If you think his writing is any of what you posit,
It does. Most of us don't go around writing essays rationalizing how we treat others like shit, and framing basic decency in daily interactions as "expending of energy", and then make it believe everyone else should just be ok with this.
It's a colossal red flag. Then the racist rants make it all the worst.
Don't take my word for it. Perhaps take the hiring managers' word?
Sauce? I read through several posts on the blog and didn’t find what you’re talking about
You must have done a poor job reading them.
I'll leave you with this facepalm read.
In the spirit of offering some constructive feedback/raise awareness,
Developers are not the only ones using AI. Nowadays recruiters use AI ao automatically filter potential good fits for a position based on whatever signal they can gather. This means CV but also cover letters, portfolios,etc. sites such as LinkedIn even started offering a quick fit assessment based on the metadata you provide in your profile.
What this means is that, from a candidate perspective, it's crucial that you start your application with a CV that you create specifically targeting the position you're applying to. Your first barrier to entry is the AI assistant that is tasked with assessing fit.
You can still create your CV by hand, but your CV must be created with the express purpose of being parsed and evaluated by AI assistants, and you need to present yourself in a way that ticks the boxes that the position want to tick.
Nowadays, 95% of the job adverts don't represent a position that will be filled. In those 5% that do, you need to make your application count. I had recruiters reach out to me for positions that I am clearly not a good fit just because my profile ticks the right boxes, and I had FANG recruiters reach out to me and let me know that they literally don't read past the first page of a CV. To get them to pay attention, you need to make your case that you are the ideal candidate for that very specific position. Otherwise, others will.
so it’s natural to think something is odd here.
I glanced over a few other blog posts from the blog. The guy is describes himself as a troublemaker and has a whole blog post on how it is hard to be nice to people.
And the guy has a track record of posting highly racist comments to boot.
This is from the last half a dozen blog posts.
Perhaps the guy is going through a mental breakdown. Perhaps not. But I'd be hard pressed to pick this guy over any other candidate.
But you will not have learned much, if anything, by copy/pasting the answer.
Your ignorance is showing. The whole point of using SO to help troubleshoot problems is avoiding the troubleshooting stage and all the iterative work of cross-checking docs with parametric tests. The main deliverable of SO is not a magical code snippet but a root cause analysis on a particular failure. You end up with a nice summary of someone else's prior work troubleshooting the same issue, and a clear indication that X causes Y because of Foo.
And you do not get that by reading official docs documenting the happy flow. You'd know that if you had any relevant experience developing software.
Your comment shows some ignorance mixed with lack of experience. Errors do happen due to many reasons, and there is no project on earth that is nearly as documented as you pretend them all to be. This is one of the reasons why googling for error messages ended up being a very basic and mundane technique in software engineering.
What makes your comment stand out is the fact that you are completely unaware that some projects even use Stack Overflow to help users troubleshoot issues, with project maintainers taking the lead in providing answers. But here you are, pretending that reading docs is a silver bullet
I (and other actually competent devs I’ve talked to about it) have always gone straight to official documentation first.
This is silly posturing. Anyone that is troubleshooting a problem tends to start by googling the error message, and more often than not Google will return SO hits, not official documentation.
I really don’t know what you are aiming for…
If you need anyone to spell it out to you, you are mindlessly complaining about programming.dev adopting anti-abuse services from a service provider. When lightly pressed on the topic, you fail to present a single problem of doing that or even a single coherent argument against it.
In short, you failed to point out any problem involving or any reason to replace an anti-abuse system. And yet you argue the service should be replaced.
Is "why" such an insurmountable challenge?
OK, if there is a monopolistic instance between you and the rest of the world that decides who can reach you
It's the site owners who are rolling out anti-abuse systems. They picked a vendor to meet their needs. I don't think Cloudflare put a gun to their heads to force them to onboard their services. Do you?
Potential threads from this are (but not limited to):
You mean "hypothetical", not "potential".
Meaning, they are imaginary scenarios, and they represent the worst case you could think of.
You need to ask site owners what is their policy for these hypothetical scenarios you invented. On a technical side, removing anti-abuse protection is all it takes to fix it. This means that no action is required to address any of your hypothetical concerns.
You’re asking for specifics on their concerns while not providing the specifics that were already in place in your claim here.
If you want to change something, the very least that's expected of you is that the change actually fixes something.
If you can't even put together a description of exactly what's broken, obviously you can't tell if your proposal is even able to fix anything.
And may I point out the fact that this very discussion starts by admitting that alternatives are not effective?
Change for the sake of change is a pointless endeavour. Moreso if it comes from mindless militancy.
The ‘browser incompatibility’ is what’s written on the fallback page.
No. The page clearly says "Incompatible browser extension or network configuration".
It then lists a number of troubleshooting steps to get the page to work.
The question was about the problem that migration from Cloudflare would solve and I provided one particular problem.
I don't think so. Site maintainers are expecting your browser to run the scripts to detect and prevent abuse, and you are going way out of your way to not run them. You are not describing a problem.
Exactly that, Cloudflare complains about extensions.
What you are describing is not browser incompatibility. It's default fallback page that Cloudflare shows when it fails to run its javascript code.
Site owners such as programming.dev maintainers purposely onboarded Cloudflare to run those scripts, as that's how their anti-abuse system works.