ironmagma

If the goal is to reduce traffic you can use a highway ramp signal instead.

Continually acknowledging it renews its legitimacy as the status quo. Who said anything about families or mortgages? The tech industry has plenty of single mobile renters; we can make change by having a little faith in each other.

It's expected because of a large swath of defeatist citizens making comments like this. If we don't make this normal, it won't be normal.

If dying doesn't stop them, fear of punishment by law won't either. That's if they even know about the law.

Also, in Japan do you sometimes have trouble getting a social security card and/or birth certificate to the point of being completely unable to do so the way you do here?

Were there any books that mentioned Hacker News?

I still think people should want things and be vocal about what they want. This is the natural way for people to know what needs to be built. It is different from demanding something.

And besides that, a lot of people on here do pay for Github in the first place.

Is not the whole FOSS movement about receiving something you did not pay for? Going as far as to say that’s even what users deserve?

No, that's actually the same issue. "Entitled to tell them what to do without contributing" is not a problem. Let them tell whoever what to do, the response is always the same: "patches welcome," or if that isn't even true (which it doesn't have to be), "feel free to fork."

There is a massive problem in open source where some people equate pointing out a problem with being too lazy to solve it — when in reality this just stifles the conversation. Especially when a prerequisite to any group project accomplishing anything is to first discuss the problem to be solved.

It reminds me of hearing that music majors often do well in medical school. Want to go to medical school? Just major in music, duh.

We can modify the human genome now, how is that not an order of magnitude more impressive?

I should have specified for pedants that I meant the system of peer review and scientific inquiry.

Science is amazing because it sucks and yet it's somehow still better than anything else we came up with for thousands of years.

There are essentially infinitely many JS frameworks. You’ll have to recommend one or two to be taken seriously.

Not overly. Appropriately. Why would you risk your reputation and job to talk about a theorem prover? The pros and cons are not evenly weighted.

No. Conversions about it were being avoided due to being in a work context and in general. The same goes for coc (vim plugin) by the way.

There is a reason they renamed Coq to Rocq.

Yeah, as a paying customer it is annoying that my money is being used to fuel AI hype instead of to get me off of it.

Is not the purpose of Kagi that it isn't like Google/Bing excessively buying into LLM hype? I just want an independent sustainable search engine, that's all.

Thank you! It may never actually happen, but I'll attempt to post back here if/when it does.

That’s excellent. Would it be okay to use your poem in a book someday, with the proper attribution (it would be a book about writing C)?

isLoading should be a boolean; it will maintain referential equality across renders and not cause a re-render unless it is an actual edge from false to true or vice versa.

> It just basically does everything React does but better

SolidJS still has some major pain points; the one I found was not knowing whether a prop was a signal or needed to become one. The type system doesn't help much. In React, you know for sure that if your reference changes, the component reading that reference as a prop will re-render. In Solid, it's less clear whether the update will be observed.

By "you", do you mean the typical commenters on HN? Because I would agree. So many assume that because JavaScript is used, therefore there is a bad/overcomplicated UI. But any technology can be used to create crap.

Nearly every UNIX command has its own way of formatting output, be it into columns, tables, lists, files, or TTYs (and windows, à la emacs, screen, other curses-based utils...). Even `ls` has a table formatting logic to it. This keeps the UNIX native abstraction relatively simple; everything is "just text." But the ecosystem, being quite rich, actually has a lot of divergent requirements for each utility. If that was avoidable, we probably would have seen some other abstractions appear on top of "just text," but we similarly haven't.

This is definitely a surprising opinion to find on HN. Usually the prevailing thought is that anything that is even remotely heavy on JavaScript is bad design and therefore inherently unusable, unportable, etc. Whereas this is essentially JavaScript maximalism.

Isn't that because eww refuses to implement JavaScript? Which isn't very e/acc of them?

Perverse incentives.

C# does not require scaffolding any more than Python does. It comes with a large standard library (aka .NET). Even the NodeJS standard library is quite large now too. How much setup you need really depends on what you are trying to do; if you are using Django, there will be an insignificant amount of that, and some of the most complicated setups I've seen have been with Pylons/Pyramid. If you're just making a CLI app, well I don't see how it's any less setup with Python than with Node. And anyway, RAD isn't about setup time, it's about iteration time.

I feel you on the lack of Go jobs. It seems like they aren't very well globally distributed...