makerdiety

According to the moral nihilists and atheists that are Christians, it was God who dictated what is objectively good, bad, ethical, and sociopathic cultural destruction.

So social conservatives are just upset that their authoritative God being is dead. Harsh but true.

Due to economies of scale, the massive manufacturing of your theoretical sandwiches with your own wheat and cattle agriculture should be cheaper in the end on a large scale (compared to the present alternative). And at that large scale it is the only effective and practical choice. So, we can infer the general conclusion that there are multiple and different types of software development with the existence of things like Express.js and Next.js. Namely real developers and lowly developers like cows on a factory line.

You know what, I thought Next.js was a backend framework. I must be thinking of something else. I mistakenly have confused one thing with another. So never mind lol

That Dropbox thing is just a meme which I don't understand. I'm not "in" on the joke, if you will. I don't see how the Dropbox meme is relevant here.

What was wrong with Express.js? No, what is wrong with it right now? Because all I see is Next.js just being a wrapper for what Express.js does.

Also, Next.js is becoming like Angular: The progress from Angular.js 1 to Angular 18 was necessary for solving the problem of very hard front-end web development. So I'm guessing this Next.js contender is trying to become the Angular of the back-end. They're basically turning into the theoretical computer science constructs that they must become. Script kiddies and non-computer science students need not apply.

It was possible to write a search engine in the year 2000? Or any software at all for that matter? And writing a software application is much different from writing a mere academic research paper. By being harder and more technical. It, writing software, is engineering actually. Writing software is engineering, backed by computer science knowledge.

So, the point is, that has there been a growth of resources and capabilities—opportunities—for motivated individuals to write software apps that are much stronger and capable than their 1990s predecessors? Common sense says "Yes, of course!" But a comprehensive look says no one who is social nor someone who is educated is doing anything like what Sergey and Larry have done for their pre-Google generation. No one is writing anything, no one is building, and least of all is anyone who does the college education thing building anything remotely close to the next Facebook or Google.

There are no engineers today. Just drones doing financially compensated development. No passion for building. Instead just doing what is told to do and for to be done.

Seriously. How to acquire and manage an extra set of eyes? How to install a mini-map capability onto your daily person?

I'm thinking about cameras connected to a network where a server computer performs as the central hub for information and control. The set of cameras are mounted on drones or something and you have to control the drones (since artificial intelligence is still a tricky problem to solve).

The problem to solve is getting over not just control but constantly receiving new information types and pathways. Instead of the photo receptors in the human eyeballs, you now have in addition to your old eyes digital information from an array of cameras. You have the drones for taking the cameras with you everywhere you go. A whole lot of new stuff gets dumped on you and you're now basically undergoing physical therapy for a new organism or species.

Maybe twitching your tongue becomes a new daily occurrence? Or how about some hand signals forming to trigger indexed movements (a mapping between signals and output responses stored in the networked system's central database)? This is maybe how commands are sent. And that means you need an increase in power production for supporting the new infrastructure of your new lifestyle. And it will look like a gross hack in the end. Not that clean and sleek looking stuff you see in the movies. I guess pioneering is rough and rugged like that?

Sending commands is the easy part. But reading information, on top of the baseline of daily living, seems to create an information overload situation, yes? Because how to do remote control if you can't see what it is that you're remotely controlling? It's not simple like flying an RC drone. It's augmentation of all aspects of RC drone flying.

Taste is an indicator of goodness. Therefore, good taste means high goodness.

> Most places I've worked in the last 6 or so years are obsessed with tooling and add so many lint rules that it's often impossible to merge your pull request if you decide to format your code in a way that violates the rules in some trivial way.

Shouldn't all the lines of code uploaded in a pull request be automatically formatted into the coding style preferred by the reviewer anyway? It should be like an automatic translation done by some bot or something.

How is having data more valuable than selling a physical hamburger? If the data engineering program of McDonald's was so encompassing as to engulf the entire Earth like a paperclip maximizer, creating the astronomical sized volume of data required for a data science that can do something or enable a scientist-operator to know something, then yes, the maximization of mobile app installations for a data farm should be done. But a company like McDonald's isn't taking over the planet, nor could it ever. It doesn't have the skills or the talent needed for a global viewpoint and operation. McDonald's is intermediate or marginal to intelligence, rather than having an adjacency which is close to super-intelligence.

So, are the modern corporations making a big mistake with their current information technology trends and goals?

Invoking excessive formality and discussions of minute technical details leads to a cathedral of knowledge built on autistic pedantry. The chosen rabbit hole to get lost in needs to be the correct one. And human science is riddled with the paths that have naive or childish fundamentals.

Since you insist in human intuition being a "required step in the process of knowledge discovery," I can safely say that your time preference you have is what led to the segmentation of the human species into categories such as races. When, really, any human baby born on Earth, absolutely any human child or man, that is, has the same genetics as a high level athlete like the famous Lebron James basketball player. There's no real difference between the races or types of humans. And, similarly, there's no difference between the "types" of intelligences that human intuition can help grab hold of.

Quantum mechanics is a magical system, to you, only because you're limited and guided by your human biases and preferences. Dumping intuition is the way to go for seeing past the toys and child's play that is modern science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Karl Marx said something along the lines of "Each man does a job according to his abilities." Something like that.

I take it, then, this modern society and civilization wants to specialize in low level technician style work and wait for aliens or angels to come and do the hard work of inventing faster than light travel? You know, intuition is the best scientists and engineers can do and all.

The problem is that learning to play the piano isn't innovative. (So, technically, a monkey could eventually do it.) Because innovation is stifled by intuition. Particularly intuition meant to serve human ends.

It's a simple equation: take away intuition and you're left with revolutions in technology and science.

A preference for level two is what got us a general theory of relativity and, subsequently, working global positioning satellite technology. Having a cognitive bias toward visual presentations of planes in 3D and higher space leads to techno-scientific stagnation.

> Learning about planes felt abstract and non-intuitive to me. “Sure, that's a plane equation, but what do I do with it? What does a plane look like?” It took some time for me to build an intuition for how to reason about and work with them.

Imagine how far human society can go if people dumped the desire for intuition that appeals to anthropocentric sensibilities.

But I guess that's forbidden dark arts and wasting time with trivial pursuits and stuff is the culture to adopt while you're in the modern day Rome equivalent.

y = mx + b is enough for me.

Why not do computer science research as a hobby and with publicly available blogposts while having a day job as a web developer?

wget --convert-links --page-requisites --adjust-extension https://www.website-name.com

For downloading a single page from a website for offline storage capabilities. A private, quick, and simple alternative to saving information using archive.org.

The point is that there are no programmers that can simulate machines in their heads. These elite engineers only exist in theory. Because if they did exist, they would appear so alien and freakish to you that they would never be able to communicate their form of software development paradigms and patterns. These rare type of programmers only exist in the future, assuming we're on a timeline toward such a singularity. And we're not, except for some exceptions that cultivate a colony away from what is commonly called the tech industry.

EDIT: Unless you're saying that SOLID, VIPER, TDD, etc. are already alien invaders from a perfect world and only good and skilled humans can adhere to the rules with uncanny accuracy?

As long as the chaos of anarchy is instrumental in culling unfit individuals, ideas, and regimes, a man can reasonably sponsor the logical conclusion of free market capitalism. Maximum efficiency is the goal. Test-driven development is a better evaluator for what values a high time preference society should have. Economics proxies is the future of warfare and violence, as America loses its neo-colonial foothold in the Middle East named Israel and admirably demonstrates how not to dominate the world. Playing a form of high level chess requires patience and a divergence from mainstream education.

If a large portion of software development is the attempt to discover what is a minimally viable product, then software development is not pure software development. It would be startup business development. That makes real programming to be something like obscure operating system development.

So it's a conflict of names, a matter of proper identification.

Mathematics was invented by the human mind to minimize waste and maximize work productivity. By allowing reality mapping abstractions to take precedence over empirical falsifications of propositions.

And what most people can't do, such as keeping in their heads absolutely all the concepts of a theoretical computer software application, is an indication that real programmers exist on a higher elevation where information technology is literally second nature to them. To put it bluntly and succinctly.

For computer software development to be part of thinking, a more intimate fusion between man and machine needs to happen. Instead of the position that a programmer is a separate and autonomous entity from his fungible software.

The best programmers simulate machines in their heads, basically.

The maximization of American dollars in a bank is a polite, democratic proxy for the violence of neo-colonialism. So any good investment scheme should ignore common metrics of science potential, as a lot of evidence is required to measure and determine what is a good science program to embark on. In contrast to analytical models and proposed theories that are more rational than they are empirical; rationalism is a sneaky way for neo-Marxism to taint the natural administration of science, technology, and capital. Hard evidence and reproducible centuries-long experiments are protective guardians of sensible science.

America wins for a reason in geopolitical history and it's because it has a secret military on top of its apparent military. Air forces and scientists are just fungible tokens for a surreptitious right wing shadow government that competes with ankle biting bugs like neo-Marxists. But it can all be reduced to undignified gang banging like Crips and Bloods, because space colonization isn't as noble as the romantic fictions have showed it to be. Maybe the correct inference from knowledge of history is that humanity isn't the end goal to chase after?

If the global free market doesn't want to spend capital in space stuff, then space is probably not worth it. Capitalism is an effective filter for economics and resource allocation. Soviet Union styled failed management occurs otherwise.

Successful space travel and rocket science being a contemporary of war and violence is only strange if you find toys to be fascinating objects. And didn't a human land on the Moon because of a cold war between two superpowers?

What's strange is acknowledgement of the possibility of scarce resources necessitating conflict is considered invalid criticism that needs to be silenced or given negative reviews by the majority opinion. But that's not really surprising when things like ascetic religion were created as a reaction to what is popularly called criminal or antisocial mental models of the world.

Things can set precedents for other things. Or there are analogues where an item in one domain is affected by an item in another domain.

If you give super-intelligence an inch in prototypical culture or legal cases, then it will take a whole mile in other forms.

It's therefore best to learn how to teleport between dimensions so you can establish an ability of vector tracking. We don't deal with scalar values here. Artificial neural networks consider vector valued functions to be child's play.

It is indeed reasonable to interpret Amazon's Big River project as being not anything indicative of clandestine malware or something. But something unprecedented like artificial general intelligence is very likely to pose a threat to giant enterprises and businesses. A significant threat actually.

So maybe super-intelligence would press lobbied government regulation into a protective service for its source code?

Maybe there's already source code protecting regulation primed and ready for the super-intelligence's arrival? Like ethical rules that commercial entities must follow.

So, can we now safely say that it is inappropriate to upload and execute the code to our artificial general intelligences on Amazon Web Services? Even encryption there won't work, because important and secret source code shouldn't be running on something like Amazon's cloud servers.

So, what's an artificial general intelligence gonna do? Where would be a good place for it to hide and run its source code that needs protection from prying eyes and human alignment motivated modification?

That sounds like the generational dynasty of modern American politics. And that's my original point: as birds of a similar feather flock together and start up political parties and enterprises that might eventually become immovable behemoths or peripherals or complements to the giants, other groups don't get to use these now already consumed resources which were used to establish empires, dynasties, and corporations. As a result of the national entropy progressing forward unencumbered, the population that can be sustained in the area, the nation's territories, is decreased, especially as time, now a representative of entropy, progresses. The force that dwindles a land's capacity for life works at a rate where the future is accurately seen as desolate. No investor that is serious about astronomical returns should ever look at planet Earth for keeping a portfolio.

And that's why effective accelerationism was born. To economically and scientifically venture out to new places where money may keep its present value. At the effective science, we have the bravery to investigate conditions considered impossible by the mainstream. We're sailing down a river where the flow is unprecedented and the source of new investments and potentials. A battery of possibilities, even the impossible possibilities.

I don't think being pedantic is appropriate for good discussion.

The lesser point is that, as things like Kubernetes is for large scale software development models, a small business will find it detrimental to copy Google's internal organizations and practices. They don't have the same genetics and they're playing different games.

And, the more important point, there's no room or space for any new, neo-Google to form now. It's over, as they say. The end of history, I guess.