Yeah, I think in order to become an actual senior developer you'll need to do actual coding and not only vibe coding. Otherwise you'll never get the full understanding of how things actually work.
I suppose that's subjective, because to me it looks distracting and tacky. I want the window chrome to be present, opinionated, yet consistent and plain. This is one of the many Tahoe-isms that violates the latter two. It's visual noise that detracts from one of the most basic utilities of the UI, which is to simply hold my applications in a regular, cohesive, predictable manner.
Maybe it shouldn't irritate me, but it's the first time I've encountered it in 30 years. I'm all for change and trying new things, but this doesn't feel like progress.
This 100%. I _like_ new features and new UX when it enhances things or makes them easier to work with. That used to be a huge selling point when purchasing a Mac vs PC, genuine thought and consideration had been given to every single interaction and user impact.
And then ... Apple lost its way. Now when I get a new Mac I spend the better part of a day turning off as much of the pointless eye candy as I can so that I can focus on the task I'm working on, not the distracting UX conventions.
I want a computer, not an iPad with a keyboard. That already exists, and there is a reason I don't have one.
> turning off as much of the pointless eye candy as I can so that I can focus on the task I'm working on, not the distracting UX conventions.
What's worse too is that the means of reducing this distraction and visual mess are arguably only a trade for a different, often equally (though sometimes even more) poorly implemented interface. The high contrast and reduced transparency modes are not well designed at all in my opinion, and they seem like vague afterthoughts in this transition.
Mother of God, why make this comment? It’s the poster’s setup and they are happy with it. What possible value could denigrating it do? The ol’ ball coach breakin’ em down to build em up shtick is gone and I don’t miss it.
I too was wondering what made this a homelab. I appreciate the setup, but from the word lab I was expecting at least an oscilloscope. That being said it has cool features I hadn't known about like the image storing system and at home LLM support.
It feels like day 2 after you’ve received the new hard drives. It’s nice, modern enough but still a pretty bog standard home machine, not really “homelab” territory yet.
Why do you need to dilute the term? There is nothing wrong with your NAS running 3 apps that you press update once a year not being called "homelab" but just "a NAS"
Nobody is diluting anything. This person posted the setup they have in their home. It’s their homelab.
It’s not diluting any terms for them to call it that. Their setup is just as much a homelab as somebody else’s 48U rack.
It’s just a dick move, and against the rules of the site, to see somebody’s earnest post about their tech setup and post a shallow dismissal about how their setup isn’t deserving of your imagined barrier to entry.
Quit whining, you know damn well the bar for a typical "Show HN" has been raised to the point of being irrelevant these days, this post is a perfect example. This is not a home lab.
I'm happy for the OP and that it works for him. That said:
The equivalent of Joe Bloggs installing Linux onto an old laptop is neither curious nor interesting, let's not pretend it is because feelings.
This isn't a Show HN, and also I think you mean "lowered" given the tone of your post.
It's also been on the front page for most of the day on its own merits. It's clear you don't like the article. The guidelines are clear that you're expected to either engage constructively or just move along.
Exactly. And I don't mind this being on the HN front page, but I'd like to see some proper Homelab setups here. Maybe someone can post the coolest setup they've seen so far?
Of typical homelabs that are posted and discussed.
The online activity of the homelab community leans towards those who treat it as an enjoyable hobby as opposed to a pragmatic solution.
I'm on the other side of the spectrum. Devops is (at best) a neutral activity; I personally do it because I strongly dislike companies being able to do a rug-pull. I don't think you'll see setups like mine too often, as there isn't anything to brag about or to show off.
Great idea. You should maybe have a kind of "I swear on the Quran" prefix to the question on how often you read the Quran? That way the user is reminded not to bluff in a weak moment.
Any noise you hear that is not a real sound that others can hear is tinnitus. The actual experience for people with the condition varies, for some it's a hiss, for some it's a tone, for me it's a really loud, multi-tonal, warbling sound between 11khz and 15khz. If anyone has tinnitus and wants to know what frequency it is that you your brain is perceiving just go online and find a tone generator and start increasing the frequency until the sound from the speakers suddenly disappears. That's the frequency of your tinnitus.
How does this work in combination with age related hearing loss? At some point you will lose high frequency sensitivity in that 11-15Khz range. Would be nice to get some benefit from that, but I assume the tinnitus itself will not go away even if it hangs out at that frequency?
It also means the above experiment will not work since you lose the signal before you reach your tinnitus frequency.
Honestly though, a hiss that you can hardly notice is maybe technically tinnitus, but not a problem at all. Actual tinnitus would drive anyone crazy, I bet.
For me, it's a very distinct ringing. Like in the movies when there's some explosion/shock scene and there's a very persistent ding that happens after the explosion or whatever - it's what I hear constantly.
Alternatively people here may have realized the techno fascism and adolescent sci-fi fantasies played an unfortunate role in bringing the nation to where it is today.
It's typical fear mongering "this isn't possible because of reasons X, Y, Z". We haven't even tried it yet, or much space travel at all. It's way to soon to jump to conclusions.
TFA made some good arguments to support their case, including observations from the space travel we have “tried”. I’m interested to hear your counter-arguments that are more detailed than “nuh, uh!”
It's not fear mongering when they lay out a good argument, which is not what you're doing.
It's fascinating that you and nick49488171 both characterize this article in ways that no reasonable person would ("pearl clutching", "fear mongering") and have nothing substantive to say about the points made at all.
I was not arguing about the hazards of space travel. Of course it is hazardous. I dislike the article because his conclusion is more dangerous to society than any hazardous activity: "something is dangerous therefore nobody should do it." And he makes no arguments to support this conclusion.
“As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future.”
And no arguments for that conclusion? C’mon: radiation, the effects of microgravity on human bodies, none of which we have good solutions for…yet. The author argues that we don’t have good solutions, and probably won’t within their lifetime. If you’ve got counter-arguments, let’s hear them, but calling the TFA’s sound arguments “pearl clutching” isn’t productive.
The counter argument is this: if the chance of dying is 2% to make a historic mission, then people should be able to make that choice. What's your counterargument to this statement?
As for your hazards
Microgravity can be counteracted with a centrifugal living environment.
Radiation can not be mitigated effectively yet other than throwing mass at the problem. But if someone wants to launch enough mass that's on them.
Don’t need one, it’s an opinion piece, with plenty of facts to back it up. You’ve proposed solutions that don’t yet exist. When those solutions are viable, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. But at the moment it would appear that such a journey has low odds of ending well. If Musk wants to burn cash, and has willing participants, go for it. But with my tax dollars? Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than a lick, prayer, and a hearty “good luck!”
You could literally have made exactly the same argument about the moon landing in 1969! And people actually did, some were truly against it. Way too expensive, near impossible, lethal, pointless, all the arguments were used.
It amuses me that Elon enthusiasts are 99.9% people behaving like teen boys who've never had a conversation with a woman. If women were more widely represented among investors and company leaders, I doubt we would be hearing about baloney like colonizing a planet covered in poisonous dust with no exploitable resources. That kind of thinking doesn't even have a basis in understanding the colonization of our own planet.
reply