781–790 of 952 posts
Unsure if this post is being astroturfed or not, but seeing HackerNews root for Microsoft and boo communities that embrace alternatives feels very, anti-hacker in mentality. Sad state of affairs
> with the remaining rookies eager to inflict some kind of bloated, buggy JavaScript framework on us in the name of progress.
and
> More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys
are juvenile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. For me, the hard part has been figuring out the distinction with junior engineers... Is this poorly thought out, inefficient solution that is 3x as long as necessary due to AI, or inexperience?
Not defending him, but we were already doing this with electron apps, frameworks, libraries, and scripting languages. The only meaningful cost in most software development is labor and that’s what makes sense to optimize. I’d rather have good software, but I’ll take badly made software for free over great software that costs more than the value of the problem solved. These discussions are always about tactics and nev…
Obviously there’s nuance (I’ll take slop food for starving people over a healthy meal for a limited few if we’re forced to choose), but the perverse incentives in society start to take over if we allow ourselves to be ok with slop. Continuously chasing the bottom of the barrel makes it impossible for high quality to exist for anyone except the rich.
Put another way: if we as a society said “it is illegal to make slop food”, both the poor and the rich would have easy access to healthy food. The cost here would be born by the rich, as they profit off food production and thus would profit less to keep quality high.
So much vague outrage over nothing. That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers. After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability"…
> That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. It really isn't (look at Gitlab's for comparison), the only advantage of Github CI is that it offers free Mac runners.
So much vague outrage over nothing. That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers. After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability"…
You are not talking a out github actions? Monkeys would have done it better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I was reading your reply I was half convinced that it was not purity spiral but by the end, even you admit it’s an ethics thing so yeah it is pretty much purity spiral in place. Next they will leave the USA so that they won’t be associated with Trump.
Simian, You are making an ethical judgment when you say, in essence, that 'it is wrong for businesses (and non-profits) to attempt to act in an ethical manner, aligned with their mission statement'. Making an ethical argument about the purposelessness and futility of ethics is... interesting to say the least. Please, consider stopping the internet today and instead spend time with a book on ethics that you think agre…
I like Zig for the most part but this post does seem needlessly mean spirited. I don't like Microsoft or GitHub either, but I don't see the point of taking pot shots at the devs who work there.
This just in: Software engineer with motivation and skills to develop a new language, strangely lacking in PR and marketing skills. More at 11.
And I this case it is a little surprising. Andrew is generally a pretty nice dude, has gone out of his way to try and make a fairly welcoming community. The Zig foundation also has Loris, who normally handles PR stuff, so he could have written this instead of Andrew.
Finally, that's such a bullshit stereotype. Plenty of people in the software world are perfectly friendly and articulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Good faith includes the ability to respect and listen to the other person (or in this case, multiple other people who have been working on these projects for years). The attitude he demonstrates has been and remains (this is a quote from him elsewhere on this thread): > existing open source projects are not ready for this and likely won't ever be. i.e. he is enlightened and these projects are just not seeing The Way™…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ought to be automated using AI. It could first judge whether the PR is frivolous, then try to review it, then flag a human if necessary. The problem is that Github, or whatever system hosts the process, should actively prevent projects from being DDOS-ed with PR reviews since using AI costs real money.
> This ought to be automated using AI. When the world is telling you to fucking stop, maybe take a moment and listen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this aspirational or anecdotal, or is this what technical people in FANNG/tech actually do? I hope it's true but it strikes me as the kind of thing that most technical people involved in the interview process would be too tired/overworked to do.
I agree. As a technical person who has been involved in hiring, I never looked at github. My evaluation of a candidate was based on how he/she answered questions in the interview, and my general sense of "could I work with this person every day." I had no spare time to go beyond that.
Communication skills (or lack thereof) on PRs or issues they opened is something I try to look for if they provide a Github profile. Signs of a big ego that will likely get in the way of day-to-day work is the main thing I look out for and it's sadly not that uncommon.