Interesting write-up. The #1 quote for me is:

And as near as I can tell, this is 100% why Docker is winning. Forget all the nonsense you read about Docker making deployment or security or orchestration easier. It doesn’t. But it is emerging as a standard, something a person can learn at one company and then take to another company. It isn’t messy and ad-hoc the way a custom bash script would be. And that is the real argument in favor of Docker. Whether it can live up to that promise is the gamble.

Engineering the link preview on the desktop wikipedia website

this is a REALLY good idea. I would build that and put it by my trashcan though (or recycling bin). Ready to be added to the list as soon as I throw it.

Why do I need a hammer factory factory to build a spice rack?!

TIL about Cambrian explosion, an event when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record.

The remainder is NOT a modulo.

[...] the difference being that the modulo operator result would take the sign of the divisor, not the dividend.

The Law of Triviality, illustrated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality

In the third chapter, "High Finance, or the Point of Vanishing Interest", Parkinson writes about a fictional finance committee meeting with a three-item agenda:[1] The first is the signing of a £10 million (£221.3 million in 2016 money) contract to build a reactor, the second a proposal to build a £350 (equivalent to £7,744 in 2016) bicycle shed for the clerical staff, and the third proposes £21 (equivalent to £465 in 2016) a year to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee.

The £10 million number is too big and too technical, and it passes in two and a half minutes. One committee member proposes a completely different plan, which nobody is willing to accept as planning is advanced, and another who understands the topic has concerns, but does not feel that he can explain his concerns to the others on the committee.

The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board, and the amount within their life experience, so committee member Mr Softleigh says that an aluminium roof is too expensive and they should use asbestos. Mr Holdfast wants galvanised iron. Mr Daring questions the need for the shed at all. Holdfast disagrees. Parkinson then writes: "The debate is fairly launched. A sum of £350 is well within everybody's comprehension. Everyone can visualise a bicycle shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five minutes, with the possible result of saving some £50. Members at length sit back with a feeling of accomplishment."

Parkinson then described the third agenda item, writing: "There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanised iron, but every man there knows about coffee – what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought – and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting."[5]

Given all the time and effort collectively spent debugging by the software industry, it makes sense to explore the notion of formalizing the practice.

The paper illustrating some concepts from the people who created the object-oriented paradigm. A great read according to Avdi Grimm.

good read

Another interesting framework built on top of Vue.js

Un bouquin en ligne sur Git
– via sebsauvage

Probably another book I should take on