yes, the second one, the first one I'm not familiar with
3,233 karma · joined March 19, 2010
Hacker School (recurse center) batch[1]. My great grandfather was a clown named Zemo.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jorelli; my proof: https://keybase.io/jorelli/sigs/qfLefSRzpZuCMRmTbonOu98s-GSF80avwYxBcf7K-84 ]
That’s kinda what The Jackbox Party Pack games are designed for. Think Pictionary, but you doodle from your phone and it shows up on your TV and there’s nothing to clean up.
honestly I was into mechanical keyboards for a while, I put together a few kits, I bought into group buys on individual hand-crafted keys, group buys on keysets, and bought a HHKB to try topre switches. After a while I just stopped, because the scene is incredibly disorganized and constantly shifting (e.g., I was into mechanical keyboards for a year or two and /r/budgetkeebs didn't even exist, but lots of my friends still know me as the keyboard enthusiast guy so they always ask me where to get a keyboard). The barrier to entry is very substantial. There are a lot of people who would like a nicer keyboard who don't want to have to deal with that nonsense.
Take that whole concept, and now think about webcams. People have money to burn and spent a lot of time on video chat because of Covid. How many people sat around and did hours and hours of research to buy the perfect webcam? How many people heard the Logitech 1080p webcam (the C920x I think?) was pretty good, bought it, plugged it in, had a good product and literally never thought about it again? I'm willing to bet that second group is easily ten times as large as the first group. And alllllllll those people see "Logitech" and all they think is "it's a peripheral that will probably work well that I don't have to think about". That's an enormous market.
anyway I can't figure out if the MX means the switches have Cherry MX stems or not, which is annoying. Not something I would buy, but definitely a frustratingly underserved market segment.
workers? Finding good engineers is hard and most people don't care where they come from.
> I've been suffering Go's idiosyncracies in relative silence for too long, there's a few things I really need to get off my chest.
this notion that because someone designed a tool in a way that is not exactly the way you wanted it to be is a form of suffering is ridiculous. You're not suffering, you are at best mildly inconvenienced.
> Most of Go's APIs (much like NodeJS's APIs) are designed for Unix-like operating systems.
This whole angle of attack is frankly absurd. Go's APIs (and the APIs of countless other ecosystems) are Unix-like because the Unix-like ecosystem is structured around interoperability. The reason that Go's APIs for dealing with Windows aren't as good as for other systems is that Microsoft has at every turn made their environments subtly different from other things often for no good reason at all.
This whole thing with making a file path with arbitrary byte strings that aren't representable in utf-8 is frankly embarassing. He's spinning a yarn about filesystem APIs and then goes on a tangent about string handling and how great it is that Rust displays one thing and Go displays another, but here's the rub: he used the `%s` format string operator, whose entire function is to print the uninterpreted bytes; if you want to print something quoted in a string-safe manner, you use `%q`. That entire section can be summarized in three lines of code:
s := "\xbd\xb2\x3d\xbc\x20\xe2\x8c\x98"
fmt.Printf("Hello, %s\n", s)
fmt.Printf("Hello, %q\n", s)
His examples are always like this: long, convoluted, and so complicated that people who know what's going on don't bother to interject because it's an impossibly tedious waste of time.
I considered getting rid of nginx and writing the proxy layer myself but found nginx to be good enough for my needs so I avoided it. I might have been better served by HAProxy, which to my understanding has better semantics around connection draining, which nginx reserves for the pro edition.
My project didn't have auth, all clients used websockets, and all clients could retry. Haven't messed with systemd sockets myself. Using unix domain sockets and the filesystem to do dynamic sockets worked pretty well for me.
> Once a new service has started, we can signal the old service to shutdown for however long it needs by no longer listening on the socket and letting connections drain naturally. We're thinking about changing to dynamically allocated ports/sockets which is pretty natural in the container orchestration world.
this sounds pretty reasonable to me, what sort of problems are you having that make you want to change?
like most things with running servers, it's not that hard, there's just an industry dedicated to making people think it's hard (the tech industry).
Every game has a room code to identify the game, and a websocket open handshake has a URL in it. Every room listens on a unix domain socket and nginx just routes the websocket to the correct domain socket based on the URL.
people with dogs. Dogs don't care about clocks and they will totally wake you up so they can poop and have breakfast.
This Rob Pike quote gets bandied around in these discussions:
> The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.
Ten years ago when I learned Go at the Recurse Center, I was early in my career and I picked Go as my language of study because I believed it was a good bet for my career prospects. I said to myself "I bet this is the next Java, and I bet that people who learned Java very early did very well for themselves". This bet proved correct; Go has been enormously useful to me in my career. Many people who go to RC pick languages like Haskell or a Lisp instead; things that are more interesting and challenging. While Haskell is well known for being mentally stimulating and very enriching, it is also well known for not seeing much industry adoption. You can sub a handful of other languages here, but basically just think of any very beautiful cutting edge experimental language that doesn't have a lot of industry jobs. I'm stick to Haskell for consistency in this post but you could just as easily say Lisp or Scala or arguably Rust these days; it's not about a specific language, it's about a specific grouping of languages that prioritize the beauty of the language and the effectiveness of the solo developer.
People get upset at Pike's framing that Go should be learnable by people with less-than-expert experience. As a person sees technology's ability to serve as a vehicle of class mobility, I see this as a great and noble design goal, because I think class mobility is fundamentally good. Ask yourself this: why do people consider it bad that a language acknowledge that it should help not only people with lots of experience, but also people with very little experience, and teams with mixed levels of experience?
My experience of programming Go for ten years and for being in these spaces for that time frame is that criticism of Go almost uniformly comes from people who can afford to invest heavily in things that have a low expected ROI; great and beautiful languages that don't have a lot of job prospects. Most people on Earth cannot afford the time commitment it takes to learn programming at all, let alone learning aspects of programming that they can't monetize.
I have never met a Go programmer that is bothered by the existence of Haskell. I have met many, many Haskell programmers that are bothered by the existence of Go. Ask yourself why that is. Ask yourself why someone would be so angry about something so wildly successful and useful to people. It's not even remotely a two-way street; the hatred goes one way.
This leaves us with the final problem: why can't people acknowledge that different people have different goals, and that those people's goals are just as legitimate as their own? Why are other people's goals threatening? It's because the existence of Go and the massive success of Go causes people to confront some aspect of class consciousness. It is impossible to witness the enormous success of Go and not confront the idea that programmers are laborers, and for some people, the idea of being a member of the labor class is simply not acceptable; criticizing Go thus becomes not merely an act of design criticism, but also as vehicle through which the critic can express something about their own socioeconomic class. There are many valid criticisms of Go, but there is also a category of Go criticism that exists more as a form of class signaling than anything else, and in these public forums, those two forms of criticism often get entangled in complex and opaque ways.
people post to Reddit (and here) not to share their knowledge but because they get a little squirt of dopamine from upvotes and downvotes and replies.
...you are using one right now