This is the most accurate comment in response to this article. I pretty much have discovered exactly the same thing over a more than 20 year career across multiple startups that had successful exits. The absolutely most important traits are accountability, honesty, and willingness to learn, if you have these three traits you will be one of the best people on your team regardless of what you do. I have these traits, and it's been why I've been successful in /many/ different kinds of roles over the years, because I am willing to be honest about what I don't know, listen and learn, and hold myself accountable for both successes and failures, and when I commit to do something I actually do it.
It's also completely incorrect. The average age of startup founders is 45, many of the best engineers in the market right now are older Millennials and GenX because they grew up in a time when you could still gain legible access to every aspect of computing in a home setting with PCs, which gave them an exceptional fundamentals basis which allows them to have a broader scope than specialists.
As someone who spent almost my entire career, until fairly recently, in startups, I would not consider age in any way a determining factor /especially/ for early hires. You need "adults in the room", because they will help to establish the bar for the remainder of the team as you grow, act as technical leads, and have a very broad scope of responsibility. The more experienced and capable they are, the better the quality of your future hires and the less technical debt you incur in the process of getting to product-market fit and growing to profitability/critical mass.
You should not (legally) have an age bias at all, but if you were going to apply one, the reverse bias is more rational.
I really enjoy graffiti murals, and I go out of my way to photograph them in my own city and when I travel. I will see them when I driving or walking around and stop to look for a moment and try to understand the perspective and message of the artist and take a picture if I can.
That said, I don't much like tagging, tagging is generally not art in my opinion even if you can say artist styles are used within it. Tagging is all about ego and selfishness, it's there purely for the sake of saying "I was here", as if you are the most important person in the city that you should claim to put your name on that wall.
I've met quite a few graffiti artists all over the world in my travels, and the people who tag and the people who paint murals are by and large /not/ the same people. The folks who paint murals are trying to say something, the folks who tag have nothing more to say than to try to create a monument of some kind to themselves. I don't respect taggers, I do respect muralists.
> We don't say "Everyone needs to care about software architecture, even Product"
We absolutely should say that. I was an engineer for 13 years and have now been in Product for 8 years. I work on a highly technical Product team, and it is absolutely an expectation for myself, my peers, and my reports that we should ensure we fully understand our Product, including its software architecture, and have an opinion about it. Engineering ultimately decides the "How", but they cannot do that effectively if Product cannot articulate an opinion about the architecture guided by an understanding of things like expected scale, potential future integration decisions, and other cross-organizational expectations that may not yet be codified. In general, Product should have an educated opinion on anything that is a one-way door, and so should Engineering. It should not be a unilateral decision, and if either party is unable to form an informed opinion, that's an organizational miss.
I'm not a hoarder like most people imagine, but I have hoarder tendencies as my two storage units can attest. My main challenge has always been that when I have invested the (significant) effort in organizing things in a reasonable way, some life event soon comes along that causes everything to go back into disarray. My "stuff" is almost entirely various types of tools for doing various types of things that I have gained skills in over the years as personal education or hobbies.
My dream, which I'm hoping to soon realize, is to build myself an expansive workshop that has defined spaces for everything so that I can actually do things and make things when I want to, with all the necessary tools present, and without requiring external storage or cluttering my home. Right now most everything I don't use daily is stored neatly in labeled totes which are tracked in a spreadsheet and on shelving units in a storage unit off-site. Certainly not the cluttered mess that most people think of, but at the same time I have many things which are not used every single day that took years to acquire along with the companion skills and I have no intention of getting rid of.
In times gone past, I wouldn't appear as a hoarder because land, housing, workshop space was all massively more affordable and so I would have achieved my dream many many years ago. It's pretty incredible in how disappointing our current timeline is that someone who earns a massively outsized income compared to the average cannot afford to have a designated place to exercise their hobbies, because property pricing is so out of whack with what is reasonable that you need to be a multi-millionaire/billionaire to afford the space to do and have things without it appearing as a mess.
This is a preface to the fact I see these same problems with my older relatives, many of whom are now incapable of ever again participating in some of those hobbies due to physical infirmity. They spent a lifetime learning and collecting the tools to go along with that learning, and in many ways those tools now represent physically the manifestation of their entire life's work, and they cannot give them up, even as they can neither afford the space to keep them organized nor have the physical capability to continue working those skills even as a hobby, so it all just lingers around them as so much clutter and unopened boxes in the attic. This isn't quite the trash bags of magazines level of hoarding that most people think of, but I already know I will be responsible with the mental and physical effort to deal with this situation after my relatives pass, and yet I already find myself in the same situation. Wouldn't it have been so much nicer if they would have been able to pass along the property, the tools, and the skills to the next generation instead of being priced out and it all ending up in a dump eventually?
I'm not sure who the author is, but the fact they choose to be stymied by SSV (which can be disabled) to avoid investigation down that path, which is similar to the path enthusiasts do with Windows to build tools like Tiny11, NTLite, and distributions like Atlas, feels intellectually lazy. Asserting that macOS is not UNIX (it is, quite literally, including the most recent release Tahoe) and then arguing with folks who corrected them in the comments, makes me think the author wasn't really interested in answering the question they put forth and instead were trying to mystify readers to shut down exploration and curiosity.
It is entirely possible to gain an understanding of those processes running on your computing system and to decide which process you don't want to run at startup, this is regardless of the desires and intents of the maker of the computing system, as long as you retain control of the hardware. Many of the Windows optimization tools at various points even involved community made binary patching. There's no basis to claim that it's not possible to understand or take actions, it's just that the Mac community has a different set of priorities and focus areas than other computing communities, so nobody in the community has yet invested the effort to do so.
You could summarize this blog post as answering "No" to the question in its title, without actually exploring the question to determine if that's a true answer. It's not a true answer, and won't be until we completely lose control over our own hardware.
Howard Oakley has been writting about macOS internals for a long time, and 99% of the time, his essays and articles are excellent. This is not one of them. Don't be put off by this one article - the site is a goldmine.
> Not everyone owns headphones. Some people might have received the speaker as a gift or decided on the speaker instead of headphones. How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do. There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing, just find more outdoors. Especially on trails. Just keep going. Or wait until they have kept going. I've never seen a bluetooth speaker that's big enough for someone to be on a trail with that doesn't "go away" after a minute or so.
I am very open to the argument of "you do you", which is pretty much my philosophy also. But I do think there are /some/ limits to this, because some behaviors are inherently anti-social. My philosophy is more than "you do you" should apply to policy and regulation, meaning that we should not criminalize or directly punish anti-social behaviors that don't cause direct and immediate harm. But that definitely does not mean that we should not shame people for acting in completely inappropriate ways, or directly inform them that their behavior is unwelcome, or otherwise seek to ensure that we act to exist in spaces devoid of anti-social behavior.
I've had this same exact scenario happen, and I simply spoke to the person and told them to lower the volume, use headphones, or stop altogether because they were scaring away the wildlife that I was there to see and photograph. They apologized, lowered the volume, and we both went back to doing our own thing. Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice. We are both sharing the trail, and we are both there to experience nature, and that very well might include many different modalities (including accompanying music), but if someone is acting in a way that completely prevents me from enjoying nature I definitely have the right to say something, to complain about it, and to complain about it after the fact, and "you do you" is not a valid argument in response to that.
> Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice.
Sometimes. I’m pretty sure that very often it’s because they simply do not care that they are being rude/inconsiderate/whatever. But even the willfully rude will likely lower the volume if you ask them nicely because not caring about being rude is not the same as wanting confrontation.
I've been on both ends of this. One of the local parks allowed for permits to use amplified sound which we took advantage of about once a month weather permitting. Lots of complaints to the point I often interacted with police. We showed them the permit, we'd show dB readings from a meter, the police would leave, we'd keep going. It's a public place being used in a way allowed by those that be. There's no bluetooth speaker today that can compare to our use of amplified sound.
We all have rights to be in public parks/trails/etc. Cities have ordinances about nuisance things like loud anything. If you're on a trail and someone comes along with a speaker you don't like, just let them pass. They aren't hurting anyone/thing, you're just annoyed. If you've plopped down in the park or at the beach when someone else comes along, you can talk to them about, but they again have rights to do it.
You are free to talk to your local representatives to change ordinances if that's how you feel. Good luck with that if that's what you so choose.
I think you're confusing the issue here. You were in a public place that explicitly allowed loud music with a permit. You obtained that permit, and you did what you were explicitly allowed to do. Great; you did the right thing.
But on hiking trails (and in many parks), there isn't that sort of thing. While some will prohibit loud noise, many don't say anything about loud noise. In those cases, in the absence of guidance, we should do the thing that is courteous and considerate of others: not play loud music.
A public park and a trail have very different meanings in my mind. When I say that I have encountered this on a trail, I'm specifically referring to trails in places which are designated wilderness areas, which are not subject to any ordinance. The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public. That's a wonderful thing, but it also does not make sense to call for a park ranger to get involved in what is fundamentally a discontent at someone else's anti-social behavior, when I can simply have a conversation with them.
Behavior, and the response to behavior, exist on a spectrum. The fact you responded to me pointing out that "you do you" has philosophical limits, but that those limits should not involve criminalizing behavior, by suggesting I should campaign to enact an ordinance seems extremely obtuse. There is no need to change the law to criminalize making noise in a natural area, but similarly it's perfectly appropriate to tell someone to stop doing it.
> The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public.
Many concerts, shooting ranges, and other loud activities occur in two of the three categories you mention above. All a lot louder than multiple hikers with Bluetooth speakers.
I won't even get into ATVs.
(Not disagreeing with your intent - merely pointing out to other readers of the various socially acceptable uses in these lands).
Prezto is faster than OMZ, and has been for over a decade. Starship is faster still. I switched from using Prezto standalone to using Prezto + Starship and relying primarily on Starship several years ago. I'd be surprised if many people are still using Oh My ZSH in 2026 vs using Prezto, anyway.
> Yet Japan DOES have a strictly hierarchical work culture, where openly countering something your boss says isn't exactly welcome. So I wonder how this sort of "Trust your employees to have good ideas" thing came about.
What happened is that they bought into the Edward Deming viewpoint of Total Quality Control (TQC), and instituted this throughout their business in a way which melded correctly with their culture, ultimately resulting in Kaizen and The Toyota Way. It didn't happen overnight, it happened over a period of about 20-30 years, so that now we think of it as something inherent to Toyota that is not possible to replicate. Because of Toyota's strict commitment at the upper levels and the strict hierarchy of Japanese work culture, once they had committed they expended every necessary effort until the thing was done, which differs from American companies where it's often hard to get folks to even try anything new in the way they approach their work.
> once they had committed they expended every necessary effort until the thing was done
That's too simplistic to describe the reality of humanity. Whatever Toyota's discipline, it's a matter of degree and they have challenges implementing it.
