Notes

Google killed Reader before it had the chance to reach its full potential. But the folks who built it saw what it could be and still think it’s what the world needs. It was never just an RSS reader. “If they had invested in it,” says Bilotta, “if they had taken all those millions of dollars they used to build Google Plus and threw them into Reader, I think things would be quite different right now.”

I used Google Reader quite a bit. I loved it and was sad when Google killed it. It had so much potential. That said, while I might be nostalgic towards it, it’s certainly possible Google would’ve enshittified it if they kept it around and built onto it. Who knows what privacy nightmare we would be in. In the end, I use Feedbin and am quite happy with it and its functionality.

At the end of the day, Google Reader might not be around anymore, but its influence still is.

Code that runs on the client, by contrast, is running on The Devil's Computer.2 Almost nothing about the latency, client resources, or even API availability are under the developer's control.

Client-side web development is perhaps best conceived of as influence-oriented programming. Once code has left the datacenter, all a web developer can do is send thoughts and prayers.

Too many people, including me sometimes, assume everyone has a computer with nearly unlimited computing power.

Frameworkism insists that all problems will be solved if teams just framework hard enough. This is non-sequitur, if not entirely backwards. In practice, the only thing that makes web experiences good is caring about the user experience — specifically, the experience of folks at the margins. Technologies come and go, but what always makes the difference is giving a toss about the user.

I still use React at work, and while I don’t hate it, it’s definitely not the first tool I reach for anymore.

In short, nobody should start a new project in the 2020s based on React. Full stop.

So my advice is two-fold. First, make art. Join a choir or pottery class. Start painting, make weird novelty websites.

And second: enjoy art. Get out to your local theaters, museums, music venues… they are the best thing to spend your money on.

I’d highly recommend reading all the slides, they’re fantastic.

But the plan to use hardware from previous space programs is a bit cobbled together. The Space Launch System, for instance, was originally designed for the Constellation program, a strategy set up under the George W. Bush administration to finish building the International Space Station and to reestablish a human presence on the moon. Congress mandated that the rocket reuse technology from the then defunct space shuttle program. But Obama canceled Constellation in 2010, and in 2017 Trump anointed the Artemis program, with the goal of finally sending people back to the moon and paving the way for exploring Mars. Again, the new plan required that NASA use some of the technology that had been developed for Constellation, which in turn entailed repurposing old space shuttle technology. These mandates were pushed by congresspeople representing regions that housed manufacturing centers for shuttle parts. But the carryover and conversion of those technologies have proved difficult. According to a report from the NASA inspector general, bringing the rocket parts into the modern era—for instance, replacing asbestos parts—and retrofitting them for a new rocket system has cost much more than anticipated.

Leave it to congress to throw a wrench in things.

As Rebecca Giblin and I write in our 2022 book Chokepoint Capitalism, giving more rights to a creative worker who has no bargaining power is like giving your bullied schoolkid more lunch money. No matter how much lunch money you give that kid, the bullies will take it and your kid will remain hungry. To get your kid lunch, you have to clear the bullies away from the gate. You need to make a structural change:

Or, put another way: people with power can claim rights. But giving powerless people more rights doesn't make them powerful – it just transfers those rights to the people they bargain against.

Or, put a third way: "just because you're on their side, it doesn't follow that they're on your side"

But, what does it actually mean to work in an medium that is so temporary? How does it shape us? When your work can literally disappear at any given moment, how do you reason with the effort that went into producing it?

Sometimes our work is fleeting.

It's funny that, as developers, we often talk about "legacy code". For us though, the word "legacy" isn't used in terms of something to preserve the past. More often than not, "legacy code" is something to be refactored, replaced or removed altogether in the name of progress. Without necessarily realising it, we have unconsciously accepted the temporary nature of our work into the language of our industry.

A dev knowing the web platform will produce great websites regardless of the tech stack. At the end, there's "just" web stuff below all the framework magic, right?

A framework developer, on the other hand, might have a hard time switching frameworks, reaching for simple solutions or delivering high-quality websites without the entire JavaScript ecosystem. And I've seen this exact problem plenty of times.

Again, I find these debates a bit tiresome. I think the fundamental issue, as I’ve previously said, is that people are talking past each other because they’re building different things with different constraints. It’s as if a salsa dancer criticized ballet for not being enough like salsa. There is more than one way to dance!

Nolan makes some good points talking about where web components work well, and where they fall short. "It depends" is an oft-used statement and I think far too often we miss the point that there are multiple ways to build things. Some methods and tooling are better than others in certain use cases, some are not. Rather than constantly arguing with one another over the minutia, we should go with what works best for us at the given time.

In terms of the language, which is where I'm more centered up, breaking changes is a very big deal. One of the things I drive home for the compiler team that's very much on my mottos is the number one feature of C# is compatibility. It's like, we very much want the experience of you are not afraid to move to new version of .NET. You're not afraid to buy a new version of Visual Studio, because you know your code is going to keep compiling. We will not break you. We will make sure that unless you have done something absolutely extreme, it's just going to work. That is indeed our number one feature.

As a .NET developer, I greatly appreciate how much work the C# language team puts in to making sure your apps just keep working when you update .NET. The app I work on at work started out as a .NET Core 3.1 Web API. We have since updated it to .NET 6, and now .NET 8. Both updates were smooth with minimal, if any issues.

It really is kind of amazing that we were able to take advantage of all the performance benefits of .NET 6 and then .NET 8 without having to do a lot of work.

Applets. ActiveX. Flash. Flex. Silverlight. Angular. React.

Through all of it, Web Standards continue to thrive. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript have never moved fast enough because collaboration and agreement isn’t easy or fast. Web Standards aren’t thriving because of any magical feature or capability. They’re thriving because of agreement and compromise.

Through it all, HTML, CSS, and vanilla JavaScript have been constant. The ease with which any human on the planet can reliably access and read a web document from thirty years ago on any device with a browser today is beyond beautiful.

On the other hand, when creations from less than a year ago require making changes to the original document, untangling and upgrading a rat’s nest of conflicting dependencies, installing a specific version of a runtime or build tool, and then figuring out how to open it on a device that may or may not support it, isn’t a formula for success.

Libraries come and go. HTML standards roll out slowly but better stand the test of time.

Web platform features operate under a whole different set of requirements and constraints:

• They need to last decades, not just until the next major release.
• They need to not only cater to the current version of the web platform, but anticipate its future evolution and be compatible with it.
• They need to be backwards compatible with the web as it was 20 years ago.
• They need to be compatible with a slew of accessibility and internationalization needs that userland libraries often ignore at first.
• They are developed in a distributed way, by people across many different organizations, with different needs and priorities.

Usually, the result is more robust, but takes a lot longer. That’s why I’ve often said that web standards are “product work on hard mode” — they include most components of regular product work (collecting user needs, designing ergonomic solutions, balancing impact over effort, leading without authority, etc.), but with the added constraints of a distributed, long-term, and compatibility-focused development process that would make most PMs pull their hair out in frustration and run screaming.

A pair of students at Harvard have built what big tech companies refused to release publicly due to the overwhelming risks and danger involved: smart glasses with facial recognition technology that automatically looks up someone’s face and identifies them. The students have gone a step further too. Their customized glasses also pull other information about their subject from around the web, including their home address, phone number, and family members.

Oh boy. Having read Your Face Belongs to Us by Kashmir Hill last year, this doesn't surprise me. The genie is out of the bottle and I'm not quite sure how best to go about protecting ourselves from stuff like this.

I feel like a federal privacy law is a definite need, but I'm not sure how much that would go about stopping the dangers associated with this.

I look at some people’s personal websites and think, “Stupendous! If I ever reach that zenith of personal web design, I will call it quits.”

Then I read a post by them later and they say something like, “Gah! I just really don’t like where I’m at with my personal website.”

I'm not a design wizard. I can often tell good design from bad, but I'm always wishing I could do better, and try to.

It’s like our personal websites are a mirror to ourselves — a place where the mind’s eye must reconcile with the optical eye’s perception of reality.

It’s a torturous affair, to be sure.

And yet, people still publish those personal sites, those redesigns, those half-baked ideas.

I love this. Personal sites are awesome and I'm always trying to better mine. I love seeing others do the same.

On the Infrastructure bill allotting funding for broadband internet:

Unfortunately, a ton of that money is going to be given to giant telecom monopolies with a long history of empty promises and half-completed networks. But an impressive chunk will also wind up in the hands of smaller broadband ISPs, cooperatives, city-owned electrical utilities, and municipal broadband networks, allowing them to build fiber access out into areas that would have never seen service otherwise.

High speed internet is no longer a luxury. It powers today’s world and everyone deserves to have access to affordable, fast internet.

Monopolistic corporations have other ideas:

Cox is very upset that not all of the state’s share of infrastructure bill broadband money is going to Cox, so they’re trying to pretend the process was somehow flawed

You wonder how much they’re just going to pocket and say the did something anyway.

I’m for anything that will open up even a modicum of competition and give people access to the Internet.

Go to The Verge (just to poke at a site I generally like) without an ad blocker, open up the Network panel in DevTools and just let ‘er rip. I’m seeing 400+ requests. That’s tracking at work. You can even just sit there and watch it continue to make requests over time, even while you’re doing nothing. JavaScript is whirring, soaking up whatever data it can, setting cookies, and blasting data along with your precious IP address to god-knows-where. All those requests are slowing down the site, costing you bandwidth, laughing at your privacy, and causing legislation that at least you have to click a giant content-blocking banner with a “yes, this is fine.” button.

This is why I run an ad blocker. Contextual ads as Chris alludes to aren’t bad, they are often quite relevant to what you’re looking at. I however don’t need my web experience worsened and what little privacy I have on the web invaded for some random company to display some ad that might not even be all that effective.

The journey towards information is important. Humans retain information better they had to put effort in to get. Aimlessly browsing to find things you may not have heard of yet is as important as discovery is exciting.

I love getting lost on Wikipedia, going from one weird fact to another.

I used to love that on YouTube before everyone and their pet wanted to become an influencer and follow formulaic and manipulative patterns to create their content.

I remember first getting the internet at home in the mid-1990s and aimlessly browsing different sites on a super slow dialup connection. I’ve continued to do that of late, checking out the various blogs of the developer communities I follow on Mastodon and Bluesky. The web needs more of this.

It’s a scary thought that with some of the escalating conflict in the world, the GPS system we and the economy as a whole relies upon is vulnerable and a backup unavailable.

And because of course Congress is Congress, here’s an excerpt from the podcast.

GOWARD: Russia and China both have terrestrial systems that can give them GPS-like information in the event that signals from space are not available. Unfortunately, in the U.S., we shut ours off in 2010, and we have no sign of starting up something like that again.

WONG: Before GPS, the United States had a system called LORAN. That's an acronym for Long Range Navigation. It was a relic of World War II - a couple dozen 700-foot ground towers spread across the country that transmitted powerful radio signals - not as accurate as GPS, but it got the job done. In 2004, the Bush administration not only wanted to keep LORAN as a backup to GPS. It wanted to upgrade it to make it more precise.

GOWARD: The money for that was taken away in the various budget processes, and the old system was shut down without new replacement.

HEGYI: That shutdown happened during the Obama administration. They had a completely different view than the Bush administration and called LORAN obsolete in the era of satellite navigation. But then, a few years later, they said, oops, our bad.

GOWARD: We shouldn't have shut down that old system. We should have upgraded. We're going to do that. But again, nothing happened.

WONG: So in 2018, Congress passed a law requiring the Department of Transportation to build a backup to GPS by the year 2020, but then they didn't appropriate enough cash to do that.

Sigh...

Months later, marketing and management requests have continued non-stop and (of course) you’ve had no time to lace everything up. You think back to that fateful decision to implement a quick fix, not anticipating that the organization would utilize it on a daily basis, requiring constant updates for every unique sales avenue. In your haste, you built a system that is functionally not operable within the rest of the ecosystem—and you are now subject to that decision. As the requests take longer and longer to work, questions start to arise: “Is our developer losing his touch? Why is this taking so long when it used to take minutes?”

I feel this on a deep spiritual level. All too often we are asked to get features out the door as soon as possible to meet an immediate business need and are not always given the time later to clean the code up to make the system better.

Tech debt is real, and eventually comes for us all.

If you need to change a line of code, simply ask yourself two questions:

• Where did I get the inputs?
• Who relies on the outputs?

Answering these questions might not be simple; but, considering the code in this light removes the air of mystery and reduces the problem down to a set of quantifiable values.

Capability makes your life simpler. Tolerance, skills, knowledge, and health are always with you, wherever you go. They are assets but they take up no space. They are stored in your body.

Some lack capability through no fault of their own, but anyone can increase their capability. It’s an investment that pays dividends every day.