That's not what it means. No one disputes you should keep passwords, private keys, certificates, etc. safe.
It's about obscuring the architecture of a system in order to protect it. And I agree this shouldn't be a tactic. It can be a byproduct of your disclosure strategy (i.e. AWS don't disclose how their products are built) but not a security mechanism (i.e. AWS don't meet all the certification standards BECAUSE they're not disclosing how their products are built). Just my 2 cents.
I read your entire rant and it's based on the sole idea that the EU is a cult, not a single quantifiable fact. This is the kind of judgement that leads to bad decisions. I think it's best we make this kind of decisions based on numbers rather than abstract thinking.
For the record, I want to understand why people voted "leave" but every time I try I end up reading something like this which doesn't get me closer, it just upsets me.
> Secret EU law making reached a high in 2016 that has only been matched once before, according to figures obtained by EUobserver ... according to figures provided by the parliament, not a single bill ended up in a second reading agreement in 2016, only the second time this has happened since EU parliament record keeping began in 2004
If you dig into that story you will find people (Brits) raising the trend towards secret law making as a problem way back in 2005. The EU said it'd improve, it didn't, it got worse. Only one other legislature in the world makes law in secret: North Korea.
> A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38 per cent of France had a favourable view of the EU, marking an astonishing negative shift in attitudes towards Brussels since the 2009 financial crisis that has been mirrored to varying degrees all across Europe. A poll last month by Ipsos-MORI found that nearly half of voters in eight European Union countries want to be able to vote on whether to remain members of the bloc, with a third saying they would opt to leave, if given the choice.
That's a pretty large number of people wanting their own exit referendums. However, there appears to be no chance of them getting such a vote. European politicians tend to describe allowing people to vote on the EU as a "contagion", a "mistake", "populism" etc.
> learning more about the EU may be just as likely to lead people to have a negative view of the EU as a positive view ... in 2003 a team of researchers from University of Twente in the Netherlands concluded that, contrary to Inglehart’s thesis, the more voters understand about European democracy the less satisfied they become.
Summary: the idea that people can only disagree with the EU because they don't know the facts is not supported by the EU's own polling and studies.
The quotes and references to events I suppose you can Google for yourself. Are there other things you'd like me to provide data for?
I note that some people seem to think my post says things that are wild/extreme/unsubstantiated. But we're talking about the UK which just voted to leave despite all the warnings about how painful it's going to be. What I wrote above is not really considered an extreme POV in the UK, you can find op-eds with similar lines of reasoning in mainstream newspapers. And many of the things I refer to can be easily checked with a few minutes on a search engine, like the quotes from European politicians.
They did but you had to buy them yourself and most of the times you didn't have a use for them after. With snowball they manage the process end to end.
What's interesting is that they don't mention this on the marketing page for snowball. As in "also if you want you can mail your own harddrive, see this page for details". While most would think "why rain on the parade of this new service by mentioning the old service" with Amazon it's more than that. It's this entire idea of weaning people off of legacy ways of doing things (with new names and new processes) so it's harder for any competitor to offer the same type of service, unique way of doing things or handholding. After all anyone can accept (in theory) a mailed in hard drive. Much harder to offer a solution like this with hardware and so on. So to me this is obviously deliberate and consistent with Amazon wanting to raise an entire generation on a new paradigm of getting things done.
Edit: And yes this way it's easier for them as well and removes "missing power supplies" (big deal actually by I get the point..)
There was also a lot of hassle in ensuring that you included the correct power adapter for each external drive, something that got complicated if you were shipping a lot of different models.
Don't focus on theory, focus on what you want to build. Find a project that you really want to build and learn whatever is needed to get it built. Try to pick something non-trivial (a to do list is ok, but it will only get you so far).
JavaScript is broad, you can use it on the client and on the server. You will probably need to learn a front-end framework (just pick one, don't bother too much on picking the right one) - AngularJS, React are both very good choices. With this and some HTML/CSS knowledge you can build a pretty cool static app.
Meteor[1] gives you some server-side capabilities. The JAWS[2] framework does the same but in an AWS environment. I'm also working on a project called Sync Ninja[3] that will be like those two but un-opinionated (though it's not ready yet). You can of course use pure Node.js on the server if you want.
In reality, you won't be able to focus on both. I know people say you can do it, and Elon Musk is a great example of a successful entrepreneur with two awesome companies, but one startup is hard enough on you and the people around you.
My take on this is that you're delaying a decision on what startup to focus on and relying on YC to make that decision for you. In reality, you should work on the startup that you WANT to work on, the one that solves a problem you care for.
This will also increase your chances to get into YC. Being committed is pretty much a requirement to get into YC (or have a successful company for that matter).
My advice is to choose between one of your projects, commit and do everything you can to make it awesome.
Would you prefer to manage the servers underneath yourself? The idea was to make it easier to deploy for people to don't necessary know the server-side, so that's why it's in the shape of a managed service. Open to suggestions :)
