Tehchops

Sites hosted on Netlify literally just depend on a github repo with a TOML configuration file at the root.

For basic static sites, which I imagine fit the needs of the majority of personal hosting, it's incredibly trivial to point the same repo at a different static hosting platform.

Thank you, that is a meaningful distinction I should've paid more attention to.

This reddit thread sums up my issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/gnome/comments/o27q4z/gnome_3_vs_gn...

Forcing horizontal workspaces, and requiring an extension to go back to vertical, seems like a regression.

I tried it in a VM before, definitely enjoyed it.

I always worry about bundled distributions like this. You're subject to the whims of the maintainer in terms of implementation choices, packaging, and whether or not long term support exists.

After upgrading Ubuntu from 21.04 to 21.10, the shipped Gnome3 version apparently included a bunch of new shortcuts and a change in workspace management functionality such that the Pop OS shell management worked significantly worse. I gave up and went to i3wm after that. It's not perfect and requires some time to configure but at least I can count on the configuration and functionality to remain stable.

Beware if you depend on the tiling window management and keyboard shortcuts from the Pop shell. Gnome developers apparently randomly decided to change just enough about how they handle workspaces and shortcuts that it breaks/changes Pop shell. This occurred on the Gnome3 version that ships with 21.10.

I ended up switching to i3 after that. Currently on Ubuntu 21.10 with i3wm.

I seem to recall some pretty poor performance regressions in Docker containers versus equivalent Debian-based container configs.

We’ve got data in S3 buckets not nearly at that scale and managing them, god forbid trying a mass delete, is absolute tedium.

But how are they able to get anything done when they're spending all their time telling everyone how smart they are? ;-)

Dan's writing is some of the best I've seen.

ITT: People confusing "free speech" with what a corporate entity does with it's private platform.

Definitely leans more towards whole food meals. Very little processed/pre-made ingredients, and even with those it provides recipes to make your own subs i.e. mayo and stock.

We own several vegan cookbooks as well, and have been leaning on this one pretty heavily since we got it. Everything has been quite tasty, albeit slightly labor intensive.

Since it's produced by America's Test Kitchen, I'm more inclined to trust the recipes at face value with little modification. Other vegan cookbooks I have found require adjustments to get the flavor correct.

My wife and I are both vegan.

We got this book as a Christmas gift: https://www.amazon.com/Vegan-Everybody-Foolproof-Plant-Based...

It does a great job at the beginning of the book addressing various substitutes for things like eggs, mayo, etc... Since it's done by America's Test Kitchen, they've tested everything extensively, and explain which subs are the best for baking, flavor, and other factors.

> "corrupted by personal bias and toxicity as to be utterly useless" may not be that able / focused on just moving forward on stuff.

It's the same recycled logic of people who want to return to the times of being able to say whatever they want, and people who are offended just "need to move on".

This kind of thinking is why homophobia/misogyny/racism is still so prevalent in tech. Dog whistles like "real tech people" or "super high need" or "people that just can't move on".

It's a lot more convenient and dismissive to associate it with some kind of lack of performance. "Oh they should just focus on the code, thank god for all the coders who never want to attend meetings and just code..."

I know you don't like my "style", but I'm afraid most organized software development is starting to become more aware of the need to be empathetic and accepting of the human element, not less, and just "getting over it and coding" isn't an acceptable answer anymore.

> Dismissing others experience rather than engaging on the comment. Is your experience positive with folks who communicate like this? Mine is not

I believe your original comment was:

> Insta-delete if I'm doing hiring...

Now who's being dismissive again? ;-)

> Folks who go on long winded discussions about privilege do exactly this - redirect, misunderstand, demand impossible things.

And I've found folks who respond defensively as you have tend to not reflect on their own privilege, and generally do not respond well to criticism or questioning.

Of course... feel free to "dismiss" what I'm saying.

Have a good day as well!

"Truth" and "rings true in your experience" aren't necessarily overlapping values.

Sure, it's a confrontational response, because I've seen too many solid, empathetic, capable individuals run out of tech by toxic gatekeeping bullshit just like this.

Then all I'm left to manage and work with are toxic, self-aggrandizing, "um akshually" engineers who rate appearing smarter than others over working well with others and getting things done.

> Real tech people

Ah this fun gatekeeping meme rears it's head again.

So how do you define "tech" people? Do you have a scorecard?

How do they meet your assessment for "real"? Cohesive organization of atomic matter generally constitutes "real" in a lot of physics definitions.

I'd argue trying to label someone a "real tech person" is a laughably subjective exercise that's so corrupted by personal bias and toxicity as to be utterly useless in evaluating someone's capability to participate in organized software engineering.

Case in point: I have worked with several folks, in FAANG, who by all technical standards were "real" tech people. Polyglot programmers, could tackle any sticky logic problem.

Ask them to communicate their solution to other engineers? To communicate with others with empathy? Be able to navigate conversations with directors and VPs about broadly implementing their solutions? Absolutely, 100% fell on their face. Couldn't do it. They couldn't form a cohesive, understandable, actionable statement about their work to save their lives. They'd go off on some completely pointless technical tangent that had little to do with the problem at hand.

Code reviews they participated in ground to a complete fucking halt. Not because they actually addressed meaningful technical issues. No, they wanted to pontificate and show off how much smarter they were.

In my not totally hard-data experience, people that maybe didn't have quite the "real tech people" skills but were expressive, capable communicators often actually shipped more meaningful work, more often, and built organizational equity not just for themselves, but for their teammates and managers too.

Software development at any scale, like it or not, involves working with other people. In my experience people that go around gatekeeping and using some hilariously subjective ruler to grade "realness" aren't very effective at all.

I don't know if it needs to be this elaborate. I like the idea though.

However...

> Can you send along the company name, a job description and, total compensation details for the role you’re reaching out in reference to?

Should be table stakes. I've started having to walk away from any recruiter that insists on a 15 minute call without providing these details up front. I wish there was some collective awareness around the fact that if someone took a 15 min call with every recruiter ping they got, they'd be on the phone 5-8 hours a day.

Do you have hard data to back that up or is it just anecdotal personal bristling whenever someone says "privilege"?

I know the experience varies, but I've seen nothing but trouble from hiring devs from EE.

A lot of the comments in this thread aren't doing anything to put the memes about HN commenters to rest.

Whether or not you classify it as “easy” isn’t relevant. You hit the nail on the head in the prior sentence: “time” is the issue, and you’re asking someone to trade their time for a pittance.

FWIW I’d charge way more than $100/hr for this work.

For me Doom Emacs was much faster and just seemed to have saner default configurations. The developer is also incredibly responsive and helpful.

I'm coming from Vim, so having evil-mode as a first-class integration is nice too.

Fair enough, I will try to improve.

The last thing I will say, in light of guidelines like "Assume Good Faith" and "avoid Political/flamebait"... submissions like this do not seem to be in that spirit.

Guidelines also ask not to make comments, and instead flag content... except the flag button was removed... so it seems like a rock and a hard place?

So hyper-partisan conspiracy rants from a guy who utterly bristles at editorial restraint deserves thought-out critical prose?

I see GG is really enjoying being free of anything resembling editorial control/restraint.

> Definitive account

Yea..... This was flagged for a reason

> VS Code is an awful editor in general. I don't understand how it's so popular. Maybe it's just me but I don't like having 300ms lag between every action I perform on my editor.

I'm surprised to hear this take. I've been a Doom Emacs user for a while, and while it was a bit more elbow grease to get it running on OSX, it was generally worth it for the speed/flexibility...

until

I ran into a non-trivially large Terraform code base. Slowed.to.a.crawl.

On the other hand, even with multiple plugins, VSCode was(and continues to be) very snappy. Nearly instantaneous search and motion.

That's my point about ignoring it. He immediately moves to justifying the yelling part, while ignoring the underlying logic of harm-causing.

Hitchens has fallen into the category of "verysmart" persons, who are cited by "verysmart" persons when they want to sound "verysmart".

The argument comes from a place of privilege, is egregiously reductionist, and completely ignores simple precepts like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.