kylecordes

Tailwind, at least for the last couple major versions, only adds the classes you actually use (plus the resets). Baseline size of the resets is far below 50k.

Great point about the dialog element. I used it in a project recently for the first time... It was very nice to not involve a framework-heavy "portal" scheme, etc.

Tremendous boon for the dental industry. Congratulations for everyone involved in getting this through.

UV is such a big improvement that it moves Python from my "would use again if I had to, but would really not look forward to it" pile to my "happy to use this as needed" pile. Without disparaging the hard work by many that came before, UV shows just how much previous tools left unsolved.

Yes, this is such a big challenge for commercial database products. PG is so great that it often makes the most sense to reallocate the money to more CPU/RAM/SSD, rather than licenses.

Good post.

Here is a reasonable answer to the title question:

At the beginning, definitely no.

Eventually, once there is a mature engineering org in place: maybe! There can be great long-term valuable enterprise and government customers available to serve with an on-prem (or customer's-cloud) solution.

Now that it's public knowledge how low the bids were, a re-auction might attract many more bidders and raise a LOT more money for the creditors. It is certainly not an asset with any appeal to me, but a talented brand and e-commerce operator can likely generate a river of cash flow from the IP/audience for sale here.

I am curious how this compares to developing a site using the various AI/IDE add-ons. If you're already a developer enough to care that it's using Next.js, it seems like bringing up in Cursor might be similarly effective, though less visual.

Still, I'm happy to see developers pursuing tools like this.

It looks that way from some cosmetic choices, but structurally this kind of UI has been around a long time in many apps. Probably no one can claim to own it at this point.

I remember when that happened, many people publicly predicted it would lead to the situation seen today.

On one hand, it really has gotten much better over time. It's quite impressive.

On the other hand, I fear/suspect it is asymptotically, rather than linearly, approaching good enough to be unsupervised. It might get halfway there, each year, forever.

In addition to the other ways this is incredible, it is a stunning achievement in software development.

That is a very clever idea!

In the 2000s I had a SaaS firm making software for underground utility locating companies so I learned a lot about the industry. In most parts of the country as built drawings are unusual for residential property anyway. Locating staff mostly shows up, looks at whatever drawings are available, and then has to figure out what was actually done from the clues and by using locating equipment. Many of these folks end up with a very subtle understanding of what common practice was by different utility companies in various specific areas in specific eras.

Large publicly traded companies sometimes already have pseudo-secret/anonymous ownership, with most of the shares held by a giant mutual funds etc.

It seems like Tesla should focus on updating the Model Y, which is by far their best-selling model, instead of the 3. The typical US consumer is not all that excited about sedans anyway.

"Disastrous" seems like a significant overstatement.

To me this looks more like "unsurprising". Tesla has some additional business lines which might eventually prove quite valuable, but in the short to medium term it is mostly a car company. The whole car industry is dealing with the results of higher interest rates. It would be much more surprising if Tesla somehow turned out to be immune to that.

I use this similar but even older tool, which still works. This one is Mac-specific but works across most/all apps, i.e. not a browser plugin.

https://github.com/EugeneDae/Force-Paste

Adding such a speed bump where the user must explicitly approve the upgrade because of a change of ownership of the company that provides it, would leak a fair percentage of the users. This would decrease the value of the product/company when sold. User friendly, but creator (who has bills to pay) unfriendly.

The bar to relative excellence in our industry is so very low.

I have noticed that the Panera Bread status tracker used to provide good information, but doesn't anymore. It frequently says an order is done while it is still being worked on.

Might be a UI/Organization mismatch, as described in this article.

Or maybe it's the staff intentionally marking things done early, to game metrics expectations from management.

This is so frustrating - Pyrex isn't itself anymore. Is there any brand that still sells kitchen glassware made like Pyrex used to be?

Obviously we should all want our altruism to be effective. What is the other side of it? Wanting one's altruism to not really accomplish much?

But with everything that has gone on, I cannot imagine wanting to be an Effective Altruist! The movement by that name seems to do and think some really weird stuff.

Assuming Starship succeeds, hopefully at that point other players will adopt the basic design, iterate and improve, then forcefully compete. I'm still surprised that, all these years after Falcon 9 obviously works, there isn't a "clone" on the market. (I am aware there are couple of small "new space" companies working on something similar.)

But they're not abandoning on-premise, though one could get that impression from the tone of the article.

They are only dropping the small-business targeted Server tier, they are keeping the enterprise targeted Datacenter tier. It's pretty much a drop-in replacement, with extra capabilities. And annual payment instead of initial+upgrades payment.

Ouch. I wonder how much of the exit value got absorbed by their preference stack.

I am far from an expert - but think this is essentially true - but does not universally imply you can't trade on the info.

Example: You watch the front door of an office building. From seeing who walks in, you ascertain with 99% probability that companies X and Y are working on some kind of big deal. If you're just a random person with no relationship to those companies, you can trade on this information.

(Not legal advice! Don't do this unless you are sure it is OK! Which I am not!)

Maybe y’all are more talented developers than me;

But I have found repeatedly that building the wrong abstraction is on the path toward discovering and building the right abstraction.

Right, the obvious fix is not "make it illegal!"; but rather to have the regulatory/disclosure/etc. requirements for a SPAC more similar to those of an IPO.

(There's also a good argument that IPO requirements are too extreme, as demonstrated by many companies that would previously have gone public, staying private. Perhaps the right trade-off is to make both IPO and SPAC processes have a more well considered, moderate set of requirements.)

I see it as more of a potentially disruptive innovation. In some ways it is obviously worse, but it is also much cheaper. They might eventually be able to keep most of the cheapness while improving the capacity partway toward large expensive systems.

Might end up very competitive in terms of capacity versus cost.

The time and cost to acquire the land for such a system would be enormous, if it is possible at all.