584 karma · joined March 1, 2022
One technology is obviously more helpful than the other, but that doesn't mean either are the right choice for the business you're building.
If I'm validating a business idea / building a proof of concept, I'm using something like SvelteKit or even NextJS. Going the middle-of-the-road seems to me like either a waste of resources or a waste of time depending on your goals.
My team, at least, did not have the necessary support structures in place to help others who wanted to maintain their own UI. I see this mostly when crossing framework/language boundaries (mixing React + Angular in a SPA, as it was in my case). They declare microfrontends, but then all the component libraries were all React-based anyways.
It just ended up being a mess of N deployment processes, N build systems, N storage buckets, zero standardization whatsoever, and mountains of technical debt, all without much benefit.
...but if you're all working in the same language/framework where that component/style-lock-in is acceptable, why would someone use a microfrontend to begin with? Can the organization not set up a single repository with different teams contributing to it? One deployment, one build system, one storage bucket, and standardization?
IMO CODEOWNERS is the original and best "microfrontend" solution for small-to-medium-sized teams working on a single product. If you have hundreds or thousands of engineers (think FAANG) working on a single experience that just HAS to be a SPA, then maybe you have the resources to build out those support structures and actually get MFEs to work on an organizational level.
In the vast majority of cases, however, I see it as a bandaid on an organizational problem that's eaten up because it's an interesting technical challenge for senior engineers to think about (someone made a great comment about "drawing the perfect box"), and because management thinks it's a cool trend with benefits they can grok.
The metric isn't how surprising it is, but how potentially malicious it is. The entire point of the redirect is so the user can make a conscious decision not to visit a potentially-malicious page.
Google.com and Youtube.com, operated by the same people who made the docs tool, make the entirely-fair assumption that neither contain malware.
That being said, I also think it's the wrong argument to make. It makes very little sense that an exported document needs these interstitials. It would make more sense if it applied them to hosted Google Docs, but not things that are self-hosted by an end-user.
Both of which are complete dealbreakers.
AR/VR/Spatial is defined completely by immersion and lack-of-nausea, where less resolution and the inclusion of controllers demolish.
You're right, both probably won't reach mass-market appeal, but the two certainly aren't comparable in any metric other than reach.
I'm confused on why such a shallow abstraction was put into something present on every device, and why this seems to be such a big deal to the decentralized community.
Even with it's automatic gateway detection it's purely used to rewrite the URL, which seems like something the operator could easily do themselves.
I could easily be missing something here though.
I don't want to set up an entire LDAP server when I already have Authelia running.
They should, it's called buying a different car without those features installed.
>Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?
You are already paying for those features upfront as part of buying the car - there is no recurring expense to the manufacturer. If you do not want or are unable to pay for those features, you buy a different car without them installed.
What you're arguing for is for everyone to have to pay another monthly subscription, and conflating "paying more for a car" with "paying monthly for non-consumable resources for a car".
1. Account must be Approved and in good standing for at least 6 months
2. Account must be on a paid monthly plan for 6 consecutive months (or have purchase credits)
3. Account must have a lifetime sending volume of over 10,000 messages
https://postmarkapp.com/smtp-service
https://postmarkapp.com/support/article/1139-can-i-hide-or-d...
I'm also a very happy Lemmy and Mastodon user, but going from Twitter to Threads is just trading Elon for Zuckerberg - a useless lateral move.
(or always bring a large USB)
He’s saying that because of policies like those (the FAA holding the plane), people are going to want to take their bags in an emergency situation.
TikTok has a much more elegant solution to this problem (while still being a nightmare for bots/scrapers), with ByteDacne moving bot checks to the client with a mixture of proof of work and fingerprinting.
And by "strokes" I mean use-cases, design preferences, integration needs, etc.
Personally I'd use RevoltChat if they offered SSO/SAML/OpenID support - I like the UX and the Discord-esque vibe as opposed to the Slack-esque vibe the alternatives you listed carry.
Yet, it's curious that you compare Slint to LVGL/Flutter/Electron (I don't know about Qt) when none of them have this intrusive requirement.
--- >What's intrusive about it?
(a) Display the AboutSlint widget in an "About" screen or dialog that is accessible from the top level menu of the Application.
(b) Display the Slint attribution badge on a public webpage, where the binaries of your Application can be downloaded from, in such a way that it can be easily found by any visitor to that page.
(c) You may not remove or alter any license notices (including copyright notices, disclaimers of warranty, or limitations of liability) contained within the source code form of the Software.
(d) You allow SixtyFPS to use your Application on the website and in advertising materials of SixtyFPS as a reference and to display your logo and trademark for this purpose.
---
Please don't pretend like a/b/d aren't big asks by saying "you wont even provide attribution?"
Mmmm no thanks, I'll pass.
While I'm looking for a Flutter alternative, this seems like a trap.
There were a handful of times today I wanted to research something and hit the private wall, surprising me each time.
It showed me that if this protest was indefinite, it could have a real impact on the platform. Yet, on Wednesday all will be back to normal.
I'm also very skeptical of something like this - it's the Twitter effect: people will complain all they like, but at the end of the day - Twitter and Reddit are where people are and will remain. As for the Digg comparison, tolerance for corporate greed in the services we use has skyrocketed in the past 13 years, so I dont think it's an apt comparison.
This is good, thoroughly-researched advice with just enough condescension that I walked away from it kinda wanting to style my own CSS scrollbars.
Additionally, there's a comment on this post replying to someone with "You'll live" which really isn't helping the case presented in the article.
I won't, I don't have a good reason to, but I had a nice nostalgia trip to w3schools: https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_css_custom_scrollbar.a...
Frankly I think this might be a worse PR move than what Elon did when he did this with Twitter's API.
Is it someone in panic over a potential large impact on the IPO? I dont even think it would have that much of an effect if he hadn't gone on the platform to make the problem worse.
Like AI, I want my no-code tools to enhance my current setup, not replace it. If I could visually build CDNs that connect to APIs that connect to databases, with end-to-end type-safety, authentication, validation, etc etc etc built-in -- that's super compelling. But in terms of the trade-offs between a no-code logic tool like this (price, lock-in) and writing code, this doesn't really fit the bill.
I mean maybe the use-case here is prototyping and MVPs for non-technical founders? I don't know if tech companies would want to be locked into something like this though.
Assuming something is going to fail, like many are across Hacker News since the announcement dropped (perhaps not in this thread), is doomerism. There's a difference between that and expressing concern over Apple's claims.
>Their marketing demos looked just as compelling.
I could not disagree more. I could have not been less interested in Oculus nor Google Glass from their advertisements. But an AR experience (as opposed to VR) that integrates with my Mac and iPhone? It has my attention.
>why should we trust companies who’s best interest is not to give us the truth on what their product is but rather the best possible vision for what it will be
Because Apple has delivered high quality products the vast majority of the time (butterfly keyboards and App Store limitations notwithstanding). Why would we assume they're suddenly dropping the ball on this, when they're on stage calling it the future of computing?
> This might certainly be different, but until it’s proven that it is, why should people believe it?
It all comes down to the company producing it - Apple hasn't made a device like this before, and comparing Apple's products to Meta's and Google's is a terrible metric to go by. It's like eating gas station sushi, getting sick, then going to an upscale sushi bar, and saying "Ohhh I've had terrible experience with Sushi in the past"
Even if you aren't willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a company that consistently produces high quality products and building a brand new product line, express that very healthy skepticism by trying it out at an Apple Store before purchasing - at that price tag, I sure am.
If they weren't confident it works almost as magically as its described, it would not have been shown.
If these companies began being subtle ("normal") about their policies, even if they're more conservative than the YouTubes or Metas of the world, the conservative parallel economy might gain some traction.
In addition, I've been under the impression that conservatives just can't do tech - the vast majority of people who create beautiful user experiences and interfaces fall on the left. Perhaps its an empathy thing (not to say conservatives aren't empathetic, but perhaps the left is overly-so). The one exception being, strangely, Truth Social, which I thought had a pretty good UI/UX given the space they occupy.
It's an open source project - their customers are going to be small businesses with small teams of technical people to maintain it. I don't think they're competing with QuickBooks at all. Why is Discord not a viable method of communication for these users?
But why (from their perspective)?
They don't make their money from metadata, they make it from content. Every piece of real monkey-making content is going to get a torrent regardless of if it's protected behind a captcha.
I don't think its too much of an exaggeration to say this is what happens when security teams don't receive enough pushback from the higher ups or from other teams. I see this all the time in large big tech companies.