1,374 karma · joined June 20, 2018
It's an aside, but this is just so frustrating we have succumbed to this level. In principle I don't even want to read the article because the title is ridiculous, but on the other hand, they wouldn't generate any traffic if they don't because our brains are too fixated on "drama" and "controversy" that clickbait titles generate.
/s should hopefully be obvious, but it does seem like anytime AI gets mentioned, it's clear cut to remove all US jobs away within the next 3-5 years, so it's ironic seeing a "lack of a skilled workforce" comment.
Wow, I rarely see such unwarranted confidence in such a blatantly wrong statement.
I find my consumption to be way down because the YouTube site is... good, but not great, on Safari, but I can still readily consume what I like.
It also supports picture-in-picture and I've never seen an ad on YouTube in the past 3 years except when I load them on my TV. I didn't even know there was an adblock competition going on except for in the news because I've just never seen any.
That said, I've always been amazed at some of these groups I've been a part of. There is a long-lasting group of game developers I was a part of when I was very, very young. Somehow, someway, the site has stayed alive, and I have logged in probably once a year to say hi to old friends. I've never met them in person. We exchange emails maybe... at a half-year, year, or even longer basis. But we always respond to each other eventually. And we've managed to somehow maintain contact in this super strange way.
It's really incredible.
I'm not, it was just an example. I can't edit, but you're right this could be more clear. What I mean is that if aesthetics is the only goal then people would exercise optimizing for aesthetics exclusively.
> Also, working out for your health and working out to be more attractive are not mutually exclusive things. I'd argue they're the same thing, and even if you disagree, it's still reasonable for a large numebr of individuals to cite both health and aesthetics as their motivation/reasoning.
This is a strawman. I didn't say exercise is only for health, nor did I even imply it. I said that health can be a primary motivator. That said, I'd still disagree with your statement.
Someone who is diagnosed with diabetes and changes their lifestyle to be more active and eat better might get the benefit of looking better after some time, but I'm pretty sure their primary motivation is to not die. Remember, OP claimed the real reason people work out "is to look good".
But you're ignoring a lot of people who simply want to see what the human body is capable of, or just have fun, or any other number of motivators. Someone who runs ultra marathons, doing bodybuilding shows, powerlifting, etc. surely is more interested in testing their limits possibly at the expense of their health/aesthetics.
Or sometimes people just want to play basketball because it's just exceptionally fun.
I think this dismisses a large portion (possibly the majority) of people who exercise. There are major mental health benefits, it provides structure, it’s fun, etc.
If the only reason people work out is for aesthetics then everybody would just be a bodybuilder. But there’s a huge swath of sport and modalities people pursue instead.
This is not a requirement for yabai.
As you said:
> [it's] absolutely reasonable of the board to deny him that.
My argument is essentially that there is minimal, if any, benefit for the board to doing this _unless_ they were able to keep their positions. Seeing as it doesn't seem to be a possible end, why not at least try, even if it results in a sinking ship? For them, personally, it's sinking anyway.
People are notoriously ruthless to people who admit their mistakes. For example, if you are in an argument and you lose (whether through poor debate or your argument is plain wrong), and you *admit it*, people don't look back at it as a point of humility - they look at it as a reason to dog pile on you and make sure everyone knows you were wrong.
In this case, it's not internet points - it's their jobs, and a lot of money, and massive reputation - on the line. If there is extreme risk and minimal, if any, reward for showing humility, why wouldn't you double down and at least try to win your fight?
1. Nix installs all necessary libraries as well as part of the install path. That is - if you need two versions of a library, you aren't needing to contend with whatever is globally installed. I ran into this a lot with Python stuff, personally.
2. You can install different versions of the same software without needing dedicated version managers. This is immensely useful if you work on several different projects that might be using different versions of tooling.
--
But that's just Nix the package manager. Brew does not solve problems of OS configuration, dotfiles management, reproducibility, etc., all of things Nix solves off-the-bat.
For example, I mainly use macOS at work but NixOS for anything personal, as well as servers. I can maintain roughly consistent, through code, environments with only minor tweaks per machine. This means I have essentially the same development environment at work and at home for anything in the terminal.
Another big benefit is, if anything breaks, you can always roll back with Nix. Or, since it's code, it's very easy to start with a clean slate. I recently changed Macbooks and, with only a minor tweak to account for the ARM chip instead of Intel, I was up-and-running with my entire environment exactly as it was, with the only time accounted for being package download and installation, essentially.
--
The main problem that Brew solves that Nix does not (well, it does, but it defers to Brew to do so), is installation of graphical applications. There is an open Apple bug on this issue IIRC - I don't recall all the specific details at this moment, however.
I recently learned this because I was asked this precise question and basically had to drudge up all my two-quarters-ago research that was the answer to this question. My answer to their question was "yes we could do the easy thing, but..." and everything trailing the "but" is a very long string of small points that add up to something that tipped the scale (at least in my and several other folks opinions). But without that laid clearly out they thought I was just over-engineering for the sake of job security or something like that.
In the very worst case, you update components individually until you find the offending one.
I've used both NixOS and nix-darwin for 2 years professionally now as daily drivers, and have had generally nothing but great success. I'm not fearing an OS update actively breaking my environment (which I can't say the same for macOS, as much as I am a fanboy of Apple).
> So, switch to using both?
This is an option, yes. Plus, it has the added benefit of you not needing to manage `brew doctor`, `brew cleanup`, etc. yourself. So you're not stuck with weird packages you installed once, never needed again, and forgot to clean up.
It's strange that people are so against declarative systems, or even file-based OS configuration. When I get my new Macbook I was up-and-running within a few minutes. I can't imagine maintaining a list of brews I need to re-install just to set up everything + my configs + everything else. Nix Darwin just made this so ridiculously easy.
Plus I can share almost all of my configuration with my Linux setups so I have a near-consistent environment whether I'm on Mac or Linux.
The overhead of remembering the names for Brew, Apt, Snap, or whatever package managers exist seems like a lot of overhead, and I just value declarative, reproducible systems. Managing my packages on the fly?
Sorry, no.
I think individual companies should do whatever they want (within legal bounds), but such a big overhaul just seems ripe to screw people over.
The cheapest I can find that is comparable is an M1 Macbook Air which, for the same price point, comes with 16gb RAM + 256gb storage, or an M2 Macbook Pro w/ 8gb RAM.
"Insanely low" is definitely an exaggeration but in the modern day this just seems pretty reasonable for what appears to be decent specs - plus I just really like Framework's model.
Beyond the actual difficulty in doing this without a completely centralized hiring process, this feels incredibly immoral. People have families to feed.