297 karma · joined June 11, 2021
I was editing a google doc yesterday and found it annoying that i had to find the "link" option from the context menu instead of just saying "turn links into links" and moving on.
This imo impacts everyone, regardless of how developer-ey you are. Perhaps non-devs expect a "friendlier"/more "agentic" interface now? Don't have the right vocabulary to explain.
It's Apache 2.0 and a CNCF incubating project.
It also really shows its age, imo. The interface is clunky, roles and groups having overlapping responsibilities is confusing, making custom UIs for it makes me feel ancient, etc.
I really can't complain though. There is simply no alternative that's as open atm. It's also not easy to make one ( I tried :( ).
(some of those features are enterprise only)
Even if you ask it not to use any at all, it'll cast the type to `unknown` and "narrow" it by performing checks. The problem is that this may be syntactically correct but completely meaningless, since it'll narrow it down to a type that doesn't exist.
The biggest problem here is that all of these are valid code patterns, but LLMs tend to abuse them more than using it correctly.
This section in particular piques my interest. I never found this confusing, since the change in HEAD is just representative of the order of operations (in rebase, you are setting the current commits "on top" of the commit you are rebasing onto, etc). This feels like what is confusing isn't really HEAD itself, it's a fundamental understanding of the git model?
I feel like folks using git without understanding the basics of what it does is what leads people astray? If so, why isn't this part of our basic training as engineers who use git?
I wrote this based on an office discussion on TLS, and because resources I found on TLS were all pretty surface level.
This is the first time I've tried to write a technical blog post, so I'm looking for all the feedback I can get!
Edit: using brave and chrome on an Intel Mac, same results for both.
Ok so in general I'd chalk this up to being disinterested, but I think this is relevant for a product meant for people with ADHD:
After a couple pages of choices, I was met with a screen with options A through K, and I instantly closed the tab. I didn't even read what it was asking. I realised that this may literally be ADHD like behaviour, so I opened it back up again, but it was still quite overwhelming and it took conscious effort to read through the form. I think this is just because I'm used to just entering my email and password, or using social logins, so filling the form seemed to be a substantial point of friction (even though I realise how it could be useful)
I'm unsure if I have ADHD, and it's never been a problem for me, but I sure do have a short attention span haha
Saying that your chance of dying is 50% after 80 != saying it's the same consistently after 80?
[1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/30046/alternative-n...
In a way, I think warnings and undo serve two different functions-warnings are meant to inform the user of their action, and undos are meant to roll back actions taken.
Tbh, when I've deleted repo's, I've mostly just copied the repo name and pasted it in the box. Careless of me? Definitely. Can GitHub change that carelessness? Probably not. Will a box that says "Stars: 54k" help? I think it'd help me, at the very least.
While the author clearly feels bad about the fact that they've lost his community and that GitHub didn't restore it (which is honestly what any of us would've felt under similar circumstances), they're also focusing towards the future and using their personal experience as a parable all of us can learn from.
Lesson 1 on UI design I think is really important. I often think scary popup boxes are enough to get people to think about what they're doing, but this example clearly demonstrates that what's important is to use design not to scare (alone?), but to convey the information which makes a dangerous action dangerous as well. I also really like the fact that when the action isn't dangerous, the distractions ("Type this repo's name", etc) just go away. It's super intuitive, and (for a newbie designer like me) really helps build an intuition for various design principles put in action.
Lesson 2, which was to use soft deletes, is something I have more thoughts about. I assume that the cascading done on GitHub would be done on a FK constraint, but I'm not really sure how you'd do a "cascading soft delete" without making some kind of manual cascading logic? If anyone's aware of a standard way to accomplish this, please do let me know. Of course, the best way may just be to simplify the model so they aren't needed at all haha.
As designers and developers we've been given a chance to sharpen our toolkit. Thanks, HTTPie! You've gained a new star :)
Edit: Changed GitHub couldn't restore to GitHub didn't restore, as pointed out by @ncmncm (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033758#31034195)
If I want to see an older version of the page I like: click click click I have a (like really) permalink
If I wanna modify a page that someone else made, fork and edit!
It's like Github, but for our pages!
(too many exclamations smh)