The intent was to tell people why we went down to 1 person, and the idea was roughly “if we keep spending money like this we will be gone in 6 months”. So it addresses the long term in the sense that it removes imminent danger.
And yes, that’s roughly right: focus on evolving the ecosystem, involving the community, and then…
Good question! We currently don’t support multiple users editing the same code at the same time. It’s pretty straightforward to do (CRDTs or operational transforms) — it just hasn’t been the highest priority to implement yet. We have a simple version of collaboration so it’s not a completely terrible experience, but we don’t yet recommend Dark for teams of more than 2–3 people for this reason.
We’re in closed alpha at the moment and aren’t showing screenshots or code samples just yet. We plan to launch in September — we’ve been working on this for two years so it isn’t just a concept :)
Thanks Eve, I appreciate your comment, and agree with what you are saying. It was a difficult decision, but I knew that they would be named regardless. See here for why: https://twitter.com/paulbiggar/status/951514703569739781. If I thought there was any chance of the firm being let off the hook I would likely have named them down the line.
> But when “supporting” someone’s emotions means someone should lose their job, the reasonableness of those feelings needs to be assessed to see if, in this case, there is a true risk of a threat.
Good point. You do need to take into account the reasonableness, and I think everyone agrees that things aren’t simple. I think…
To be clear, the suggestion isn’t that he be fired for voicing his political opinion. It’s that since he does not appear to value the safety of women and other minorities, it raises the question of whether you would want Thiel in a position of power over you.