Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | hashmap's commentslogin

I can sort of see one angle for it, and the parent story kind of supports it. Bad software is a forcing function for good hardware - the worse that software has gotten in the past few decades the better hardware has had to get to support it. Such that if you actually tried like OP did, you can do some pretty crazy things on tiny hardware these days. Imagine what we could do on computers if they weren't so bottlenecked doing things they don't need to do.

That wasn't the GP's claim. Their implication was that it's an economic failure that we don't produce less powerful hardware.

Yeah, that's more or less what I'm getting at.

if im not sitting on my right foot with left knee under my chin my thinking takes a hit, but i also have to constantly switch how im sitting so i dont get annoyed. its hard not to slouch/melt into whatever im sitting on and i think the only way to offset all that is the gym.

"DEI" is an inherent part of the system - being "against DEI" is simply a statement about what kind of "DEI" you actually want.


> GraphQL isn’t bad. It’s just niche. And you probably don’t need it.

> Especially if your architecture already solved the problem it was designed for.

What I need is to not want to fall over dead. REST makes me want to fall over dead.

> error handling is harder than it needs to be GraphQL error responses are… weird. > Simple errors are easier to reason about than elegant ones.

Is this a common sentiment? Looking at a garbled mash of linux or whatever tells me a lot more than "500 sorry"

I'm only trying out GraphQL for the first time right now cause I'm new with frontend stuff, but from life on the backend having a whole class of problems, where you can have the server and client agree on what to ask for and what you'll get, be compiled away is so nice. I don't actually know if there's something better than GraphQL for that, but I wish when people wrote blogs like this they'd fill them with more "try these things instead for that problem" than simply "this thing isn't as good as you think it is you probably don't need it".


If isomorphic TS is your cup of tea, tRPC is a nicer version of client server contracting than graphql in my opinion. Both serve that problem quite well though.


I do like the look of this! It seems like it nicely provides that without like kicking you into React, which I have ended up having to draw a hard line against in development after my first couple experiences not only with it, but how the distributions in AI models make it a real trap to touch. I'll swap this in in one of my projects and give it a go. Thanks!


No problem! I hope you have a good time with it!


The execution didn't finish; it started. Big policy changes typically take time to solidify, and it'll probably take a bit to get a reliable read on its trajectory. But there is international momentum on this, so making predictions based on whatever percentage of people that were supposed to have their accounts deactivated actually did the day of (if we even have that data, and I doubt that we do), is probably not going to be useful.


> I would encourage you to learn about them as if they were just incredibly robust databases that even governments would struggle to take down. Surely you can think of something cool to build with that, which doesn't involve money.

Why is it so popular for someone in tech to assign everyone else the task of thinking up something useful to do with technology x they think is cool?

> It's not an overstatement to say that distributed ledgers are as big of an advancement for human coordination as democracy was.

Ok, if that's really your thinking then you need to lay out: here's an impossible-to-ignore thing we can do with this, and this is how, and this is why this wouldn't be possible without this thing.


> Ok, if that's really your thinking then you need to lay out: here's an impossible-to-ignore thing we can do with this, and this is how, and this is why this wouldn't be possible without this thing.

There was a period of ~1000 years where you could also make this argument against some high-minded guy advocating for democracy.


It is both telling and very, very funny to confuse asking for specifics for making an argument against something.


> Ok, if that's really your thinking then you need to lay out: here's an impossible-to-ignore thing we can do with this, and this is how, and this is why this wouldn't be possible without this thing.

These technologies can be used by people to coordinate amongst themselves whether the outgroup likes it or not.

If you google "network state" you will find things that you might like, and things that you might not like. It's not up to you whether other people create these things. You can only control your own participation.

Cryptography is really the study of incredibly rigged games, games that one side almost always wins, even when both players play perfectly. If human society is a game where humans try to coordinate with other humans to be better off, sometimes at the expense of other humans, then distributed ledgers have totally changed the meta.


> The ability to manipulate compile-time so effortlessly is a new dimension of programming. This new dimension enables you to write fundamentally better code that you’ll never be able to achieve in a lower dimension.

Show me. Specifically, material outcomes that I will care about.


What do you care about?

There are quite a few programmers who say lisp led to early retirement. That was a pretty interesting idea to me. I like going to the beach a lot.

I am not so sure about people who don’t want to get done: if you like doing what the ticket says instead of the other way around lisp probably isn’t going to be something you’re interested in.


"Lisp makes people rich, and I love being rich. Using Lisp actually can't help but make you rich. But I can't actually provide any examples of that happening or how they might translate to anyone else. Get so rich with Lisp. Lisp."

Show me!


I think you probably misunderstood me.

You can use a better tool than someone who is using a worse tool, and take their customers, because it will be easier to solve the problems better and faster than that someone-else. Lisp is a great tool, but it doesn't help you if you're the tool: You still need someone with a problem who can pay for a solution, and they need to like you enough to pay you for that solution. If you need to hire 30 people to figure that out, Lisp isn't going to help with that problem.

And it's not fast: Lisp is not a get-rich-quick scheme, it's a tool that you can learn how to use to make other tools, it's a tool that is difficult enough to use that you will need perhaps years of experiences in order to use effectively, it's a tool so advanced it might seem like actual wizarding magic just watching someone screencast if you don't know what you're looking at, but it's still just a tool.


I am literally asking you to show me what you are talking about.

Who retired early? What did they make with Lisp? Do you have a link to that thing they made? Was it actually something special about Lisp or did they just happen to use Lisp while making something that could have just been as easily - or more easily - done with something else? Is that real-world, specific, material outcome replicable by other people and they should know about it?


> I am literally asking you to show me what you are talking about.

Do you see these things -> ? <- Those are question marks.

Now go look back at your last comment and tell me how many of them you see.

> Was it actually something special about Lisp or did they just happen to use Lisp while making something that could have just been as easily - or more easily - done with something else?

I don't know. Why are you asking me this?

Please read my comments carefully, because I put time into trying to tell you something, but I am not trying to tell you what I think you think I am trying to tell you, and I am not going to justify my opinions to you any more than I would ask you to justify yours.

> and they should know about it?

I have mixed feelings about this: Who are the other people you are talking about?

There are a lot of people I won't work with; I won't trade with them; sell them my products; buy theirs; No contact if I can help it. That's why the first question I asked you is what is important to you? Did you even see my question?


Serialization & deserialization, for instance. Macros are great for generating ser/de hooks automatically.

Thing is, other languages do this with metaprogramming or explicit codegen. Everyone needs metaprogramming sometimes—that's why everything supports it, actually.


Serverless gets a lot of hate for its name, but I have had so much success with it myself that I have moved on to its successor and have started developing for computerless architectures.


It is the next level of abstraction for sure. Cloudflare seems to be making the biggest strides in also abstracting regions and the geolocation of the data, but I’m not super familiar with their offerings.


> No one "exactly designed" this road to kill children

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...


I dislike easily 90%+ of the images I recognize as AI-generated, but the ones on this internet web site I think are a good use of the tech.


There was no AI used on this website!


Well, so much for that sentiment! Those onion letters definitely struck me as the original "look we can make chairs out of avocados" use case for dall-e. I guess it's not surprising that good looking AI images turn out to not be AI images in the first place.


Source?


He's one of the three named authors on the article. I'd be interested to know how the onion text was made.



The M in that font is not really suitable for professional use


I thought you must be exaggerating, but then I looked... And yeah, that M needs some work to make it not look like a woman bending over.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: