peterangular

Was in their ecosystem for about four years before going to Google Pixels - I find your experience to be very true. It was truly night and day.

This is exactly why I think the distinction between computer science and computer engineering is incredibly important.

Often.

I do know YouTube-based learning has it's flaws, but I find it much more enjoyable to engage with vs. the 9-5 teachers/professors I had growing up. The YouTube essayists are often way more passionate and informed on their topics as well.

Then you get the value of a community coming along for the ride... In school there wasn't a comments section where discourse can happen regarding the subject being discussed/instruction. I get that YouTube comments are often horrible, but for many of the educational stuff I've watched good/insightful/corrective comments do seem to trickle to the top.

Also - there's the "my time" aspect of it. This is _huge_ in comparison to normal education. I can move the slider back and listen to a part over and over again - sometimes topics are tough for me and I need to hear it 3-4 times. I can put the video on 1.25/1.5x if I want to bump the pacing up. I can study/learn when I personally learn best which tends to be late at night.

Finally there's the technical aspect of it. I didn't go to a nice college - I went to a very expensive private school in the midwest. I went for both design and computer science. With 100% confidence I can say that every topic that I studied from math, to programming, to electronics, to art history, Adobe Suite... _all_ of it has more up-to-date and functionally better instruction on YouTube available 100% for free. This sounds like an exaggeration - I promise you it is not.

Yes - YouTube learning has it's problems... but anecdotally I have learned so much. I have saved money fixing my own cars. I have jumped into topics that would have _never_ interested me before. I have improved skills professionally. It's a resource that I now can't imagine going without!

Yeah anecdotally same experience.

Social groups just dry up when you get to your late 20's as people are marrying off, having kids, and only maintaining the utmost of friendships. I know it's brutal but it's a time thing... significant others and families take lots of time if you're doing it right so socializing time becomes of higher value/expense.

It was way easier to meet people when I was younger - not just romantic partners. Social groups were much more cohesive and much less based around couple activity. People were just down for whatever and would jump at something just for the experience. I had tons of friends I could just call/SMS like "hey I'm bored let's go find a show" whereas I would feel inappropriate doing this as an adult.

I've been programming PHP since around 2003 and although I don't find Laravel to be perfect, I find it to be a very solid framework to build general web solutions with. I have successfully launched everything from complex OAUTH solutions handling insane amounts of traffic, to dumb startup ideas, to just simple CRUD apps I use in my own personal life.

I find it to be fully featured, incredibly well documented, and easy to use/learn. I find it to be my favorite "RAD" tool for generic API development. Also, the community is pretty solid too - specifically the IRC channel. I'll go far enough to say that Laravel has positively motivated my development as a software engineer - it's opinionated but I find it to be opinionated in a good way. Example: Laravel is heavy on testing/tooling which I think is outstanding.

I am really curious as to what specifically you're finding problematic?

When you admit to needing to learn something in the same breath as throwing shade it completely undermines the shade you were trying to throw.

And it's the exact reason I'm really reluctant to fully buy into Typescript... I always feel like I'm wrong about the "not an official spec" part of things but you are 100% correct in my understanding.

Also on "it's whatever each release wants it to be" - that is hell on earth if you're looking to target consistent software processes and it only gets worse the more you scale (both solution and team).

I get the value of Typescript - hell I've used it extensively myself... it's just that I can't stop feeling like this is all an anti-pattern: trying to make a loosely-typed language a typed language (if you can call it that?). =/

Agree - but there's still bits and pieces that don't translate over to other distros which can suck if you're jumping into to learning something. When I read the Arch Wiki as a Debian user I realize I'm reading it through the lens of someone using a different distro.

Overall I use the Arch wiki very often and it's because of the exact point you're making - I'm just being pedantic saying those slight distro differences can be a pain.

Agree - and it 100% comes from broken teams/environments/people. In engineering, I find most teams are more invested in tearing each other down more-so than building each other up - that's admittedly very anecdotal and personal to me.

And, as a Debian user who often finds himself on the Arch docs - there's a ton of distro-specific stuff in the Arch wiki. And rightfully so - it's a wiki for a distro.

These sorta landmines when trying to just research/digest a concept can really suck. OP's tool really eloquently breaks things down to _just_ core concepts so you can quickly start to grok what I consider to be a relatively complex tool.

This isn't a knock but it's exactly what I was talking about and why I find OP's learning tool to be so valuable.

Lots of folks learn by example and hands-on labs. Personally, I'd much rather learn the basic ropes by jumping into a tool like OP's vs. finding/digging through all of these resources. I'll also criticize to say you likely already know much about systemd, and were able to pull/filter these resources much easier vs someone completely new to the concepts.

To illustrate further: vim is another tool that has outstanding learning resources, everything from very quick "hey get started" examples docs all the way up to adventure games. If I had to go back and relearn vim I would absolutely do it this way vs. digging on man pages like when I was a kid in the 90's. Personally, I learn by doing.

---

Overall - OP's thingy is what I would call a "rich interactive learning tool." It's anecdotal, and obvious projection - but _for me_, interactive learning tools optimize the time it takes to fully "grok" a subject from scratch vs. jumping into a bunch of docs/man pages.

This is outstanding... I really wish I would have had this learning systemd as it would have saved me _hours_. Let's be real - a lot of Linux fundamental stuff is still pretty terse. Learning tools like this really smooth it out and optimize how long it takes to wrap your head around a concept. Also, I am a _huge_ advocate for hands-on in regards to retention.

Adding to my favorites and will be passing this on over the years - thank you for such a great resource.

I'll be honest - half the time it's trying to keep it from other engineers who are overly eager to have an opinion because a) they're low-output and looking to posture, and/or b) or want things to be done a different way.

At least the business side of the house appreciates the spec'd work being accomplished.

> of course we have federal officers, but "the police" are not federalized

Huge swaths of police officers in this country are federal police officers - that was my only point. You made a claim that made it seem like police officers were not "federalized" yet and I rebutted that federal police are absolutely a thing.

I don't want to go off on a hypothetical tangent about a centrally managed police force.

---

> me: I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group.

> you: I never said that. where did I say that?

The comment I responded to is as-follows (your words):

1. why do you consider "the police" a single unified group (aside from some "individual officers")?

2. "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??))

3. it seems at the very least disingenuous, but also possibly dangerous, to lump tens of thousands of people from disparate cities and counties and states into a single amorphous group

You are making a very clear argument against addressing police as a group, to the point of calling it "disingenuous" and "possibly dangerous." You make a very direct argument here and I think it's disingenuous to claim that you "never said that."

And with that specific bit - I'm done reading your post, and I'm done conversing with you on this topic.

Exactly how I feel - any softer language would be forgotten and swept aside. I've heard the "police reform" drum being banged on my entire life with little to no effect - I don't blame them for trying a new slogan that cuts deeper.

> why do you consider "the police" a single unified group

Police unions are strong in this country. The police are definitely on an organized and unified front in regards to this. Saying "the police" referring to a "single unified group" is normal in every-day conversation in this country.

> "the police" are not a federalized entity (yet(??))

We have police that are federal in this country. "Federal police officer" is an actual term.

> it seems at the very least disingenuous [...] to lump [...] thousands of people [...] into a single amorphous group, and then generate a slogan that "makes it clear you have to pick a side" on how you feel about them.

The police are an organized force in this country protected and backed by local and federal governments. I feel like it's a weird and reductionist to say we can't address systemic issues with police as a group. I think we should both address the individualistic issues happening, as well as address the systemic issues that police are facing as an organized group.

Also - who cares if someone picks a side? In regards to the police I have been held at gunpoint for holding my wallet up in a dark car to see if I had my bank card. They thought it was a weapon I was brandishing toward them - it was not. My point here is that if/when the police suspect you of wrongdoing they will immediately be "picking a side" so why shouldn't I be able to pick a side?

> Advertisers don't own your computer desktop and have no real right to dictate what happens on it --- much to their chagrin.

Windows 10/11 would like a word.

Honestly I think they're going to fight this again because the user's computer is just too valuable to not be able to leverage. We're seeing everything software move toward "as a service" pricing, and not ownership.

> I guess consumers aren't allowed to access the technology afforded to enterprise employees.

Lots of us built our own stacks and attempt to fly under the radar - things have gotten legally gray over the last two years and corporations have no problem sending their legal team to kick your door down for trivial stuff.

Have to disagree here. Anything remotely complex with JS usually doesn't work as-expected after archived on Internet Archive. Keep in mind we're not talking about a LAMP-driven WordPress blog with some jQuery sprinkled in - we're talking about an actual piece of software running in the browser ie: device driver.

In good faith I would not expect something which uses experimental browser APIs to maintain functionality when archived by Internet Archive's automated crawling solutions. Same applies to offline saving.

Hopping aboard to add that Bitwarden does in fact have all of those features. It's disingenuous of parent comment to imply/claim otherwise.

Sure the UI/UX is a bit basic... but honestly most of us should prefer that.

Absolutely - and thanks for providing the communicative space to clarify myself. I didn't feel it was going to be productive trying to clarify to /u/danenania when bad-faith was being harshly implied. I agree I was not clear in my comment as to what I was agreeing with - but I felt like I was being pushed to a position that I had not intended to take.

100% we need to treat people regardless of anyone's attitude (mine included), and 100% we need to continue to mandate vaccines.

Thank you again for giving me the space to clarify =)

First, thank you. I feel like this is an opportunity to clarify in a thread of rationality vs. getting accused of bad faith...

I never made the claim that they shouldn't treat unvaccinated patients:

> And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.

And specifically to the parent comment I was agreeing to the following (quoting parent):

> It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.

Although maybe it's not my best self showing here - but I do feel angry toward people taking those hospital beds away. And I was very specifically agreeing that "It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it [...]" I have friends/family who are suffering real consequences of hospitals being overrun with largely unvaccinated people...

---

Overall, I don't think "ethically defensible position" is equivalent to "they should not treat unvaccinated people" - yeah I guess this can be seen as "walking it back" but overall I did not mean to outright state we shouldn't treat the unvaccinated.

Sure - it comes from a place of frustration. But I don't think I'm alone in thinking about these things.

Sorry if this is off-base.

> If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.

Right and that's why I'm out. I have made my arguments, and I don't appreciate you implying that I am discussing these things in bad-faith. If we disagree that is fine.

Respectfully, I am done discussing this with you.

Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is treating any underlying disease or cause.

We're splitting hairs - I'm out.

> denied to smokers

Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months.

> uninsured people

Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law.

---

On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here.

And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.

You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part of our country it's a race to the bottom of "I got mine, f u" and those folks seem largely represented in the group that's currently stressing our hospitals.

I do agree however. And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.

> Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them when they're choosing not to help take care of society

Unfortunately as much as I agree with this it will never be the case. Hospitals are hurting for blood too - sucks. These spikes are largely unvaccinated folks from everything I'm reading. They're stressing the system but I guarantee you they don't care outside of their own selfishness.

I use the hell out of chalk and I just want to say thank you for creating/maintaining a solid product. Seeing this is scary to us who still unfortunately have dependencies with Node/npm.

Thank you so much for what you do.

Agree - it's just Microsoft buy-in at this point. Every product from Office 365 to Teams to just Windows itself is suffering.

To think people build their businesses on this is mind boggling.

Why?

Stories are not something I need from a chat app. I wish these apps would stop the ideal of "constant feature growth" and focus on core competencies. Signal is a SMS/chat app for a privacy focused audience... I do not see an overlap for a stories.