quacker

Try this:

    STR.”x=\{x} y=\{y} z=\{z}.”

    “x=“ + x + “ y=“ + y + “ z=“ + z + “.”

The concatenation example is less readable as well. Have I included whitespace to exactly match the string template example? It’s a little hard to tell at a glance because I have to distinguish what is code whitespace and what’s included in the string.

I’m not claiming it’s not the same monetization model, but with endless talk from these companies about the commitment to OSS and the virtues of OSS and the benefits HashiCorp has and would continue to receive by keeping their code OSS - it’s just ironic to see most of these companies have no open source code and aren’t actually willing to commit to an OSS model.

This is idealism.

The reality is Pulumi's providers have no value for Terraform, which already built and curated its own ecosystem after years of time and effort. Then, Pulumi can spin up a directly competing product in a fraction of the time by reusing all of that work. So I understand the motivation for the license change.

Circling back to your original comment which spawned this thread:

> Like, has anyone of any significance used a Hashicorp product to meaningfully compete with Hashicorp?

The answer is unequivocally "yes". Pulumi has. And Pulumi can continue to do so, apparently. Terraform providers continue to be MPL-licensed.

Another example I learned of was IBM Cloud Secrets Manager, which is basically reselling Vault: https://www.ibm.com/cloud/secrets-manager

With IBM Cloud® Secrets Manager, you can create secrets dynamically and lease them to applications while you control access from a single location. Built on open source HashiCorp Vault, Secrets Manager helps you get the data isolation of a dedicated environment with the benefits of a public cloud.

They absolutely do. If I use AWS and Pulumi could not deploy to AWS, well I'm certainly not going to buy Pulumi Cloud, am I? If I use multiple cloud providers and Pulumi doesn't support all of them, I'm unlikely to invest further in Pulumi Cloud, right?

The providers determine whether I can even use the tool to do what I want in the first place. The providers are 99% of the value!

The fact that Pulumi leverages the Terraform AWS provider under the hood adds huge value for them, and I absolutely believe they indirectly profit off of that.

However, Pulumi Cloud is only as valuable as Pulumi itself. If Pulumi didn't support deploying to AWS, for example, then it is useless to my organization which uses AWS and I'm obviously not going to consider Pulumi Cloud. So Pulumi does gain a lot of value even from just the Terraform AWS provider that it uses under the hood (and which it can continue to use because it seems Terraform provider licenses are not changing, which is nice).

I like the idea of a Vault alternative, but I won't use a security product in production that is not automatically tested for vulnerabilities and regressions.

1. https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/registry/providers... - "official" providers are maintained by HashiCorp

2. https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers?tier=official - The filtered list of "official" providers maintained by HashiCorp

3. https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-aws/tree/008c4360bc9fc24303... - Just prove it to myself, I can see the `upstream` git submodule, which embeds pulumi/terraform-provider-aws, which is a fork of hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws, although the repo was not created as a fork in Github, so it is not marked as a "fork" and so I have to compare commit histories to tell that it is a fork.

Pulumi is free, except you pay for the features that aren't free: https://www.pulumi.com/pricing/. So, Pulumi has grown their directly competing product partially on top of the Terraform ecosystem - and I'd argue they'd be half as successful without reusing Terraform providers - and make money off of that product. It's at least understandable to me that Hashicorp doesn't like this.

If it's so simple, Pulumi could have done this themselves. Why didn't they? Would Pulumi have been as successful without leveraging the vast ecosystem of existing Terraform providers? Now they are a growing Terraform competitor.

In fact, you can enable warnings/logs that indicate whether code that is affected by the loopvar experiment results in a stack-allocated or heap-allocated loop variable: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/LoopvarExperiment#can-i-se...

I imagine that the current workarounds for this issue also end up with heap-allocated variables in many cases.

I’m unsure if all their glass cookware is borosilicate but they clearly marked it as such when I last looked.

The point of HTMX is to avoid writing custom JavaScript.

HTML is more verbose, so I would guess that JSON serialization is slightly faster, but I doubt there's an order of magnitude difference. (I could be proven wrong though)

I agree that taking HTMX to the extreme where _all_ interactions require a request to the server is too much overhead for interactive web apps. But there's likely a good middle ground where I can have mainly server side rendering of HTML fragments with a small amount of client side state/code that doesn't incur particularly more or less server load.

(Your former comment)

I travel with someone who will die within an hour of exposure to peanuts...

A person who is vegetarian or vegan or pork-free or gluten-free or alcohol-free is as easy - or easier - to accommodate as someone with a peanut allergy. Don't you think?

But I realized I did give the price for the 3080 (12 GB) model, which I corrected in an edit. So I think you're sort of right in the sense that the 4080 (12GB) is priced above the 3080 (10GB) in real terms, and that the 4080 (16GB) is priced way above the 3080 (12 GB) in real terms.

For perspective, a PS5 is about the performance of a GTX 1070, give or take. So a 3080/4080 are far far better performance than that.

If you already have PC parts, you could potentially upgrade to a 3060Ti for $400 (minus whatever you can sell your current GPU for) and get better perf than a console.

Otherwise, you're right. Starting from scratch, consoles are a better value, unless you really really want the best performance.

$700 USD in 2013 is worth $900 USD in 2022. Almost a decade of inflation.

Also, the GTX Titan was $1000 USD msrp, which was essentially the 780Ti with double the memory.

The 3080 released for $800 USD in Jan 2021 which one calculator[1] says is $905 USD with inflation. So a 4080 is $900. At least they are consistent.

edit: 3080 12 GB, that is. The original 3080 was $700 USD in Sep 2020 which is $800 in 2022. So the base 4080 is priced above that.

They're competing against an over-bloated secondhand market, AMD, Intel, much better integrated GPUs

For the 4080/4090 pricing, the only competition is AMD.

Just glancing at some benchmarks, the Intel ARC A380 is worse than a GTX 1650[2] and the best integrated graphics I know of is the Ryzen 7 5700G which is worse than a 1050[3]. I don't see why these would affect 4080/4090 pricing at all.

1. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

2. https://www.pcgamer.com/official-intel-arc-380-benchmarks/

3. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5700g-revie...

They are not telling consumers what their preferences should be.

It is identical to the M2 MacBook Air, except:

- Worse camera: 720p camera where the Air has a 1080p camera

- Worse speakers: stereo speakers where the Air has four-speakers (I'm assuming stereo is 2-speakers?)

- Bigger battery: 58.2 WHr vs 52.6 WHr (about a 2hr battery life difference)

- Slightly heavier: +0.3 lbs over the Air

- Slightly smaller screen: 13.3" vs the Air's 13.6", although this is probably due to the notch

- Has the touchbar

They are priced the same from what I can tell.

With inflation, £2000 in 2012 is equal to about £2516 today. I configured an M2 MacBook Air with these specs for £1750 today, so it actually costs less in real terms.

Edit: A 13" MacBook Pro with the same specs is also £1750

I still have Prime so occasionally I buy something, but the shipping is rarely 2-day anymore. I’m surprised when it actually arrives in 2 days.

Anecdotally, when browsing I often see many items that look to be exact rebranded duplicates (i.e. cheap headphones) of each other, from companies I’ve never heard of.

I’m not against a cheap and low-quality item that is good enough - they are perfect for me. But it’s been years since I trusted the reviews on Amazon, and it’s nice to have items that last and maybe create less waste. I’ve heard of counterfeit items as well, although haven’t encountered any myself. And increasingly the prices aren’t better on Amazon than elsewhere.

So many items are made in China. Not a problem outright, and not unique to Amazon or even caused by Amazon. But it’s non-obvious where an item is made. Usually there’s a Q&A where a user responds with where it’s made, but not always. I am looking for a moka pot, and it turns out the classic Bialetti moka pots are not all made in Italy but maybe certain sizes of certain models are, and it’s extremely difficult to get information on specific styles/sizes of a product with the way reviews for all styles/sizes are mushed together, especially when reviews for OLDER models are still included on product pages for new models. I opted to grab a moka pot in person at Target on my next visit since they have one in store. A while ago, I bought a nice Zojirushi rice cooker from Amazon and looked for one made in Japan. Luckily, the brand clearly stamps “Made in Japan” on the front of the machine when that is the case. It was probably a 20%(?) premium for that stamp, and I wonder if it was worth it (so far so good).

Amazon shipping is still quite fast and the Amazon return/refund policy is still great, as far as I know. I like the option to return items to Amazon through Kohls, although you can’t return all items through Kohls.

But other stores have good return policies as well. Target and Best Buy both have good shipping, store pickup, and curbside pickup options, and with easy returns in my experience. They both have a decent catalog of online only items, and good information on which stores have which products in stock.

If it is standard at the company to give all candidates that same question, this is actually a good way to reduce bias in hiring decisions. Otherwise, you might bias toward hiring, say, people with college degrees or people who worked at large corporations, for example. And this might unintentionally bias against certain demographics that obtain college degrees at lower rates (for example).

Some places have phone screens, and some don't. One company gave an easy leetcode problem as part of the phone screen, while in another case, one person actually spoke characters over the phone to me ("LinkedList", "left angle bracket", "String", "right angle bracket"). Some give take home questions. Some do a code review interview. Some dig into my resume during an interview, and some don't. Some companies had multiple interview sessions where I was asked the same question about my resume in each session by different people (wasting time). And so on.

So in general, I can and have passed over companies based on their hiring process.