merrywhether

On the flip-side this approach sounds kind of like premature optimization. You don’t have to understand the entire path from pressing buttons on a keyboard to a program causing photons to exit your monitor. You instead trust that large parts of that chain just work.

If what you’re doing works via script tag, the odds of Vite/CRA/etc not working for you are extremely low, so why worry about problems you might have before you ever have them. It’s perfectly fine to opaquely trust your tools while focusing on the details you actually care about.

In another context, no Java course ever starts off with explaining “public static void main(String[] args) {…}” and students just “cargo-cult” it for a while until through other exposures to various bits of functionality through natural use they build a context through which to eventually circle back and easily understand what that crucial bit of code actually means. And that’s long before someone would consider trying to get a deeper understanding of what the compiler is doing! “Welcome to CS101, we’re going to start off talking about byte-code and intermediate representations” would have a success rate of literally 0%.

You’re basically saying that just because we haven’t been great at general fishery management yet doesn’t mean we won’t get it right next time. But the problem here is that fisheries are literally the textbook example of the tragedy of the commons and there will always be someone looking to capture the benefits while externalizing the costs. I’m not disagreeing with you that unsustainable eating is the root of this (and many other) problem but the only successful solutions has been extremely strong semi-militaristic (eg Coast Guard with teeth) enforcement of fishing quotas that are quite unpopular for all involved: fishers who lose jobs, eaters who lose access to a favorite taste, etc. No one likes taking their vitamins as it were.

Oh neat, and sorry for missing that. I can totally see why you might have valid reasons for that.

> And why doesn't it allow style tags?

You can 100% use style tags in React, they just aren’t automatically wrapped in module/component scope. Just like normal HTML style tags, actually.

As for JSX, I personally have always hated HTML template languages (“now which slightly-different version of the for iterator does this template get use?”) but I also recognize that there are other people who have opposite preferences. JSX-in-JS and template-directives-in-HTML are both valid approaches and it’s great that there are solutions to cater to various preferences. Trying to argue one down because you don’t like it is like arguing that your favorite color is factually superior.

> Two way data binding is not a constant source of bugs

Every team using AngularJS _did_ have those problems (not to say it didn’t have some niceties also). It was one of the big architectural changes in Angular (2+) as a direct result. React does not have this feature; passing down a setter function is not the same as automatic 2-way binding.

As to your first point, different things feel like magic to different people, so it’s really hard to debate this with other people with different perspectives unless maybe your talking about single specific instances. It’s like trying to tell someone they don’t feel cold because you don’t feel cold or vice versa.

I guess moving all your logic to the server means you can waste cycles in the CSSOM? /s

I’m curious if more explicit selectors would’ve fixed this, since the * exposes you to anything weird about your layout.

There are no web standards in the era of WHATWG. It’s just a living spec composed of whatever vendors build and convince other vendors to add to their own products. Chrome is constantly spitting out new proposals that are already half-baked-but-live in their browser and then people start using them and complain they aren’t yet in other browsers. Yet when Safari or Firefox add new features we don’t act like Chrome is slow? Chrome’s rapid pace is almost surely an effort by Google to overwhelm the competition so they can make more ad money through dark patterns via Chrome dominance.

Are you saying you basically want a Chrome monoculture? It would be terrible to give that much power to Google.

I actually like that they do this and let me use the UI I know and that will definitely work. 99% your video playback UX is not as good and you mostly want to take over full-screen so you can prevent the user from doing things (you may fall in the 1%, but I’m generalizing so apologies if you’re one of the few exceptions). It’s annoying on the iPad when sites build half-cocked full-screen UIs with buggy custom controls.

Google is so good at ad domination they have free space in your head. Safari has a different development process which considers privacy, power consumption, and other user-centric ideas instead of just “how do we beat everyone else down in order to have better ad dominion over the internet”. You talk of standards, but in the time of WHATWG there really aren’t any, just ideas that vendors may or may not implement. If something is in Chrome but both Safari and Firefox have rejected it, do you really consider that a standard?

Keep telling yourself this. AMP, FLoC, Portals, etc are all browser “innovations” too, are you glad those came around? So many of their features are purely to give Google more ad revenue and power over the internet. I’d be willing to bet that the main reason they fund so much non-ad innovation is to overwhelm any potential new-comers to the browser space and stifle competition (even Microsoft gave up). But too many developers buy into the idea that being able to use the newest Array.findLast() API is somehow crucial to the success of their web product and thus help perpetuate the Chrome monoculture.

At some point the alternatives are force-updating your DB or shutting it down. One of those at least has a chance of keeping your service online. I agree the lack of communication is pretty bad though.

Any chance you have Dropbox running? They are very slow to native M1 support and otherwise their app manages to really kill battery life.

Okay, so we make a windowed building that houses 1000+ fewer students and those 1000 are just left to the wolves, paying more elsewhere or joining the depressing ranks of the UC homeless? I’m not thinking ideally, I’m recognizing that the real world has real opportunity costs to every decision and nothing happens in a vacuum. I hate the CA real estate situation as much as anyone but short-term solutions have to be realistic and long-term ones… may never happen.

So instead of attempting to deliver cheaper dense housing for 5000 students close to campus, we should make a windowed one that houses 3000 and tell the other 2000 to go to Sacramento and start lobbying for new state laws? Or do we instead try to get solutions at multiple scopes and not let perfect be the enemy of good.

In essence, you could describe your stance as forcing all residents to pay a tax for a benefit that you deem is for their own good. In this case it’s windows, but would you support this stance for other reasons? What if it was that all rooms come with a large crucifix on the wall (wasting wall and floor space)?

Worst? There are multiple axes and this clearly won’t be bad on all of them: - proximity to campus - private bedroom - land used / density - windows - furnishing - common areas - price - etc Worst would be an expensive windowless gymnasium with 200 people sleeping on cots in the same room 10 miles from campus or anything else.

Why can’t we try different combinations of that and let people self-optimize? One of the big trade-offs here is that putting every room on the exterior means making a long narrow building, which means “dead” space between builds (less density) and more exterior walls (construction cost). Light wells could maybe give you “windows” in that you could have some real sunlight, but they have zero view, privacy concerns, aren’t exits, and are much dimmer than true exterior windows. Courtyards have to be big enough to not be glorified lightwells, and they basically have the same problem as narrow buildings. We could try to build up for more density, but that comes with several more axes of trade-offs.

If everyone is saying no other building does this, maybe we should stop relying on emotion and get some actual data. It’s definitely possible that a sun-lamp window (and good ventilation, which he mentions) are fine for people. UCSB should just get a clause saying he’ll pay to tear it down after 10 years if psych studies of residents are damning, and then we have a billionaire really betting on his vision and funding an honest attempt at proving a viable alternative.

> Yes, Williams is only two years younger than Cook…but you already know what I think of age restrictions.

My immediate sarcastic response was “What, that boomers can rule forever?”. More seriously, when thinking about the next 10 years at Apple or anywhere, I really wonder about the viability of our aging leadership class as they grow continually further from the way technology and the youth are interacting to form future norms. It’s especially ironic that human life extension is happening right as the exponential growth curve of tech innovation is rounding upward and making tech life spans increasingly shorter.

Are you against speed limit enforcement too? Or is this a matter of degree and not pure principle?

Is it really that much money? It’s not like that’s pure profit; mining requires large up-front capital investment to even start. Break that down to 20 years (round number for illustration purposes only, seemingly on the quick side based on quick searching), and you’re down to $75mm/year which begins to sound like a lot less money when you start adding the recurring costs of operation to the initial capital cost. Add in the state mandates for damage escrow and you’re probably looking at a business that makes the owners wealthy, but otherwise produces only a handful of jobs and minimal tax revenue while permanently destroying some of the natural beauty of a state heavy on tourism that relies on that beauty.

Put another way: if it was a lot of money they’d find a way to do it underground.

The problem arises when there is no way to differentiate between the user classes. And while I enjoy computing freedom, I’m not exactly proclaiming its value when I have to deal with a DDoS or hear about people getting ransomwared. I know things like Mirai also exist, and that user error isn’t the only ransomware vector, but poor computing habits absolutely fuel such problems and they cause pain for society as a whole.

I have no idea what the answer is, other than having Linux et al be the place for free computing (protected by its various barriers to entry) while the consumer OS space eventually becomes increasingly locked down. The only other ideas I have are dumb ones like requiring regular examination/certification/licensure to be able to use the “developer” version of Windows or something.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t all being price-gouged (per the AG’s complaint) for instance. Paying protection to the mob also strongly correlates with your store not burning down in the middle of the night. We just don’t know how different things could be without this level of monopolistic distortion (which I admit could mean that without Google things _could_ be worse?)

> You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting

Their first sentence was more correct: consumers are also getting value and the question is more whether the true cost is worth the benefit. For some people it definitely is, especially those who are skeptical and thus learn/measure/etc themselves. For others they give away far more than they get. For society/humanity as a whole it’s an open question, even more so once you start to include the second-order effects (in both directions, good and bad).

There’s a Suspense component that does that catch-and-placeholder functionality much more cleanly now.

Suspense hasn’t really taken off yet because it’s not quite fully baked, and thus very few libraries are starting to take advantage of it yet. Once we get stale-while-waiting and server-side suspense, things are going to change rapidly.

There are a lot of things to complain about with regards to California politics, but trying to help citizens and fight Intuit is pretty unassailable. So either the one-sentence comment was on topic and truly endorsed such corporate strangleholds, or it was in bad faith and simply trotting out their general axe-to-grind about California at the mere mention. I don’t think there’s much sympathy for either interpretation with regard to advancing discussion of the article.

Intuit is just really easy to understand as a cut-and-dry example of regulatory capture. They basically maintain the need for themselves entirely through laws that create the problem they solve.

Are you really arguing that corporatocracy is a progressive form of governance? Or do you just believe that companies leeching off society via regulatory capture is better for everyone?

They definitely could’ve made this more discoverable, but you can touch and immediately drag to change any of the sliders. No need to lift your finger or have a 2 step process

Also remember that they are probably going to be setting up a Facebook presence either way (for communicating with and advertising to customers), so the website work is on top of the Facebook effort when talking about level of effort.

I’ve long wondered about this problem and why phone companies don’t just defer to their users. I understand why some people need the option, but I’d gladly opt out of accepting any foreign-originating calls since that’s just not relevant to me. Then they can use all the modern phone routing tech on my number to further enforce number verification etc and hugely cut down on my exposure to scammers. If a lot of people opted into this setting, it would help everyone as there’d be herd immunity as scammers would have a much harder time finding people who they could even contact.