Ironically. Wikipedia already links that concept to low-background steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel#Cultural_...
36 karma · joined August 24, 2012
The thinking gives more than just the answer and makes it more of a conversation. As a candidate I will mention projects I had similar when think about anything. As the interviewer it is hard to gather experience: so many people stay abstract and it’s infuriating (let me help you get this job! Yes you can do something means nothing; when you did do something means everything.)
I am sure that many interviewers don’t see it like this however and treat it like a quiz sadly. Best advice for interviews I was given as a candidate: the interviewer will decide in the first five minutes if they want to hire you. The rest of interview is them trying to convince themselves and others of that decision.
Isn’t it more optimal, from the perspective of play, to have them spread out?
I can see the argument that if you clear your desk, you’ll be more inclined to draw because you have the space. But if I didn’t impose that value, they wouldn’t necessarily draw. They’d just play with something else.
I don’t track my fuel usage. I did once. Economically, I don’t need to. The car tells me my MPG anyway, literally, if I care to look.
Accounts are harder to track now, with fewer physical assets and more renting and subscriptions.
The point you make seems to be that rigidity in the system would bring value. But I think the values people have often exist outside the system. The system is imposing an idea of what is worth tracking or organising in the first place.
Oddly, I think LLMs are quite intentional in their current incarnation. You start with an empty input box, state a curiosity, and go looking for information. There’s very little imposed structure around what you should care about.
That changes once OpenAI et al. start tracking what you do and recommending what you should be looking at before you’ve even formed the intention yourself.
To put their own model out in front?
Why make a product and not sell it baffles me. Especially when others are rapidly making products.
In other contexts, it literally is.
Is on the binary available or is the source available? It is disingenuous to say it’s open source if that’s the case. How could this be supported into the future?
Hope I am wrong.
> Passage is built by the founding engineers behind Plaid one of the most trusted financial platforms in the world that powers apps like Venmo, Coinbase, Robinhood, Acorns, and more.
I like this is called out.
They are right about new habits needed. And this is where everyone should start. Sometimes a quick prompt has killed 5 hours of meetings to discuss if it were worth it.
Electron apps look the same on each platform therefore they are consistent.
The meta point is the effort required to be consistent with the OS.
You listed MacOS only apps, emphasising the point.
To do a per OS consistent experience is N times the effort.
You mean incongruent styles? As in, incongruent to the host OS.
There is no doubt electron apps allow the style to be consistent across platforms.
Code is not the cost. Engineers are. Bugs come from hindsight not foresight. Let’s divide resources between OSs. Let all diverge.
> They are often laggy or unresponsive. They don’t integrate well with OS features.
> (These last two issues can be addressed by smart development and OS-specific code, but they rarely are. The benefits of Electron (one codebase, many platforms, it’s just web!) don’t incentivize optimizations outside of HTML/JS/CSS land
Give stats. Often, rarely. What apps? I’d say rarely, often. People code bad native UIs too, or get constrained in features.
Claude offer a CLI tool. Like what product manager would say no to electron in that situation.
This article makes no sense in context. The author surely gets that.