fleddr

Agree, Babel is bullshit in most cases these days. It's for people wanting to use some syntactic sugar that they just learned about 3 days ago.

My objection is that the author is quite clearly describing this as a bottom-up, small scale approach. Criticizing it as an inadequate approach for something much larger is unwarranted, as nowhere was the claim made that this scales up infinitely.

What is gained? No build step, as the article also clearly mentions. Your alternative approach goes against the goal of the author. Which is to not have a tool chain. "You can also do this by installing these 17 tools and 30 dependencies" is quite missing the point.

And you're missing the point that these types of jobs are in or around the big cities, where people cannot afford housing. Well, maybe 5% can, the rest of us will commute.

Because I can't afford to move to the city where I work.

Because even if I could, work is unstable, I can't keep moving.

Because I have a girlfriend, any move closer to work is further away for her.

Because my family and friends are here, and I need to take care of my parents.

We have an office in São Paulo which I visited, so I'm familiar with it. It's a ridiculous city. It's so complicated that even people working in the office regularly get lost in the city. A true concrete jungle. We were in a 3 hour traffic jam just to go to a place for lunch.

"Sure, it works well enough for the example shown in the article, but won't work well beyond this."

Sigh...the entire bloody point of the author is to use this for light projects, to scale the sophistication of the setup gracefully. With very obvious benefits: easy to understand, not linked to any setup so it works forever, interoperable and transferable.

Typescript isn't universally important for development. It has its advantages for large projects with many developers but it's in no way essential. Most web projects don't use Typescript and the very idea that it's a must-have only a few years old and quite opinionated.

Likewise, Babel isn't important either. You don't need to use some futuristic JS feature on your simple project, you can just stick to well supported ones, thus not needing Babel.

"I have been doing web development as a hobby and professionally for well over a decade and have seen too much of this."

I've been doing web development since 1996, so that makes for 27 years, should such obnoxious statement make anyone's opinion more important. If you need to piss on the idea of somebody scaling a web architecture proportionally to actual needs, you should reconsider who is the "smart" one.

The US anti-car narrative often refers to the Netherlands as some kind of beacon of proper public infrastructure, whilst not knowing a damn thing about it.

First, let's establish that the Netherlands is a car country. We have 11 million cars on a population of 17 million. On a typical day, 1 million people use public transport. Cars are the norm, not trains or bicycles.

Public transport is rarely faster, not even in the most idyllic example that you give where you go from big city to big city. The thing you conveniently forget to consider is that nobody lives near the station of city A and then also works very closely to the station of city B. It almost always includes additional travel towards A and from B. Cycling, trams, buses, multiple stops in both directions. It adds up.

To illustrate how absurdly slow public transport can be, a personal example. I used to live directly behind a train station in a mid-sized city. Doesn't get much better than that, right?

Let's explore the commute to work, some 60km away...

I have to get up early and be there some 10 mins before departure to secure somewhat of a reasonable spot. Next, I'm on route to the first big city station. This route is slow, it stops 5 times along the way as everybody needs to connect to a big hub to get where they need to be.

I arrive at the hub, where there's a 20 minute connection wait to take the train to the big city destination. This route is longer but fast, no stops along the way.

I get out and have a 10 minute connection wait for the bus to take me to the place closest to work, after which there's a 5-10 minute work.

Total commute time: 2.5 hours single way. To move 60km. And that's living behind a train station and working at one of the countries' largest employers.

What works really well in the Netherlands is living within a cycling radius from work, every other option sucks.

"People want desperately to experience the act of creation."

I think online they perhaps want to experience the validation of creation over anything else. Increasingly, the "creation" is in service of what "scores".

Nobody cares about energy use.

People point to an oversized vehicle but will defend their oversized TV with their lives. Whilst rationally speaking there are very few "monster truck" vehicles whilst almost everybody has such a TV. The "do good" factor of banning/taxing the TV would be infinitely more impactful.

People hate miners, not for their energy use, instead because they drive up the price of high-end GPUs. High-end GPUs, you know, which gamers intended to use to do high-energy use gaming.

Both cases (insanely large TVs and high-end gaming) would be defended by them delivering value or purpose.

Well, guess what, the planet doesn't fucking care. There's no such thing. And if anything, neither use cases are in the realm of life support systems.

That means its an ethically sound question, so you're clearly not getting the point of these questions.

Your hysteric response isn't any less bizarre. Not every question has to have a profound meaning or be personally relevant.

For example, you consider even entertaining the possibility of hiring the wife of a top performer bizarre, based on your explicit opinion that this is a terrible idea. That doesn't mean the question is bizarre. It's a normal ethical question to which you have a clear answer. What's the problem?

You're still not getting it.

The thought experiment regarding diversity challenges the (typically) inconsistent implementation of it where it's more like a candy story where you pick what you like (or deem socially acceptable) and dismiss or even discourage anything else. That's not true diversity. It's equity.

Similarly, as you suggest that representation matters, and if you'd consistently believe that, then we should immediately reallocate a huge amount of women to do the shittiest, riskiest, lowest paid jobs that men currently do. Likewise, we should immediately deploy a huge amount of men in female-dominated professions, like HR, psychology, the like.

I bet quite a few would now lose their appetite for "representation". We might as well just stop pretending and admit that we have no principles or beliefs, we just want whatever is best for us or our "group", whatever that means.

No need to get back to you when "putting a pin in it", going forward.

Nothing you said relaxes me. I like my arcane wizard status.

No work webkit does on PWA-like features matter for as long as the install journey is as intentionally user-hostile and non-discoverable as it currently is.

For the record, on Android it's also shitty, but not this shitty.

Why do you position this as a binary option?

Google must have tens of thousands of people not directly working on ads. What exactly is so "risky" about this "subsidized" surplus working on risky bets?

"capability is measured on output"

No, it isn't. That's effectiveness or impact. As an example, I'm capable of running 10 miles per day but can't be bothered.

The issue is exactly that Google is not struggling, which allows for this culture to grow and thrive. One day though, the music stops.

Sounds like I hit a nerve.

What name-calling? I called the regime incompetent. Not India's inhabitants. I have no bias against Indian people, if I do, it's a positive one. 90% of my team is from India.

No idea why you're downvoted because it's a good remark.

Well, if we're going to be pointing fingers, let's not forget ourselves here: consumers. We gladly look away when consuming these cheap products.

The attraction is that it's cheap, nothing else matters. If it were cheap whilst the country was democratic, we'd still take it. So authoritarian is not the requirement, being low cost is. That said, yes it's a fair point that cheap correlates with an authoritarian regime with lax regulation. But it's not the only reason for being low cost, it can also be a result of a surplus of labor and the lack of an internal market.

Regardless, the recent insight is that moving all manufacturing into a superpower with nukes that changes alliances at a whim might have been a mistake. Hence another sizable country like India behaving unreliably isn't exactly looking attractive as the next destination.

I agree that there will be no immediate serious repercussions, but it's still a case of tickling a shark or shooting in your own foot.

That's not how ransomware works. They typically wait 3-6 months before making the demand, your backups will contain the infected files.

Isn't it impressive how incompetent authoritarian regimes are?

I mean, India has a great thing going. Geopolitically, it's exempt from bans on trading with Russia, so it can play both sides and get away with it. It has build up a vast services industry as the "back office of the world", a major driver of economic prosperity. It's likely the main beneficiary of re-shoring manufacturing out of China.

In this position, quite literally the dumbest thing you can do is to attract international attention by attacking a western institute like the BBC.

You weaken your position in geopolitics. You scare investors. You don't realize how unlike manufacturing, services are extremely easy to move to another country. And why even start manufacturing in this regime, when plenty of saner countries are nearby?

You want to gamble with all of that, for what? A BBC report that does nothing. Give it no attention and everything stays exactly the same.

It's Reddit where almost everything is faked, for upvotes.

Back in the real world they MUST. Small business is done on LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon, the like.

The person writing the article IS an advertiser, so now what?

Maybe from the $5-10B they print in pure profit, every single quarter.

I once also had an issue with my FB account and the most stunning thing I learned is that there's no way to contact FB.

None. This company that "connects the people of the world" has no email, phone, chat...nothing. It's not like you can talk to them yet they won't listen, no...you can't talk to them at all.

This specific example is especially criminal, as the person is a paying customer (invested in ads).

It's way worse than DMCA actually. With DMCA you can get takedown requests when one of your users uploads copyrighted works. Comply with the takedown requests in reasonable ways and you're fine.

The EU legislation means that platforms are liable beforehand.