1. The underlying technology, blockchain, might have uses but a currency isn’t it
2. Many crypto experts were surprised when governments said that profits from trading in digital currencies were taxable in the same way that as any other capital gains. Why would this be a surprise?
3. They also claim that it’s great because it’s decentralised. Except, a few companies do a vast percentage of all business meaning that in reality it’s not very well distributed
4. Much of traditional financial services is not centralised either. There’s no “exchange” for currency trading, for example
5. The lack of regulation in crypto is considered an advantage, right until the point that one of the few exchanges (see above point about decentralisation) is in trouble and stops accepting sell orders. Regulation is there for a reason
6. Decentralisation is supposed to democratise trading. Except, trading in crypto is surprisingly expensive. And, just like traditional finance, quickly gets complicated
7. And it’s slow
8. Many of crypto’s biggest promoters are economically illiterate
9. It’s basically a pyramid scheme
10. Many crypto “experts” claim that it’s possible to reduce the risk of transactions with certain complications. They tend not to use the word “hedging” which is what this is. It’s something that the “old-fashioned” financial services companies have been doing for ever
11. It’s almost like they don’t understand traditional financial markets
12. They says it’s progressive and about freedom, but it entrenches existing hierarchies, if anything, more effectively than the existing systems
13. Except for the use of blockchain, there’s not a lot that’s new. For traditional financial services, regulation means that the worst scams are banned for retail inventors. The “Wild West” of crypto isn’t a feature
14. And no, this piece is not intended as a defence of the traditional financial services companies or their regulators. They are far from ideal

I confess that I’ve stolen the title of the post from elsewhere. My objective here is not to detract from that post, which is great, but to build on a few points that I thought it was going to make but didn’t. To make it clear where I’m coming from, here’s a Tweet that I wrote some time before I read that blog:

People who complain that “enterprise” software is too expensive have clearly never come across the bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical policies and rules these companies have. It’s not unusual to have two customers with contradictory policies.

I greatly enjoyed Graham Lee’s series of posts about specialisation versus generalisation in software engineering¹, quite possibly because it’s me.

My background is a little different from Lee’s, though, so I thought it was worth sharing.

I have a two tier experience². With a few minor blips, Unix has been a constant technology underpinning since my first year at university. I started using Linux around the time 1.0 was released. I got a Mac when — or possibly before — OS X was ready for mainstream use because it was Unix with a nice UI. At work I’ve seen the change from big Solaris and HP-UX machines, to Linux, to containerised applications (which are normally based on minimal Linux distributions). Sure, the different Unix variants are not exactly the same, but most of them have something bash-like and ls does the same thing everywhere, even if the more esoteric options vary.

How does switching email hosts disable your Bluetooth headphones? Read on to find out.

As many people did recently, I got The Email from Google telling me that my Apps for Domains (Legacy) account is going away and that I should either pay up or move away.

I’m not averse to paying. I use email a lot and I have my own domain, so I appreciate that I’m not a typical consumer. But I do object to paying Google because it feels like they’re double-dipping: both data mining my information and billing me for the service¹.

I made the mistake of suggesting that there was a blog to be made from this tweet. This is that post.

People still underestimate the value in (Developer|Operator) Experience when building platforms and honestly it’s kinda shocking to me.

If you want to win mindshare you need to make your tools actually usable. If you don’t want to lose it you need the same.

First: I agree with the sentiment. Maybe not to the same extent as Danielle, but I fight the same battles in my day job. I wanted to say this now because, on reading the rest, you may think the opposite. What follows is an explanation of why this is a common situation. I don’t mean it as a justification.

When people say that Twitter is a cesspool of conspiracy and abuse, I don’t recognise it based on my experience. My Twitter timeline is all jokes and geeky chat¹, and that’s where this post takes its cue:

When I started learning assembler, no site ever mentioned what registers were good for. Wish it had said:

CPU talking to a RAM chip is slow, registers are a bit of memory built into the CPU in which you load numbers from RAM, do several calculations, and only THEN write back.

After university, when I first started working, I jealously noticed people leaving their desks and attending meetings. I was left sitting at my desk, bashing out code. What was going on? What exciting things were being discussed without me? Sometimes they’d come back from the meeting and ask a random question. It was all very mysterious.

A while later I started getting invited to these meetings. I found what was being discussed. I discovered the mystery.

Here’s something I’ve seen a few times recently: a startup issues a patch for a critical issue seen by one of their large customers. The “enterprise,” however, takes a week to install and test it. Clearly, the startup concludes, if it takes a week to try a patch it can’t be that urgent or the staff are dumb, or, quite likely, both.

Separately, we all know that a big difference between a startup and an enterprise is process. So why do people suddenly get angry and start to lack empathy when that difference is exposed?

A few years ago we got an Amazon Fire tablet and I could almost copy and paste that review for the ninth generation unit [affiliate link].

My biggest complaint this time around is the battery life. It feels like it’s always in need of recharging. Almost everything else from last time is improved. It’s slightly smaller. The build quality is much better. It’s faster.

Having said that it’s still no iPad. While faster it still feels sluggish compared with Apple’s tablet, the screen is a lot worse and the software library is laughable by comparison. But, as before, it’s also a tenth of the price. As an almost disposable consumption device, I have few complaints.

When I see a company that has an “innovation team” or a “chief innovation officer” I immediately understand that it’s not the kind of company I want to work for.

Innovation isn’t found in a particular team, person or department. It’s your culture.

If you need a special team outside the normal management structure to innovate, what does that say?