Skip to main content


I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that your offline and online identity are intertwined - at the naive level that the Zuckerberg marketing machine operates it sounds fair enough - and, ultimately it's true; for most of us we are the same person online as offline, physically if not behaviourally.

However, one of the reasons the internet is so liberating is precisely because you can maintain a number of alter-egos, you too can be a warrior at the weekend! It also forces the innate prejudices we have to be put to one side due to the historic interaction limitations that existed on the net - that a 15yr old geek can stand as an authority on something online where they'd be laughed off stage offline is evidence of this.

Zuckerberg and those of his ilk are riding on the back of this wave. They were born into a time where anonymity online was the norm and created the likes of fb to capture this herd of anonymous sheep desperate for somewhere to mingle and conjoin with friends and other like minded folk. But they've gradually lifted the shroud of privacy and pushed our online and offline selfs together, not for any other philosophical ideology than to drive bigger and bigger profits by selling this data on for advertising.

What's worse, they're destroying the historical limits of the physical world (as it was) where a rant in a pub, a one night stand or an off the cuff comment on the state of your bosses hygiene, could be forgotten in short order and in any case was unlikely to reach the ears of any more than a few dozen people. Now, any transgression, no matter how minor, is likely to be recorded for the next 100 years and available for anyone - at a price.

It's a sad day when the reason the net has been so successful for mankind (in part) is so easily being eroded away without any significant objection being raised. It's worse though when who we are as human beings is being abused for the sake of profit with no political will to stand against it. There will be a back-lash at some point, the only question is how much we are prepared to lose in the meantime.

Rant triggered by Guardian podcast - Founder of 4Chan Chris Poole, the 'anti-Zuckerberg'.



Popular posts from this blog

An Observation

Much has changed in the past few years, hell, much has changed in the past few weeks, but that’s another story... and I’ve found a little time on my hands in which to tidy things up. The world of non-functionals has never been so important and yet remains irritatingly ignored by so many - in particular by product owners who seem to think NFRs are nothing more than a tech concern. So if your fancy new product collapses when you get get too many users, is that ok? It’s fair that the engineering team should be asking “how many users are we going to get?”,   or “how many failures can we tolerate?” but the only person who can really answer those questions is the product owner.   The dumb answer to these sort of question is “lots!”, or “none!” because at that point you’ve given carte-blanche to the engineering team to over engineer... and that most likely means it’ll take a hell of a lot longer to deliver and/or cost a hell of a lot more to run. The dumb answer is also “only a couple” and “

Inter-microservice Integrity

A central issue in a microservices environment is how to maintain transactional integrity between services. The scenario is fairly simple. Service A performs some operation which persists data and at the same time raises an event or notifies service B of this action. There's a couple of failure scenarios that raise a problem. Firstly, service B could be unavailable. Does service A rollback or unpick the transaction? What if it's already been committed in A? Do you notify the service consumer of a failure and trigger what could be a cascading failure across the entire service network? Or do you accept long term inconsistency between A & B? Secondly, if service B is available but you don't commit in service A before raising the event then you've told B about something that's not committed... What happens if you then try to commit in A and find you can't? Do you now need to have compensating transactions to tell service B "oops, ignore that previous messag

Equifax Data Breach Due to Failure to Install Patches

"the Equifax data compromise was due to their failure to install the security updates provided in a timely manner." Source: MEDIA ALERT: The Apache Software Foundation Confirms Equifax Data Breach Due to Failure to Install Patches Provided for Apache® Struts™ Exploit : The Apache Software Foundation Blog As simple as that apparently. Keep up to date with patching.