BiteCode_dev

For having worked 30 years to get out of the socially inept zone, and given plenty of people consume known carcinogens willingly, I think this statement is a bit simplistic at best.

Smokers know they should stop smoking but it's hard to do so. Yet the path is clear.

If you are socially blind by nature, the path is really not clear and you are going to suffer from your ignorance while painfully battling to get out of a hole you can't see but feels very much is trapping you.

You probably don't need to compel them. PRISM have shown it's easy to setup a program where they are forced to just share everything through a back door to the gov and not tell anyone.

It's it's closed source, assume the worse.

I did of course. They don't care.

I tried several different hostings as well.

It's unfortunately a prevalent strat in the industry: if the client is too small, one should spend minimum money on it, so they default to that.

It's not.

I have selected my hosting specifically for this.

US based host? Their terms?

Of course it's not.

I regularly receive DMCA outside of America, which I wished I could reply to "your law doesn't apply to me, cite the right one in my jurisdiction or get lost".

But I can't.

Because my hosting will process those by default and shut my sites down unless I just comply to the take down, no matter how legitimate it is.

It can be even a bogus take down from a US point of view, or even a take down for a non existing content.

Doesn't matter. I have to show that I comply, or 48h later, my server is shut down.

That's seriously messed up.

Always liked the Secret of Mana circular menu, but could never find a really good way of porting that to a computer.

Isn't it funny how American HN gets all touchy when we talk about their sins, illediatly telling you the others do bad things as well.

At this stage, sale the number to a security researcher for $50, and change the number.

They will make their money back and some, and you'll get compensation.

Then sue Google with the money.

I have a joke with my brother:

    How do you win a race against Usain Bolt?

    Just run faster than him!

Every time one gives the other a technically correct but perfectly inapplicable advice, we just answer "yeah, run faster". It's our own private joke of a shortcut keeping our BS in check.

The thing is, when you are giving advice, you are usually missing a lot of context. Context you may not know exists, and that the other person won't or can't share with you. Maybe the other person doesn't even realize this context is needed or is aware of it.

But if you had this context, you would understand how unpractical your advice is to this particular situation, because it's too generic. Too theoretical.

After all, most smokers know they should quit, most fat people know they should lose weight. If it was just about hearing the right path, we would have little problems we can't solve.

But knowing where you should go tells you less than expected about the path ahead because of the aforementioned missing context, such as where you start from and the obstacles in your way, whether you'll be alone on the road or with friends or wild animals, if you have to carry a big bag, if you need to forage for food and if it rains.

That doesn't make advice useless.

But you should not expect to see the effect right now. Rather, they may contribute to a self-realization that the person has to build for themself, adapted to themself. It takes time, it's hard, and there are a lot of other things that fight for being a priority.

Assuming it was good advice to begin with of course, and there are not that many good advice to go around.

Or very high confidence backed up by experience and skill, expressed through an honest personality.

In a world of humble bragging and cheap talk, I find it refreshing.

Counterpoints:

- Latency

- Security

- Legal obligations

- Offline work

- Managing the different sources of locking.

- Avoiding a single point of failure (I get the irony).

I've been writing react for years, and going back to templates, I wish I could never have to write a react rendering function again.

Components are overrated.

Their best feature is that they help build a fantastic ecosystem, which is the biggest react strength.

But for your own website?

Their cons and pros balance each other out, and all that is left is the terrible API that react exposes.

Eventually, you gain locally some reusability (provided you actually need it in your project, because there are not that many components that need reusability, and even less that couldn't be a template tag in django), but every single dev writes react code differently.

So you get a heterogeneous mess anyway.

My last SPA project (in vue), we had one component that was worth making reusable.

One. For a month and a half of work.

Turns out vanilla functions are quite reusable themselves already.

That's why I like django-ninja: it's django with fastapi like features.

But it's fully django compact.

That's going to be amazing for VR.

No need for cameras outside to report what's going on to you inside, you can see through.

HUD (E.G: for cars), augmented reality on phones, monitoring for things like patients, babies...

If they manage to deal with the ambient luminosity problem, it can even change the architecture of your room. No more big screens, just windows letting light in, that you can switch to displays when you like.

Even for class room it's better: students will be visible behind their screens to the teacher.

One must fit the medium to the target audience.

Oh no, I fully understand the extent of our own obsolescence.

At this point, I'm still waiting for any clue showing America understands itself.

When in Rome.

It's worse than that.

The whole American language is normalizing toward exaggeration and the use of superlatives for even the most mundane things.

As a consequence, nuances as lost, debates are instantly polarizing, and words lose substance and meaning, so you get little information out of many discussions.

It's not just the bots that make the noise/signal ratio go down. It's also the people.

I hear words like fascists/communists, friends/hilarious, amazing/shit used in such a large spectrum of situations they eventually convey nothing more than what tribe the speaker wants to be identified with and what gains said person hopes to get from talking.

On top of that now, when you need to talk about the extremes, you are lacking the tools to do so, and all things seem to be more or less at the same level. Minor inconvenience and deadly risks, all in the same plater.

And don't get me started on the constant virtue signaling and sale speeches.

From my European point of view, the US communication looks like a circus.

The hard part is the replication and up time, because you can serve a ton of images from a VPS for pennies on the dollar.

But even then, images are quite simple to deal with compared to big files like videos because you don't have to chunk them. So just copying them several time and putting a load balancing in front of it will get you 99% there for half of the price, dev time included.

For most companies, you don't need more.

Same feeling.

Between the cameras, the guards everywhere, the anti-thief systems on products, the alarm portals and the ticket check, the whole experience is super aggressive.

You can even add the inline importer in base64 that is pretty neat.

But I eventually printed that output, and put it in a dir I point my PYTHONPATH to so that I will always have it available.

Let's see if it sticks.

Moving the goal post of dumb search.

Eventually, node might allow JS to introspect those types.

That would be a huge win. Right now in Python, great tools like pydantic exist because Python can introspect said types, and generate checks out of them.

This mean you can define simple types, and get:

- type checking - run time data check - api generation - api document generation

Out of a single, standard notation.

Right now in JS, things like zod have to do:

    const mySchema = z.string();

Which is basically reinventing what typescript is already doing.

> (even if they will not admit it publicly)

Saying you don't care about your user safety is actually often more costly than pretending you care, and then having a breach.

Indeed. A type means assigning a rigid category to something.

There is not a single taxonomy that is universal, it ends up like the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge that decides animals into:

    those belonging to the Emperor,

    those that are embalmed,

    those that are tame,

    pigs,

    sirens,

    imaginary animals,

    wild dogs,

    those included in this classification,

    those that are crazy-acting,

    those that are uncountable,

    those painted with the finest brush made of camel hair,

    miscellaneous,

    those which have just broken a vase, and

    those which, from a distance, look like flies.

Then you have a new use case.

"plenty" is relative.

You don't see many GAFAM products created in either, and that's because of the trade off OP talks about.

Given Ruby culture of monkey patching, not always.

Besides, many people dev Ruby with a lightweight text editor, like text mate, that can't introspect code.