuff like "these are the five specific love languages and everyone has two", that's either science or pseudoscience, and I'll give you two guesses how rigorously tested the hypothesis is.
Can't write a best-seller framed like the first one, though! People eat scientism up.
just like MBTI this is not an absolute where these types define your personality and predict your behavior that you can't escape. that of course is nonsense. but both are useful to get a better understanding about yourself, your partner and your relationship.
talking about these things with your partner works, and that helps to improve your relationship. i can confirm that from my personal experience.
love languages are bullshit, but it is useful to know if someone doesn't like physical touch
but don't worry, I play along with that, myers briggs, astrology, angel numbers, ambiguous western spirituality, and I'm a great listener (because I'm too dumbfounded to know what to say and I don't mind being an enabler, for sex)
unlike the others, its only the myers briggs people that take their belief system seriously, since it was probably used on their job at the teambuilding retreat and in academia, but increasingly the love language people have a blind spot for it too
everyone else can just laugh about their consequence-free religions
it is possible to take these things to seriously. i didn't read the five love languages book end to end. it was enough for me to know that there are different ways to express love and that we have different preferences in what ways we notice love from others. that is the core that matters here, and is what helped me understand our relationship better.
same for MBTI. i don't know what specific MBTI type i am supposed to be, and i don't really care, but understanding the different aspects that MBTI is based on does help me understand myself better and let's me explain for example why i enjoy company some times and not at other times.
there used to be a time when astrology and astronomy where the same thing. astrology is pure nonsense, but the astronomy it is based on is not. in the same way MBTI may be nonsense, but the aspects it is based on probably are not.
to be a great listener it takes a few things, to listen, to give positive feedback and to help the other person work out what they want to say. listening itself makes up the biggest part. pretending to be a great listener may work in the short term, but someone will eventually figure out that you don't actually care about what they say.
you might be pleased then to know that the same introspective possibilities are available in astrology, and many people get that from it. It goes much deeper than a procedurally generated daily horoscope and judging someone for the month they were born in.
Guess I listen better than you might have gathered from what I wrote, I’m pretty quick on the improv and with astrology pretty much all you have to do is not call it bullshit and people are surprised and enamored that you didnt! Because they expect you (or guys) to.
regarding love languages, I’m glad you got something out of it. I gather that most people just take an online quiz or just read the categories and choose one or three. The quiz being on the website of the book author if I recall correctly.
fair point on judging your listening skills. what put me off was that you gave the impression of listening with an ulterior motive. it sounded like you are not listening because you truly care about their well being but only because it enables you to get closer to them. that feels like taking advantage of their vulnerability
everything can be used as a starting point for introspection. as long as the focus is on the introspection, that is fine, but at least things like extrovert and introvert are based on observable human behavior, but ideas drawn from astrology are divination that is completely unrelated to human qualities or experiences. anyone trying to claim more than that is either deluded or a fraud. people taking astrology seriously are a red flag for me. i would not want them as friends even, let alone a partner.
or in other words i am open to be proven wrong when it comes to character types. if someone can come up with a better explanation that completely eliminates those types, i'll be interested. but i don't for my life believe that there is any repeatable observable benefit from applying astrology, that can not also be explained as pure coincidence.
> it sounded like you are not listening because you truly care about their well being but only because it enables you to get closer to them
> people taking astrology seriously are a red flag for me. i would not want them as friends even, let alone a partner.
The only problem with me going along with these belief systems, but astrology in particular, is that its usually the tip of the iceberg of other forms of susceptibility and unsubstantiated magic, and also damage.
but if I was choosing between the MBTI person that takes themselves seriously because an MBA and their companies’ executive uses it, and the carefree astrology person that expects to be criticized, I would chose the astrology person.
so its a little column A, a little column B
people are damaged and susceptible, they replace one religion with another to “find themselves”
Since we're being party poopers, it's worth noting that if your relationship fails it is, by definition, because you are unattractive to your partner. If that's the case, then yes attention from an unattractive person is a major turn-off. That's hardly a great revelation, but even so that kind of common sense appears to be sorely lacking amongst many persons.
attraction is created through interaction. but what attracts is different for every person, and if i am attracted to someone, i need to find out what makes me attractive to them. it's not just looks or first impressions. those help to get the foot in the door, but even an initially unattractive person can become attractive as you get to know them.
could the downvoters please explain why? i am really interested, do you not believe that getting to know someone can make them more attractive? do you not believe that it is possible to misjudge someone on their first impression? what else am i missing that makes you disagree with me?
You aren't wrong, the downvote are a defense mechanism.
People can blame their inability to have a relationship on outside factors (age/genetic makeup) if physical attractiveness was set in stone and the most important thing. It's a worldview where they don't have to look at their personality or behavior critically, so its an incredibly appealing worldview to some.
I think your use of the word attractive is wrongheaded, but if I set that aside your logic is also self contradictory. Lack of attention can cause lack of attraction, and thus attention from an “unattractive” person can cause attraction.
I think they are using the term "attraction" explicitly as a force to draw them together. If they fell apart, it was due to a lack of attraction.It isn't so much attention from an "unattractive" person can cause attraction - this appears to be very rare, but you are sure to not be attracted to anybody that you give no attention. Best bet is to first change your attractivity to your target (may or may not be possible) and then change the attention.
if your partner is unattractive to you, then why did you choose them at all? there must have been some attraction at some point, and if that attraction got lost, it's only fair if they try to win you back. if you are not willing to let them do that and any further attention puts you off then you should break off that relationship right there. but while you are in a relationship, it is not common sense that they should accept that their attention may be off-putting.
> if your partner is unattractive to you, then why did you choose them at all?
Convenience, society, no choice and still want to date/marry, money, visa, family, etc...
I agree you need to work on your relation. But a poem everyday? I'll think something is seriously wrong with my partner if she spits a poem everyday for a month non-stop. I don't think I'll it that go for a year, though. I suspect OP partner was more than reasonable but he was bad at getting clues from other people.
I have been building and managing remote (+ async) teams since 2018 (way before pandemic), and the biggest breakthrough came in only after a year of struggles. The breakthrough was:
Spend 10x more time evaluating cultural fit, and you'll spend 10x less time managing people.
This allowed me to simply trust every single person, and let go of the processes and daily meetings/standups, etc.
Simply trusting + communicating in weekly timelines kept everybody calm and productive.
This presupposes standups were for you (the manager) in the first place, but they were/are not.
They're for the developers to keep in sync. For tiny teams (1-2 developers) that's trivial and doesn't need a shared conversation. For 3+ people to try and keep in sync, it's easier if they all get together.
Sure, they can stay in sync other ways, but it's more likely that you lose productivity to people de-doing work, having trouble integrating, and losing out on developer experience when someone takes on a new problem.
The real red flag here is that your team doesn't want to talk to one another on a daily cadence. Sounds like a team that isn't really a team, to me, just a bunch of individual developers being managed by the same person.
