I'm starting with 47 on the basis of the Jewish/Arab conflict. If we claim that the idea of Zionism started the conflict in the area then it doesn't seem like the history fully supports that idea. Jews in the late 1800s were getting worried about the antisemitism in Europe and wanted their own solution to "The Jewish Question" which to them was the formation of their own state. There were even talks about settling in different parts of Africa. But it wasn't until the Balfour Declaration that Zionism was completely focused on Palestine, mostly because the British didn't know what to do with the region after defeating the Ottoman Empire in the region.
>There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.
The claim Zionists make here is that the land was originally Jewish land to begin with. History does support this claim as the Roman Empire took over Judaea in the early first century and then subsequently exterminated and enslaved the Jews in the region renaming the area to Syria Palaestina about 100 years later.
Sorry, can you point out exactly where I've lied and how? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire history of this conflict goes back to the UN partition plan in 47, which established a Jewish and Palestinian state. Which then lead to the 47-48 civil war, which from everything I've found relating to it, the Arab's were the ones to retaliate against the Jews in the region which started the war and it's been basically tit for tat ever since. A Palestinian petition to the Security Council in 48 even said this:
"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
I have no issue discussing this situation, in fact that was the whole point of my original statement. Which is that most people seem too emotionally attached to this situation to the point where they can't even have a proper discussion without trying to talk down to me about a position I don't even hold.
It's sad that we can't take an objective look at the facts of the matter without trying to point to one side and saying it's propaganda. Like is it so hard to say that both sides did bad things? I have no problem acknowledging that Israel is being the ultimate bully right now, is it not okay to say they have a reason? Or should we just ignore all reasoning and condem "killing bad" like I initially said this would devolve to? The US literally has the same problem right now it's kind of insane. How can you try to swat away historical facts, then in the same breath link me a random master's thesis from 1977... Like can we just go to Wikipedia, start from the beginning and then disagree over the facts that actually happened instead of trying to see it through the lens of some 20s something from the 70s?
I 100% agree with you here. Which is why it's important to have the acknowledgement that this isn't an isolated situation. There is a 'one-sidedness' for Israel against the Palestinians, in the same way that there's a 'one-sidedness' for the entirety of the Arab nations against the Israeli's. For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place? I find no love for Israel, but we make it waaaay too easy for them to justify these positions. Like it or not it's not as simple as everyone seems to make it out to be. The western nations and the other Arabs were the ones to give up on the Palestinians first, but now all of a sudden we care? Like I said, it's all virtue signaling.
I'm not sure what you're pointing to in my response to attribute it to Israeli support. I was attempting to make light of the fact that 'discussion' requires two sides. Right now both sides live in a different reality. I am in no way condoning Israel's genocide against Palestinians. But to say Israel is the only one at fault for this situation and to only point fingers to one side betrays the historical facts of the situation. I in no way tried to downplay the situation or play sides so please don't twist my words as if I did.
The problem is there obviously isn't any discussion happening. People are so entrenched on one side or the other and that's pretty apparent by this comment section. Everyone wants to virtue signal without taking any responsibility. The unfortunate reality of this situation is that it's extremely complex and weaves in a lot of historical context. But nobody cares about nuance anymore it's all just "killing bad!" within the framework of whatever controversial event is on the inciters mind. Well duh, but how did we get here? If we can't stop and consider both sides constructively then clearly we're never going to get anywhere and shit like this will just continue.
This is where I feel like we've solved a third-order problem. If you're sorting all PRs into those two buckets then you should probably take a step back and redefine what a PR is for your organization, as both 1 and 2 make the assumption that the PR is too big to review in a single sit down or that the author didn't put in enough effort to craft their PR. Both of these should just be rejected outright in favor of doing things in a smaller more manageable way, instead of having an AI sort through something that a human should have started with. Obviously this is more of an ideal situation and a lot of companies don't work on the ideal which is why I think your product will find good use because companies don't want to invest in slowing down, only going faster.
Products like these make me realize we're solving for the wrong problems with a lot of these AI solutions. I don't want you to take this as a hit to you or your product, I actually think it's extremely cool and will likely find a use. But from my perspective if this is a product you think you need, then you likely have a bigger organizational issue, as PRs are probably the last thing that I would want an AI 'intern' to organize for me.
I've been having conversations about this topic with friends recently and I keep coming back to this idea that most engineering work, which I will define as work that begins with a question and without a clear solution, requires a lot of foundational understanding of the previous layer of abstraction. If you imagine knowledge as a pyramid, you can work at the top of the pyramid as long as you understand the foundation that makes up your level, however to jump a level above or below that would require building that foundation yet again. Computer science fits well into this model where you have people at many layers of abstractions who all work very well within their layer but might not understand as much about the other layers. But regardless of where you are in the pyramid, understanding ALL the layers underneath will lead to better intuition about the problems of your layer. To farm out the understanding for these things will obviously end up having negative impact not just on overall critical thinking, but on the way we intuit how the world works.
The article clearly isn't directed at how expert programmers are 'supposed' to use AI, though we see at least one of those a day on the front page of HN now. The first paragraph makes it pretty obvious that the author is trying to convince people who have completely disregarded AI, for one reason or another, to give it another try in a more meaningful way. Telling the reader how the author configures his AI isn't going to convince those people, as they likely are already very aware of how these tools 'work' the problem is in the 'how to use them' department which has nothing to do with what MCP tool you're using.
The answer, as with everything, is going to be that it depends on your situation and use-case. If you have a bunch of engineers who are already familiar with K8s then using a different implementation just because others told you to doesn't make much sense. But if you're choosing K8s because you want a good future foundation, in dreams of 'scale', then you should stop and really consider what it is that you need from K8s. Most people I've seen who's infrastructure succeeds with K8s only moved to it as a necessity, usually away from some monolithic structure, they didn't start there. Build what you need, and only that much, not for some future need that might not come.
Conversely, I think they probably have a good grasp of the basics considering they've been through them so many times. The real thing they lacked was a reasonable idea. I find a lot of early engineers have this problem where the only things they actually want to build are too complex for their skills. So they end up stuck in this 'Tutorial Hell' loop hoping to acquire those skills until they actually reason down to a project that fits their skill level and go from there as OP did here.
While I get your point, the analogy here would be: the shovel seller is telling you to dig a hole. You don't have to use their shovel to do it, you don't even need a shovel, but they know if you start digging, you might reach for it.
Except that's not really true. Take OPs example of the search bar, in most shops as a UI/UX designer you put a search bar on your figma page and hand it off to the engineer who then implements it. It's entirely up to the engineer how the search functionality is going to work, am I going to query my backend on every keypress? Depending on how big your database that could be anywhere from 50ms-1s for a response PER KEYPRESS, which is exactly OPs problem. I don't see how the UI/UX designer is going to fix or solve that.
I have a friend who works writing COBOL for a US state government, I sent him this post and this was his response:
I work in COBOL for government systems.
We upgraded our old mainframes to IBM Z16's, and we just got some new ones in recently for our backup server.
Part of the job is taking whatever they decide in legislation and translating that into code that processes whatever they decided to make law, from fees, suspensions, special legislation for certain areas, etc.
Our programming environment primarily uses TSO/ISPF and changeman for version control. We have access to IBM's IDz (previously RDz) as an IDE for development, and I would personally prefer to use that but haven't been able to get it installed on my work computer due to licensing issues. Part of security protocol is that we cannot use anything open-source, so VSCode with Zowe is, unfortunately, out of the picture.
We maintain a lot of old programs and modules, but we are also actively developing new programs as we expand our IT department - and yes, that is new COBOL programs. We have a Linux side as well which mainly deals with the web-side, but they still interact with the mainframe to call on modules - but all they are really doing is sending data to CICS to get data back. They do not know anything about the COBOL itself or how to program in it.
Consider the space we're in. For game development you're going to have a lot of developers with a lot of different ideas about how to make a game, all utilizing the same engine. If the engine doesn't come with a feature I need, I'll probably have to code it myself, but seeing as the whole purpose of me making this feature is for my game, then it makes sense that I should be able to keep my game's feature private/proprietary without the need to push that feature back to engine which might not even want my feature to begin with. This is why GPL is not a good choice for game engines.
OP 100% listen to this! You are effectively asking a bunch of strangers on the internet to understand and find a solution for the inner workings of your brain based entirely upon a couple sentences about your life. Now as codingdave points out, a lot of us here have probably been through similar situations, but none of us have been through YOUR situation. Some of us could probably espouse some generalizations that might poke at some of your issues, but only someone of deep intimate knowledge of both you and your motivations will be able to help you fully understand why you're feeling this way. Definitely seek a professional to help you work through this because only you can find the real answer here.
I think this mainly comes down to how good you are at systematic thinking. For example it's really hard to build a habit without some form of reward mechanism, but once that habit is built the reward comes from the consistency of keeping the habit. This type of reward oriented behavior is probably quite good for that initial difficulty most people have in building a habit, but once you have the system in place it becomes second nature to keep doing the task and as a consequence usually introduces some negative association with skipping it. Think the gym for example.
I think the point of their comment is that if you're constantly connecting to different remote servers, you're not going to want to have to change the config on each server remotely. It's the same argument for understanding base vi as well and honestly does come in handy, but it's very discipline specific, most people don't have to worry about this use case.
Genuine question: How do you believe one should learn these semantics? This is more something I've been pondering myself recently, because I agree with you that the foundational knowledge for our work in any tech stack is usually the most important for understanding higher abstractions. But with so much to know it feels impossible to 'know it all' so to speak especially if you wear more than one specialized hat. Then beyond that even if you're only trying to learn just the foundations how do you know what those foundations are if you're not already inundated in that stack?
This is mostly just my personal ramblings, but I'd be curious other peoples viewpoints on this.
So unironically the answer to your first question is yes. After reading your other comments in this thread now I completely understand your perspective, and I hate Apple even more for it. Apple literally coddles their users to the point where they have created likely millions of users like yourself. You expect everything to conform to the Apple way, instead of you adapting to the ecosystem you are in. Apple specifically forces developers of their ecosystem to follow specific rules when it comes to installation, UX, dependencies, the whole 9 yards. It's why a lot of game developers simply avoid Mac entirely as a platform. Because it takes a tremendous amount of effort to conform to Apples silly requirements, for less than 1% user base on average (from a game developer perspective entirely).
But then you may ask, well if Apple has such a standard for everything, why not everything just conform to that and we make everything easier... It's not that simple see: https://xkcd.com/927/
It's not that installing and running a game is 'so difficult' it's that you're expecting it to be as simple as everything else you do in your Apple ecosystem. Because that's how Apple wants it. It's entirely a perspective issue forced upon you by the ecosystem you use.
The end result for all this is all the jokes we see about children expecting everything to be touch screen, or having no idea what to do with a controller when they see one. As humans we adapt to our environment, but if we're always forced into the same systems, we start to expect every system to work that way and we stop adapting.
To add to this, it feels to me like SWEs have the biggest egos as well without a related checking mechanism. In other engineering disciplines getting something wrong very often comes back to you as the engineer, in SWE it feels like there are so many abstractions people like to point fingers at instead. "It's not my code that's the issue, its X implementation's fault" the amount of times I've heard something similar to this is too often.
It's comments like these that make me realize we've gone full circle in the convenience life cycle. Pre-steam when you wanted to play your game you would have to download system specific dependencies to ensure your game could run on your specific system. Most of the time these came pre-packaged with the installation files, but rarely you would just have to 'figure it out' when your game crashed upon opening. Time to spend hours trolling some forums to find the answer to the random byte string you were presented. If you are someone who only plays one game, then perfect, once you got that single install figured out you're good to go. Want to play another game? Time to figure it out again. Today you go to steam, click play, and steam just 'figures it out' in the background. Not to mention never having to deal with proper save files again because you swapped systems or the numerous other features that gamers have cried about for years. I'm not saying you should use steam if you hate it as much as you seem to. It's just really ironic to me that if all you're looking for is 'double-click the game and go' you don't want to use Steam. My favorite part of your comment is "Steam, you run other programs. That's all you do. You're bad at your job." because yes, all it does is run other programs, and that's why it's so GOOD at its job. You simply can't or don't want to understand what it's actually doing.
Agreed, this feels like someone put an argument about tabs vs spaces at the top of the description for an editor. Like yes, you will have to choose whether to use systemd, but the argument for or against systemd doesn't feel like it belongs here in a list of 'minimalist user space programs/services'. From my perspective the only lens you can view this through that's even closely related is that systemd doesn't follow the Unix philosophy of 'do one thing and do it well', but that's not exactly an argument for or against minimalism. I'd argue that almost everything systemd brings to the table in a default setup are all things you'd need anyway, minimalist or otherwise. They're just all handled by one overarching service, which I think is the real argument against systemd.