251–260 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.” - Zawinski’s Law :)
There ought to be a law ( or n ... ) about JavaScript frameworks.
“Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There ought to be a law ( or n ... ) about JavaScript frameworks.
In 2007, Jeff Atwood made the quote that was popularly referred to as Atwood’s Law:[5] “Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript.” From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Atwood
Here's a stab (pun intended) at one for LLMs:
"Any application that can be written by an LLM, will eventually be written by an LLM."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my secret perversions as well, so I've got no judgement for you, but I do have to wonder how our editing styles differ if you find that easier to navigate than the equivalent nested for loop.
for bar_vec in bar_mat: if bar_vec != []: for y in bar_vec: if baz(y): for x in y: foo(x) Seeing it written out here, the example looks nice. In real code with more complexity, it takes longer for me to write it, and it usually takes up a lot more space than this. It bugs me how much space it takes up for something that is one idea in my head (Foo all the baz things in bar_vec). But if there is anyone coming after me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have my secret perversions as well, so I've got no judgement for you, but I do have to wonder how our editing styles differ if you find that easier to navigate than the equivalent nested for loop.
for bar_vec in bar_mat: if bar_vec != []: for y in bar_vec: if baz(y): for x in y: foo(x) Seeing it written out here, the example looks nice. In real code with more complexity, it takes longer for me to write it, and it usually takes up a lot more space than this. It bugs me how much space it takes up for something that is one idea in my head (Foo all the baz things in bar_vec). But if there is anyone coming after me…
[foo(x) for x in nonempty(bar_mat)]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few months ago there was a post on HN about catching up to the current state of LLM dev and learning how to use it. In it there were recommendations for hardware - the lowest tier being a 3090/4090. When looking at the decision tree for even cheaper options, it basically said to find another hobby. Not sure if that's changed but ever since seeing that line, I've been put off of that world. I still occasionally clic…
If we're still entertaining the above analogy, a home kitchen costs more than a PC with a 3090/4090. But when I got into software in the 90s, it was about $4000 for just a run of the mill desktop PC, which is about $8000 in today's money. And it didn't even have 3d acceleration. In the grand scheme of things, a 3090/4090 is not expensive.
You don’t need thousands of dollars to start cooking.
I have friends in the who cook on this stuff at home all the time. We in the west have elevated our kitchens into something luxurious. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s overkill for many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, when you do that you would approach coding the application differently, which adds to development time. Also, it can change the whole mentality of developing it. Probably why more people don’t do that, though I agree it would be nice.
Can you elaborate on what you would need to do different in terms of dev? The only thing I would do differently in this scenario would be to ensure no secrets or anything gets into the code which is a minor lift but also probably for the best.
I've never been particularly interested in "software for one person" but I've shared lots of working but not great code(years old from before type annotations that hasn't been touched much since, written a hurry, etc), and faced some embarrassment.
If I was actually attached to specific details of the style, like "Yeah it crashes on some JSON input, but I don't care, it's only meant to handle stuff from this other thing I made" I might not really like sharing it as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way could be host it on a Tailscale network, then it can only be accessed by your own devices.
We need something that goes one level beyond Tailscale. It should be built on a simple open OAuth2 protocol for establishing tunnels/VPNs so you can choose different providers. Then developers can implement tunneled networking directly into their apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think grandma-mode should still be the default, but with some arcane startup ritual to enable sideloading that you only have to do once, with said process being replete with "HERE BE DRAGONS" warnings. Basically make it more like a mac or a typical chromebook. Pixel phones still let you root them, don't they?
Not only does Google let you root Pixels, but they don't appear to be interested in interfering with GrapheneOS, which is specifically for Pixels and lets you run all of the google stuff in userspace so that it has to ask your permission before doing things. Google is plenty evil in their own ways, but they're at least not anti-tinkering.
Companies really overestimate end users tolerance for tinkering.
Lovely idea. I’ve been thinking of “small scale web things” a lot recently, as I’ve been growing more and more tired of the planet scale web. I live in a small village in Canada and it would be nice to have something “village scale” that is only of interest, and as such perfectly adapted to only our village. Because it’s so small scale (we’re only a couple thousand), it can run on something in my closet. If it goes d…
Eventually, of course, I'd like to do Some Really Cool Project with it beyond the default functionality, but I have no idea what.