abstract_put

Ah - I think I see what you're saying. At the same time, I don't think I agree with your premise. The numbers in front of us seem to indicate it's not just slightly different, it's dramatically more likely to end up in the ICU as an unvaccinated person. With that in mind, one of the cheapest/lowest impact avenues to reduce ICU bed usage is via vaccinations (acknowledging that's brushing aside the issue of forcing vaccines).

Do you think it was ever appropriate to have any mandates? If so, do you think the moment it passed 50/50 in terms of ICU beds (or other similar stat) was the appropriate time to repeal them? Or what should the "trigger" have been?

Given the 40:60 ratio of ICU cases and the 10:90 split of unvax/vax, I think here it's a pretty grey area. This still seems like "too many unvaccinated people in the ICU" to me, even though they're not the majority. I can definitely empathize with it becoming a judgement call now though, and on that I agree. At some point someone is making a decision about the magic number, and I'm not sold on the current government's strategy there.

> very few people have gone to get 'boosted'

According to https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html, ~43% of eligible Canadians have a booster/3rd dose.

> Most people have realized the covid shots are worthless

How did you come to this conclusion?

> Canada is going in the other direction with increase to restrictions?

As far as I'm aware, Canada is stepping down restrictions as cases drop/ICU beds free up. Can you share where restrictions are being increased?

> it is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

As far as I'm aware, an individual's rights to "life, liberty and security of the person" are not absolute. Whether it is a violation of the charter is a balance between the impact of the limitation (e.g. vaccine passport) vs. the impact of not imposing the limitation (e.g. higher ICU counts or whatever). The more arbitrary or severe the limitation, the more risk must be mitigated to justify the limitation.

I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).

To preface this, I am not bought in on the way the mandates have been done. I think there's huge room for improvement, and it feels a bit ham-fisted rather than well thought through. That said...

> In Ontario, today, the majority of ICU cases, hospital cases, and cases cases are among the vaccinated.

Looking at https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations right now, the population of the ICU is 117 unvaccinated, 15 partially vaccinated, 150 fully vaccinated. Over 90% of Ontarians age 12+ are vaccinated. This says to me that the unvaccinated 10% of the population is making up over 40% of the ICU cases. While what you've said may be technically accurate, I think it's basically saying "most people are vaccinated" and the numbers suggest unvaccinated people are hugely more likely to end up in the ICU.

Am I misunderstanding the numbers? Or are we working off different numbers?

> No its not. This is pointing out hypocrisy

I think it's worth reading the page - the definition is:

> Whataboutism ... is a ... logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument

You've charged hypocrisy, I don't see a direct refutation of the argument. Given that, it seems like this situation exactly fits the definition of 'whataboutism'?

It looks like the old man was stopped for honking. Not sure on the timing of everything, there was an injunction granted against honking downtown Ottawa.

He appears to have been arrested for refusing to identify himself when stopped (it looks like he was intending to, then emboldened by the cameraman opted not to). That's bog standard highway traffic act stuff - if you're stopped driving, you have to show your license, registration and proof of insurance if asked.

To say "arrested for honking" feels misleading - it seems reasonable to suggest that if he followed standard Highway Traffic Act stuff he would have been on his way with a warning/ticket/whatever is done presently to stop the honking, doesn't it? I'm open to have misunderstood, I'm not even qualified to be an armchair lawyer.

What percentage of developers in Canada do you believe are making >= 150$/hour? People generally aren't that forthcoming with salaries but I'm not sure if I know anyone making >= 200k/year CAD. Am I in a bubble and should go job hunting?

I completely agree. I have worked at a company that had exactly this trajectory. It's also not just the number of employees, but also the age of the code and the number of micro-pivots that nobody bothered actually refactoring through the code. Specifically the company went:

- All senior developers who had a strong sense of the actual product and what they're trying to do -> no pull requests, everybody happy - An awkward middle area where eventually they had tripled in size and code quality was haemorrhaging customers and paralyzing attempts to release -> "what do we change?", nobody happy - Another doubling in size, giant organizational change -> PRs are mandatory, people aren't happy but any attempts to reduce PR burden has almost a straight line to bugs in production

I've heard it referred to as "trunk-based development". I think it's not so much subpar as contextual. If there's a team of 2 developers pushing as hard as possible to get something out, I completely agree with OP that code reviews are a waste of time (unless requested). If there's a team of 100 developers, I can't imagine the insanity of pushing directly to the shared branch without review.

Somewhere between those the context is such that the benefits of code reviews outweighs the costs. Do you think otherwise?

I think there's a lot of grey area for what "style" is, but e.g. formatting and what not is pretty easy and not-contentious in my experience. Most people want consistency more than they want their way.

How I did it as part of a ~35 person dev team was adopt one of the popular ones from the community (e.g. Google's) - treat it as a benevolent dictator. Apply it to the entire code base in one giant shot (disrupting any pull requests that were in flight but fixing them proactively), then enforce it with tooling. Leave the door open to anyone who disagrees with the defaults. It's on them to propose the change with rationale then put it to a quick majority vote with a subset of the team. I think 2 things have actually changed since the very beginning (line length from 80 -> 120 and something else that I don't remember right now).

When something changes, making a sweeping change is part of accepting it - if it's too risky/disruptive then it has to be very valuable to do.

Very neat - I love the idea of building tooling for a very specific workflow. Must be satisfying to show people and have them go "what? That's it?!"

> The long term goal is to make a tool to replace Illustrator

As in your ambition is to have the original content creation happen in the tool you make, take Illustrator out of the process entirely? That's ambitious! (or it seems like it, with little actual knowledge of what functionality people use within Illustrator to produce content like this).

> Kindly star this too, dev. community

Out of curiosity, what does the star provide to you? Do you gain something if people who are not genuinely interested star the project?

Even worse than that - you have to go into the "danger zone" on GitHub, and then there's a big banner that says "Warning: Potentially destructive operation" and also the gates you mentioned.

They bypassed numerous sanity checks and then clicked the button that did exactly what it told them it would do, and now they're sad.

Do stars on GitHub _do_ anything? Usually I'm a bit put off by any kind of internet point begging, but I'm curious what the impact of losing them is. Is it mostly a signal of "I like this"?

First of all, neat concept. Small point, on desktop I have a horizontal scroll bar for what appears to be intended as a full width site, which is always a bit of a pet peeve.

I understand it's a technology demonstration, I'm struggling to decouple the clash with my aesthetic sense from the technology/framework. There are so many new UI elements (stuff floating, expanding, appearing on hover) that it really puts me off. E.g. on the navigation group that floats on the right, I guess theoretically it's cool that if you hover over "imagine" it offers a small "expand" button and then there's a neat animation as it drops down. All that feels out of place on a website though, as far as I'm used to them.

Can you expand on who you've found resonates with the tool? Is it mostly people who want a print poster on the internet, or similar image-first, single-page users?

Acknowledging my bias towards correctness first (or a harness for explicitly experimenting), I think your step 3 ("3. Fix and iterate it") is rarely ever done and that absence puts people off. In the corporate environments I work in, the PR sets the standard for what is acceptable and there's vanishingly little motivation to fix anything that isn't blowing up a high profile client. Basically mini tragedy of the commons.

I wouldn't be surprised if an aspect of this is "I don't trust you'll iterate and fix this, and I don't want to, so please make sure this is correct". I would expect a contributor with a long/trust-filled relationship to the maintainer to have much more leeway for not-exactly-perfect contributions.

This is definitely a weird thread in that regard. Maybe people aren't appreciating how many people will do all sorts of things for money? The more outrageous requirements require a more trusting relationship between employer and employee, certainly, and a skilled EA (or majordomo, it seems) is hugely valuable.

My EA-style friend is in a major US city right now supervising the construction of a house - that absolutely wasn't in their employment contract, is not something they have experience in, but it's something their employer wanted. It's hard to get too up in arms when the position is well paid, exciting, and voluntary.

> Mitigating issues you missed thus requires a backfill, which may not be scalable.

My understanding of this is that you leave data that is effectively an exploit in your database, and rely on the rigor of everyone using that data to validate it correctly? Have you had to do this in real life - can you provide an example?

I guess I've seen something like "<b>This is bold</b>" rendered after someone has fixed a bug, but I've also seen that rendered as bold text because it wasn't fixed everywhere (which is terrifying to me, knowingly not fixing malicious data).

I've been in exactly the same boat, and I feel like anyone could be if they run out of mobile data. When I get to the point where even HN won't load, I know it's time to put the phone away. The other one that really gets my goat is the page looking like it has loaded, going to click on something, and some frontend nonsense loads the instant before clicking and now I'm off to an ad or a completely different page than intended.

As an alternative view, while living in a very unremarkable North American area I have atrocious internet service. I don't think it's particularly uncommon, but it certainly is enlightening to browse the internet. Depending on the time of day a 4MB blob by itself can take ~8 seconds to download. 8 seconds is a _long_ time.

Obviously I have no idea what your app is, I have found very frequently it is not reasonable to have blobs of similar sizes (especially if text content waits for some front end framework to download/initialize).

A personal friend is this form of executive assistant. I think that's effectively exactly what they signed up for - a very wealthy couple pays them to do whatever needs to be done. Delegating everything explicitly seems like it would significantly reduce the value of an assistant.

My understanding is once the trust is built in these kind of roles, the assistant is a professional/personal boundary crossing extension of the employer and is prized for their ability to resolve concerns without those concerns having to surface. Agreed that it can be a demanding, temperamental, unpredictable job.

Big +1 on all of this. I have terrible rural internet, and just recently tried developing my first app with HTMX (wasn't aware of Alpine.js), and _man_ is it fast. For city slickers with their symmetrical gigabit connections it may be unnoticeable, unfortunately. Not saying SPAs have to be bloated, it just seems like most sites that turn into SPAs are bloated.

All that said, trying to push everything server-side if you've been working in a heavy client takes some getting used to. In my real life job I've seen feature flags shipped as an API so the client queries whether a feature flag is enabled - this is something that always struck me as silly, the server serving the front end already knows if the feature flag is enabled. While that might be justifiable in some cases, it is definitely not so much in the on-prem-only product I worked on.

> If you have 80 tabs each for 3 different topics, you end up managing 210 tabs

Is this a typo (80 x 3 = 240), or are you suggesting 30 tabs are deduplicated in some capacity?

While I love the PinePhone, I think "still a ways from being a daily driver" is a more accurate representation than "fine as a daily driver" for most people's experiences. Some people are definitely able to daily drive the PinePhone, but e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/PINE64official/comments/qm1aut/pine...

> Firefox: 8 seconds to open; ... and loads my start page in 21 seconds.

It's constantly improving, and the PinePhone Pro seems similarly promising, but I'd be downright shocked if there triple digits of people daily driving it and enjoying the experience (outside the satisfaction of living on the bleeding edge).

I'm guessing OP was referring to serverless vs on-prem? I don't think public cloud is significantly different than serverless in terms of CAPEX vs OPEX, whereas private cloud is big CAPEX.

This is the most frustrating part - having worked in an enterprise Rails project, I wouldn't wish that on anyone valuing their own time. At the same time, it is the most complete offering I've used by a long shot for getting started.

I was writing a web app in Rust (I want to be cool!) and only after a couple hours of implementing CRUD did I realize I'd effectively made an inconsistently implemented rails scaffolding. The default opinionated round trip for DB -> application -> UI for CRUD is still really slick.

My experience with a medium-size but long timespan project was the two things you mentioned a bit dismissively are actually pretty massive time sucks. People are terrible at stubbing, and refactoring without types is painful. The vast majority of my Ruby experience is within Rails, so maybe that's a contributing factor?

Having types not line up at various boundaries (DB/API/reading from a file) is already a pain, but Ruby made it worse by having that bad data pass through many layers until it actually blows up somewhere far removed from the issue. I worked on very real bugs where e.g. a corner case lead to a date being deserialized as a string and then because the last few characters were numeric interpreted as a number so when treated as a date resolved as millis since epoch (or something similarly crazy). It took ~1 of those bugs for me to be convinced that I had no interest in dealing with those kinds of problems, and adding a 'Date' type means it fails in exactly the right place immediately and is a 2 second fix.

I agree with you though - it'd be a silly test to write, so how do you get the correctness/robustness without either types or tests that look like they're effectively validating types?

Do you have any specific examples of things that make JS nice that have been lost because of the popularity of TS? As with types in Ruby, I was under the impression nothing was really lost as TS could be added incrementally as developers saw value.

I don't think I've talked to anyone who has gotten "over the hump" with TS and felt like they were missing something from JS - I may be in a bubble though. It's almost frustratingly beloved in my experience.

I think what the parent comment is saying (that I agree with) is that it's easy to over-estimate the cost and under-estimate the value. You don't _have_ to do anything with types, but it's another tool to use where it makes sense. Or put another way, provided it's not mandatory what's the downside to having another tool in the toolbox?

Do you think it's possible for well used types to displace the need for some tests?