dack

this is cool, but holy crap that's a lot of work for a seemingly-simple type of feature!

Man, I completely recoiled when reading this.

I spent a bunch of time in my 20s and early 30s trying out different organizational systems but I realized I just don't care. I care about doing interesting things, not organizing them.

Also computers are pretty good at full-text searching for things, or tagging so you don't have to come up with a perfect hierarchy. And I think LLMs will make it even easier to find stuff using fuzzy language.

Life's too short to spend it organizing.

the distinction is rarely necessary in most discussions though, so if that's the intention, it's not all that helpful

i'm always super impressed by brett victor and highly admire his work.

that said, I have to admit that it doesn't really feel "right" based on what I've seen. there's so many limitations to the physical world that a virtual space doesn't have. i get that physical objects can participate in the UI and that arranging things in 3D space is sometimes nicer than using a mouse/keyboard.

However, the fact that there is still code written on pieces of paper, and that the projector can only show a 2D image (which is only primitively interactable) just looks super awkward. and the question of "what can you do" when you're staring at a blank table seems tough

again, it's super cool research but i wonder if he has plans to resolve some of these fundamental issues with mixing real and virtual

Seriously, just ask ChatGPT and tell it you are an experienced developer and don't need to be told the basics. It can then give you a helpful overview and get you oriented. then you can read code, docs or other detailed sources to deepen your knowledge (and make sure the LLM didn't make something up)

reminds me of unison in some ways. did that provide some inspiration?

There's no reason they can't have amazing documentation, but I imagine they don't because people are going to use the platform anyway. People are basically forced to use it because that's where so many of their customers are, so they can just treat their users like crap and get away with it. Why spend time on documentation when it will probably only cost them money to do so?

Such a sad state of affairs.

This is great for what it does, but I want a more generic LLM integration that can do this and everything else LLMs do.

For example, one key stroke could be "complete this code", but other keystrokes could be:

- send current buffer to LLM as-is

- send region to LLM

- send region to LLM, and replace with result

I guess there are a few orthogonal features. Getting input into LLM various ways (region, buffer, file, inline prompt), and then outputting the result various ways (append at point, overwrite region, put in new buffer, etc). And then you can build on top of it various automatic system prompts like code completion, prose, etc.

Breaking backward compatibility should be reserved for extreme cases, and this doesn't sound like one. It's possible the way the author handled it was poor and caused part of the dispute, but I think the right thing would be to make such behavior opt-in or at least very easy to disable.

I'm thinking through the ethics of this myself, but I think it's a reasonable argument that you can have the freedom to do what you want with things that you own _assuming you don't impact others_. The issue with a dangerous car is that it puts others at danger.

I know about the developer who, instead of building their game, decides to build a game engine. But that appears to have not been enough for you - this appears to be a game meta-engine! :)

It sounds like quite a technical achievement to accomplish that, but it also sounds like it would fill only a very tiny niche of developers who actually want this and are willing to build assets in entirely different engines just so they can transition to different aesthetics during the game.

Not to knock on the idea though - it would certainly be very cool to see. Curious if you have any other use-cases in mind for such a technology?

this is why users should just have their own relay and we should make it easy to do that

I think someone could say they are cold and ask for more blankets, and the owner could say they don't have any more blankets

even if you like the place, hard to beat lunch with the wife

> I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying

They aren't claiming that the author is lying, but that they might _still_ have the facts incorrect.

For example, as you said, the woman was _not_ permanently disabled (since he could see that from meeting up with her in the present). However, what was the exact extent of her injuries? Maybe he assumed she is 100% fine now but she didn't mention that she actually does have persistent back pain ever since the crash. Maybe they didn't talk about that.

In that case, he may tell himself a story that she wasn't permanently hurt at all, and think that is a fact, which it actually isn't.

I think everyone is agreeing that there is an objective truth to what happened. It's that we never have perfect information to know the objective truth down to infinite detail. Even your eyes and ears can deceive us - all we can know is what we perceive via electrical signals to our brain sitting in our dark skull.

Therefore, our fallible minds will very easily get details wrong for many reasons, and then draw conclusions based on that not realizing that there could be other ways of interpreting the information, or that a minor detail we missed (or have forgotten) changes things immensely.

I think the lesson is that we should just be aware of this, and not assume our perception was 100% correct.

in a collaborative environment, it's rarely 30 seconds to make such a change though. usually you have to make a commit with message, make a PR, submit the PR and get someone to review it (many orgs require code review for every change), then merge it. And each of those steps usually require you to context switch from whatever else you were actually trying to get done.

Now, if you're already changing that part of the code/file, then sure it's pretty low overhead. But for something as simple as that function, I'd probably delete the comment entirely.

if you're going to "parse, don't validate" then the signature should probably be

func validateUser(user UnvalidatedUser) (error, User)

this way, you can't accidentally forget to validate your user before using it in the rest of your code

did they tell you they are not going to extend an offer, or just ghost you? makes me wonder if they somehow forgot about your negotiation or something? I've never heard of a company doing this so I am similarly baffled, and hope the job market isn't so skewed in favor of the employer that they are willing to recind that easily

still, barring more information I would assume it's not the salary ask and it was some other reason (i.e. changed their mind)

I love the way you approach this. you both get to stay as long as you want and build good will with the staff. by being polite, you're making everyone's life easier

i think it was really cool that you had a working demo of the first lesson right on the main page! I did `dd` and `i hello world!` and already started to feel invested even though I am an emacs user and don't really have a desire to learn vim. I think it's because you get a quick dopamine hit from doing those lessons and also gives you a good idea of how the site might work.

I almost wish that first lesson could have just kept going for a while without having to signup or anything. Maybe after you hit like 10 or 20 lessons, or when it starts getting more involved you could then ask for them to sign up / pay.

Either way, nice work!

i prefer not writing tests and just saying sorry if i ship a bug

Glad this wasn't just me - but we were going mad for a couple hours there not understanding what was going on...

I still want to know what happened. It feels like a good excuse to get a new non-asus router barring any other explanation

i think you have the proportion backwards

i think he is saying $1000 = 10 x (retail price of printer). which would mean the retail price of a printer is $100

I find it funny that everyone is bikeshedding the symmetry of the "arms" and the length of the "leg" on the logo in an attempt to be pixel-perfect with the original low-res image.

While it's fine and funny to be doing so - I can't help but realize how little any of this matters. Imagine an alternate reality where the icon was changed for SVG and not announced. There might be 2 people max that complain about it for a day, and then it would blow over and be the new normal.

Also imagine if a whole stylistic remake of the website was done - I doubt anyone would notice if the icon was ever so slightly different.

Reminds me of memes about how a 10 line PR gets 10 comments, but a 1,000 line PR gets an "LGTM"

I'm just wondering if she wanted to quit but did this on purpose to get fired instead? i.e. severance pay?

you're missing the whole point of the post. and also oversimplifying the situation - "computers" and reality are blurring

I am probably misunderstanding the article, but as far as I can tell, the two ways discussed are "JSON API like almost everybody does" and "do server-side rendering and call it the API".

Not to say it's wrong to do server-side rendering of the frontend, but I got the impression that the article wanted to make a distinction that I'm not seeing.

can't read the article because the site timed out.

maybe the code behind his blog is too clean!

This is true, but we also have to acknowledge that consistency is _fueled_ by something. Sometimes intensity helps us get over a psychological bump so that we see some initial progress and then want to keep going. So it's good advice, but it won't be that helpful if it assumes 100% self-control. Self-control is the hard part.

curious why it bothers you so much that someone else has a taxonomy? they didn't say you have to adhere to it. your opinion to just call all of it programming is fine too! but it's just an opinion