For that particular article, I would respond with the following:
1. I don't see how this is a problem specific to polyrepos. Have an "open PRs" link in the onboarding handbook that gives you a view of pull requests from all repos in the organization. GitHub automatically shows you notifications from all repos. If engineers still chose to focus on one or two repos after that, I'm not sure why.
- Have a (Grafana) dashboard where you can see the latest / newest stuff. Use standard GH tools you use for OSS, such as follows etc to keep up.
2. Don't prematurely split into multiple repos. "No monorepo" doesn't mean not having poly-package repos. It means thinking what the sensible (library or service) API boundary is - treating your projects as you would treat library / service development. In this case a separate repo with lib3, lib2 and lib1 sounds like a good way to go - at most one repo per orthogonal internal framework (e.g. core-react-components). Repo dependency chains should be as shallow as possible, and differenting between public and internal packages is important.
3. Help other teams upgrade. If you are responsible for repo A, once you publish a new version tagged appropriately with semver, use the dashboard to look at your dependants and work with them (or rather, for them) to upgrade. Think of your dependants as internal customers, and make sure you add enough value for them to justify the upgrade effort. Cultivate a culture that values updates.
Another pet peeve of mine is that the real issues get lost when you try to generalize. The article attempts to do this but that makes it hard to evaluate its claims. The best way to evaluate (alternative) solutions is to take a more concrete example repo.
For scalability of this model I'll just point to the OSS community; individual maintainers often several dozen active repositories, but also they have an API contract worthy of a documentation website, versioning scheme and planned deprecation, and they typically avoid cross-project dependencies
Getting cancer isn't a decision though, and curing cancer isn't zero-sum. You can argue the schools were predatory, but someone who made the responsible decision to take a scholarship at a state school is footing the bill for someone who made the irresponsible decision to take loans to attend an expensive private school.
Regardless of thoughts on Thiel, the second link feels like a hit piece —- the entire article hinges on one paragraph “BuzzFeed News can reveal that in at least one instance during the summer of 2016, Thiel hosted a dinner with [white nationalist]… And then Thiel emailed the next day to say how much he’d enjoyed his company.“ How many other people were at the dinner? How many other people received this email? What were the contents of the email, i.e. was it a generic thank you? Left to suspect these details would make the story less interesting
Does it matter? You couldn’t pay me enough to dine with a known white nationalist and I certainly wouldn’t be sending any thank you notes as a follow-up. I can’t imagine I’m unique in this regard.
The article doesn't establish Thiel knew the guy was a white nationalist. Guilt by association is weak by itself, but if the two just attended the same party unbeknownst to Thiel and then Thiel spammed a list-serve of attendees with "THANKS EVERYONE I ENJOYED ALL YOUR COMPANY"--that's not association. The article is so threadbare its impossible to know whether that happened or whether Thiel purposely hosted a dinner specifically for the white supremacist. Or something in between.
What are the odds the person at your table widely known for founding "Youth for Western Civilization" turns out to be a white supremacist? Talk about bad luck, Pete. It could happen to anyone, really. And it's not like Thiel has access to troves and troves of personal data on just about every person with an internet connection and a program specifically designed to identify "extremists" by analyzing patterns in their social network and interests. Oh wait...
This analysis is based on many unfounded assumptions like he knew that the guy founded Youth for Western Civilization or even what that was. I traveled in right wing circles on colleges campuses in 2006-2008 and I never hear of them until today.
If Thiel was getting into bed with this guy, then yea, you can probably impute some knowledge b/c Thiel would do some diligence. But we are talking about a dinner and an email.
I met a new person this weekend under similar circumstances. You shouldn't take that as a a sign I agree with that person's politics.
Personally, I would be open to such an experience. I am not so insecure in my beliefs that I would worry on that front. I might learn something about them and the nature of the world, and maybe they would too.
Shrug. I would — and have — had dinner with all kinds of people whose beliefs and behavior diverge sharply from what I think is advisable or ethical. Having dinner with someone is not an endorsement of their worldview, full stop.
Maybe this will sound corny, and I guess it probably won't land with non-Christians, but I'll offer my heuristic anyway: What would Jesus do? I don't think shunning is the answer.
Using quotes when the quote doesn't exist should be enough to get this comment deleted.
I know nothing about Thiel, but the actual quote is "hosted a dinner with" which like the one you responded to here said, could easily mean there were 50 guests at a party and one of them was this guy.
Your made up quote is something entirely different.
