This got me thinking a bit more. Rest / GraphQL / Groq handled with adapters, flatten anything nested that references an ID to the row level. Opinionated queries (queries only fetch a superset/subset of the same structure). Fetched data 'fans out' the new content into the rows based on ID to fill out/update structure. Lives in a service worker or side by side with frontend. Drops oldest/least fetched data when limits are reached. Would something like that work?
Alternatively just ship an entire shallow copy of least changed / most used data as sqlite db's to the edge, push updates to those, and fetch from source anything that isn't in the DB. Might be simpler.
Fair enough, on reflection I think I would lean towards escaping both as a principle of least surprise. There's something a bit 'doing magic' about the way it reads at the moment.
Looks quite nice, I'm not 100% sold on having flow exposed (for, if) and plain text always escaped (wrapped in {''}), I suppose at least it encourages not having magic strings everywhere. There's some other details that look interesting like the @use feature. I like the reactive prefix concept but having had so many reactive headaches I'm interested in how this plays out. Overall it's a wait and see project for me with no clear must haves, at least right now.
I've been thinking a lot recently about edge/client layer data sync, interesting to hear where others are at. Noria seems to have got as far as a smart way to store and manage tabular data, however this doesn't seem to help much when the frontend is built on blobs & if one isn't prepared to write the additional layer for read/write on top of the rest of the fetching system.
The dumb/MVP approach I'd like to try sometime is close-to-client read only sqlite db's that get managed in the background and neatly handled by wrapper functions around things like fetch. The part I've been slowly thinking about is Noria style efficient handling of data structures while allowing for 'raw' queries, ideally I'd like to set this up so the frontend doesn't need an additional layers worth of read/write functionality just to have CDN-like behaviour. Maybe something like plugins to [de/re]normalise different kinds of blob to tables (from gql, groqd, etc). I'd also like to include a realtime cache invalidation/update system to keep all clients in sync without cache clearing... If I ever get that far.
I may have built too many websites to be able to have a casual opinion, buut I find the card versions in the example much quicker to scan. The changed versions would need a lot more padding than the card example to give the same effect of the information being unrelated to each other, and in the process lose the density argument.
Conceptually to me it's a bit like framed art in a gallery, the frame is a "consider this on it's own" signal, inviting me to not try to hold everything else in the room in my head simultaneously just in case it's relevant.
My personal preference for power user interfaces wrt to the issues in the article is to still have hierarchical design with cards etc for scanning, but with less padding, smaller fonts etc. Non interface web design is a different creature entirely, and arguably information density tends to be a lot less relevant on those vs other aspects like typographic choices and copywriting.
Long ago stopped trying to keep on top of GPU releases at home as the gains were too incremental and releases too frequent for my wallet. That trillions of dollars may be spent on this is great news for Nvidia, but seems like a source of incredible quantities of parked inventory and landfill if not managed carefully.
If I knew my house would burn down if I forgot where my keys where it wouldn't do much more than turn me into a paranoid barely functional mess. Higher stakes do not automatically help. Although ironically part of being ADHD is functioning well in high stakes situations, it's not healthy to create high stakes situations in order to function (although some people do this).
I wouldn't say everything that gets hugely popular has a ton of craft behind it, to me craft is about skill, but a badly drawn webcomic (random example) can still be very popular if it has something other point of difference.
Analogy holds because its way more expensive, stressful, and the stakes are higher. Also it's harder to get in to without already having an advantage (like rich parents).
The article is defining cows as something we see too much of. Copying Ghiblis work turns the images into cows, regardless of how the artist feels about it. Obviously it would be ideal if that wasn't happening.
Sometimes I think the fundamental thing could be as ‘simple’ as something like introducing l an attention/event loo, flush to memory, emotion driven motivation. There are quite a few fairly obvious things that llms don’t have that might be best not to add just in case.
There is an awful lot of research into just how much is regurgitated vs the limits of their creativity, and as far as I’m aware this was not the conclusion that research came to. That isn’t to say any reasoning that does happen is not fragile or prone to breaking in odd ways, but I’ve had similar experience dealing with other humans more often than I’d like too.
> The only thing you can rely on is on your ability to decipher what a highly imperfect system generated, and maybe ask explanations to that same imperfect system about your code its code (oh, and it has forgotten everything about the initial writing process by then).
This just sounds like every other story I hear about working on ossified code bases as it is. At least AI can ingest large amounts of code quickly, even if as of today it can't be trusted to actually decipher it all.
The cost benefit calculus for workarounds changes based on popularity. Your custom lock might be easy to break by a professional, but the handful of people who might ever care to pick it are unlikely to be trying that hard. A lock which lets you into 5% of houses however might be worth learning to break.
My approach is looking for things that need a level of fuzzy logic. It can be as basic as do any of the subject lines in an inbox have some variation of ‘looks important’. I’m less sold on them doing much of anything reliably at the moment though.
Thanks for the encouraging words! I've got a large folder of photos and videos I've been meaning to do something with, this could be the catalyst that needed.
I've just about got my 1981 Mini I bought in highschool for $600 NZD back in one piece. Wasn't going to touch the engine originally but thought why not, so almost 20 years later with almost everything aside from the shell refurbed or replaced here we are. It's been expensive and slow and I'd have been better off now having put the money into a house deposit instead. But now I know a fair amount about rebuilding a 45 year old car and I have about 10k in specialty tools I will probably barely use again, so I guess there's that.
I agree, I mean something like this only has to happen once in our lifetime for everything we know to change overnight. I’m not saying believe anything and everything at face value, but at least question whether immediate knee jerk dismissal of any idea you think you’ve seen before is actually considering the nuance of the specific thing in question or just a learned response.
I've seen people I work with become rich, and what I noticed about some of them is that they don't care about being 'nice', they are happy to treat everyone like they owe them something. Being nasty in business works, better and for far longer than it should. I always felt that if I was to succeed or fail, It will be on my own terms and my own thoughts about how to operate ethically, so I became my own boss. 15 years or so later I'm not rich by SV standards, but I did manage to buy a house as a 35yo millenial near the peak of the market off the back of doing what I thought was right. And I'm proud of that. I don't know if I'd call myself smart, but I would suggest that intelligent people are aware of what being ruthless in the pursuit of money will do to those around them, and many will choose not to abuse their intelligence knowing that it would hurt others. Or at least I'd like to think so.
> "There's not enough money for everyone. A truly good person lets everybody else have the money, and just lives on charity"
This also seems dangerously flawed. Money is a social construct, there could easily be enough for everyone if production > people’s needs. Some of this stuff strikes me as the result of ancient class wars.
> Ultimately money is based of terror. It is literally based on the terror that if you counterfeit it you go to jail.
The logic here seems flawed. This could be said of anything to do with obeying laws. Don’t I put my seatbelt on out of the terror that if I don’t I could go to jail? Therefore seatbelts require terror to function?
This triggered two main thoughts for me. First - this virus centric take is not so different to the one taken in Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari in which he claims that we didn’t so much domesticate crops as become domesticated _by_ crops. While I think it’s healthy to consider less human centric views of what we are, there as here I think the value of questioning the intent of entities that don’t have end goals may not lead to very profound answers. The second thought is that I once read that the activity of our brain is dancing on the edge of chaos, and that either direction causes it to cease functioning. Similarly our immune systems are dialled close to the limit, to the point where it can take itself and its owner out by accident. All this to say our existence is already at or near the crossover between so many gradients, which most likely are in essence the pitched battles you’re referring to.
God is a a bit of a leap, I'm coming more from the angle of if an engineer was presented with any other function this complex to try and work with. In that situation I wonder if any sensible person would bet their career on categorical statements about what it can and can not do. Personally I'm staying away from categorical statements and watching developments with curiosity.
Could we at least agree that any program running with over a trillion parameters is orders of magnitude beyond the level of complexity we can make reliably correct statements about, regardless of function? (edit - word)
Also as a self taught developer, I think this is less about academics and more about unsilo'd thinking. My personal conclusion is that I will hire anyone that has at least tried freelance or running a business. The ability to care about relationships to other peoples courts is key to being able to communicate with other people and contextualise the business as a whole.