This sounds like me always complaining about "Past Me"'s tech debt. Or when tech debt is being introduced, my team jokes about it being "Future Me"'s problem. It's good for a chuckle, but obviously there is continuity of identity.
But continuity is not immutability. Your actions are a present thing, and define you in the present. Past actions may have consequences, but you are always free to act differently now. Likewise, your present actions don't carve a future identity in stone, either. "The rent is due everyday", so to speak.
We may be talking about two different things. When you say "Past actions may have consequences, but you are always free to act differently now.", I believe you mean that as in "just because you have ordered chocolate ice cream every time in the past does not mean it's impossible for you to order vanilla the next time", yes?
Whereas what I am talking about is "all of your past experiences, the circumstances of your birth, your genetic predispositions and the weather in Myanmar, have created a world-state in which you choose chocolate today. By definition, you will choose chocolate."
My point is that there is no "you" which makes choices in the present, independent from the circumstances which created it.
This never has anything to do with open source vs. closed source, or anything like that. It always has to do with prioritizing the cohort that's most likely to pay money.
It's been shown over and over again in A/B testing that Apple device users will pay higher prices for the same goods and services than non-Apple users will. They're more likely to pay, period, versus free-ride.
As an Android user, it frustrates me sometimes. But I understand. I'm far more frugal with my online spending than most of my Apple user friends, myself.
Of course it does. Do you think the elites actually WANT massive tariffs putting a brake on GDP growth? Why are tech companies suddenly reversing course on content moderation and/or DEI, after years of pushing in the opposite directions?
Private enterprise will always have some level of corrupting influence over government. And perhaps it sees current leadership as the lesser of two evils in the grand scheme. But make no mistake, government DOES ultimately have the power, when it chooses to assert itself and use it. It's just a matter of political will, which waxes and wanes.
Going back a century, did the British aristocracy WANT to be virtually taxed out of existence, and confined to the historical dustbin of "Downton Abbey"?
I think it's more productive to think in terms of 'owners of public enterprise', rather than elites
There's a theatrical push-pull negotiation narrative that's replayed to us, but do you honestly feel that government could push back strongly on _any issue_ it deemed necessary to?
Public enterprise is so firmly embedded in every corner of Government.
Everything in life involves compromise.
Authority requires the possibility of edict above compromise; which in my mind is no longer possible.
I only clicked this to see if Coolify could be a compelling option against my current setup, of using Docker Compose for everything on my VM (including a private Docker registry for my images, and a Traefik frontend proxy to route it all).
Zero actual mention of Coolify, and the manual steps to PREPARE for it seem far more complicated than, "Just base your VM on the Docker Compose base image, and then tweak a couple things".
I'll stick with what I have. Nice advantage is that I can migrate from host to host and 99% of it is just copying the Docker Compose YAML file.
Until coolify and similar projects support DB backups with streaming replication, it will just remain as a hobby project and won’t be used for anything customer facing.
Docker compose and bash script is all I need to run 2 vms, with hourly backups to s3 + wal streaming to s3 + PG and redis streaming replication to another vm. That is bare minimum for production
I tried it a few months back but as soon as you want a project that has multiple containers using compose all sorts of issues start popping up.
Like it "forgets" which containers it started and then can't stop them any more or now you have 2 containers of the same service running even though coolify only recognizes one.
I think if you do register each service separately in coolify it runs OKish.
But I've now switched to the same setup as you had and ironically it has been so much simpler to run than coolify.
I'm really happy people are working on projects like coolify, but currently it's far from ready for any serious use (imo).
Coolify still requires root for installation, though they have a branch that doesn't that they're working on.
So you can just ssh in and do the coolify install and then switch off root login I guess, if you're willing to just blow away the server and start over if you ever needed to ssh in again.
I tried a from scratch coolify deploy recently and it kept failing with ssh key errors. On the other server we have it working and deploying many projects however the "just give it a docker compose" method has never worked for us.
Coolify uses Traefik and Docker under the hood and is really just a UI for it. It's definitely missing some critical backup features (solvable through restic or similar) and the UX is... good enough but no better.
it depends on your usecase, but i tried both coolify and caprover.
ended up going with caprover because i can more quickly spin up a nodejs app on there with git hooks (so it builds on each commit to a specific branch).
both offer this functionality, there's just less friction on caprover. but coolify is probably more extensive.
I can see wanting a smaller phone. That is an underserved market segment. But implying that phone marketing is patriarchy-driven is laughably absurd. Marketing for phones is probably more diverse and carefully balanced than for any other product category.
I read that they need to use gigantic manly man hands for the gigantic phones, because otherwise people would realize that it's a "two-handed" phone for most of us mere mortals, that's impossible to use with one hand for anything but the most basic tasks.
> Marketing for phones is probably more diverse and carefully balanced than for any other product category.
How can that be true when there's only 2 phone OSes of note and one single company sells half the phones in the US? There's not enough diversity in the market to create the conditions for diverse marketing.
If anything it's a race to the middle. When there are 2 shops in town, they tend to become more similar not more diverse.
Apologies, I meant my comment as a dig on the old idea that the larger phone is for men. It genuinely amused me that they used different hands to hold the phone. Especially since I have no real concept looking at that page on how big it would be in my hands.
And note that this was a serious criticism a few years ago where it was a complaint that all things are designed for 6' men by default. I don't know if that is still the general belief, but it got a ton of traction for at least a short while. I would be surprised if there aren't a fair number of folks that still think that.
It blows me away that even with the investiture of 100% of your intelligence and effort, at the peak of your personal ability, that you couldn't realize that I only said "It blows me away" because I was mocking the comment I replied to.
It's crazy that I'm the first person in this sub-thread to mention Samsung, when they are by far the market leader in Android phones. They have decent options at pretty much every price point.
For some reason, HN and Reddit just hates this company, and I don't understand why. People talk about "bloat", because Samsung ships with their own apps for things like phone, clock, calculator, etc. But it's trivial to uninstall those, and/or set the Google stock Android counterparts as your system defaults.
People get all weird about One UI, but my son has a Pixel and I have a Galaxy and I honestly don't see much meaningful difference between the two (other than his phone getting hot as hell because Google's own Tensor silicon sucks). I just recently switched back to Android from Apple, perhaps these UI skins were further apart in the past?
I think a lot of contrarians just hate Samsung because it's the market leader, simple as that.
They switched the home and back buttons... why? I can only assume it was to make competing android phones feel awkward such that those who step foot outside of Samsung quickly run back to "safety".
I've never seen any kind of UI where the "Home" button wouldn't be in the center. And you have the option of placing the "Back" button on the left and the "Open Apps" button on the right, or vice-versa.
Recent android versions have put more of this in the the hands of the app, for better or worse. So it's not especially material nowadays.
My point is just that it's an example of Samsung making design decisions which leverage the fragmentation to create confusion among the users.
I noticed it when my boss said that non-galaxy devices feel awkward. I ended up using his phone later and realized why: vendor lock in through muscle memory. It's the kind of monopolistic move that only the largest fragment can benefit from--anyone else puts themselves at a disadvantage by departing from Android defaults. But Samsung, since they control the majority, can bias the market in a way that makes the defaults feel weird. It's rather Apple-like if you ask me.
... which is why I use a Pixel. I hate Google, but they're what I'm stuck with, so I might as well not be messed with by anyone else.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely nonsensical. I literally just posted a screenshot showing that this is configurable on a Samsung.
In fact, when I first setup this phone, I had to specifically choose to make the home bar visible at all. Because the current default setting on Samsungs is to use "gestures" only. The same as the default setting on a Pixel now. All Android manufacturers seem united in pushing this, to ape iOS.
There are plenty of reasons to choose a Google Pixel. And I wouldn't quibble with any of them. But it's absolutely bizarre to point to a default setting as a reason, when they are configurable and when both brands use the same default setting anyway.
So many of these discussion threads are like this. It's perfectly fine to prefer a Pixel over a Galaxy. But people so often seem to take umbrage against Samsung for some reason, and when you poke at a little it rarely makes much sense.
The umbrage comes from having spent a few years supporting these devices (or rather, failing to support them). I don't know how many times I've had to sit there and get yelled at because I abandoned a troubleshooting workflow once I realized that the user was in some kind of Samsungified experience that was 95% identical to the default Android one (and was therefore out of my scope of support here in the carrier call center, go call Samsung).
Once they got their yelling out, they would sometimes ask me why Samsung would bother recreating all of the Google stuff if it was indeed 95% identical. What's in that 5%, they'd ask.
How do you answer that question without seeing Google's influence on the software as a necessary evil and Samsung's as an unnecessary evil?
But continuity is not immutability. Your actions are a present thing, and define you in the present. Past actions may have consequences, but you are always free to act differently now. Likewise, your present actions don't carve a future identity in stone, either. "The rent is due everyday", so to speak.