Boeing may think they fly above it all (get it?) but I can assure you despite my largely unwavering confidence in the air travel industry, I will not travel on a Boeing aircraft in the near future. I will see to it that I fly Airbus or not at all, which I'm perfectly fine with should it spare my life. This type of large-scale and continued negligence can only be defined as a company that thinks they're too big to fail. I would rather see the US's airplane manufacturing capabilities decrease than allow such heinous acts of negligence to continue. Shame on Boeing. You'd have thought that the previous 787 and MCAS problems would've straightened them up, but you'd of course be wrong. Let them bleed; dry if need be. This is no way to operate in such an important industry with deadly consequences.
The key differentiating factor in your hypothetical reasons why traditional finance is inferior to defi is that there are systems to remediate the exact issues you mentioned, whereas if you send your crypto to the wrong address- it's gone. If you lose your seed words to your wallet and can't access it, or someone else gets access to them- it's gone. If you get scammed- it's gone. Literally all of these things (which are a /feature/ of the tech!) make it essentially unusable for any business that isn't looking for an adrenaline rush. What I love most about all of these shortcomings of the technology is how much people who push it minimize all of these issues by saying that it's user error, and people who utilize good practices won't have these issues. It's almost as if all of these people have literally never talked to a real person. No regular person cares or would ever want to care about hard wallets versus alternatives, seed words, verifying addresses, and avoiding phishing scams. All of these issues which can be mitigated by being technically inclined fall flat on their face with any person who just wants to send money to their grandson or pay a friend for dinner.
I have to admit I do find it pretty funny when the people who have touted blockchain and cryptocurrency as great because of its decentralization have discovered /why/ a central authority is incredibly important in finance. All of the crypto pumpers start crying for government support when they're the ones who get fleeced, when that's literally built into the technology as a feature.
The accepted wisdom is still that it's a bubble and you should not buy it, the price going up does not necessarily mean that the price isn't higher than it should be. Projecting everybody who disagrees with your viewpoint as somebody who is angry they missed out is simply a quick way to hand-wave away people who disagree with your crypto-is-the-future dogma. I wasn't in the early adopters per-say but I did do some crapcoin trading back in the day and made a decent sum at the time, and yet I still hold crypto and blockchain technology as a whole as almost entirely pointless. I have still yet to hear any real valid use of the technology that is better than existing/alternative solutions. It speaks volumes that the people who would know the most about the technology (software engineers, who are prevalent here), are the ones who (outside of the general public) believe that the technology is largely pointless, if not downright idiotic.
This may be a luddite-esque take, but personally, I'm very hesitant to use Bun on any meaningful project at the moment. It screams too-good-to-be-true right now. I also believe that I may have heard of some people running across issues with it recently, although I maybe conflating my memory of it with something else. That, and, while I understand the namespace pollution with JS packages, saying that I use "Bun" for my projects is a bit of a turn-off, to be quite honest. I may try it for some pet project in the near-term future but if I was to make a choice for anything else I see operating long term I'd be much more inclined to use Deno, although I still think even that is probably a bit less established then I'd prefer, so I'd probably still use Node until Deno matures a bit more.
Uh, yes. The difference between the human and chimp genomes is only like 1% but that minute variance clearly makes a massive difference. Different expressions of individual genes can vastly change appearance such as eye color, hair color, etc. These are physical traits but obviously, a similar concept applies to other traits.
This. Having ongoing concerns from a once-in-a-lifetime perfect storm of an event such as Fukushima in application to a facility that is not vulnerable to nearly any of the series of worst-case scenario events is simply doomerism. This is exactly the kind of mindset that has prevented the US as a country from developing nuclear power in any substantial fashion for the last 50 or so years. In that timeframe, it's not unlikely to assume we could have a much more substantial amount of our energy produced by nuclear power; if not completely deprecating coal power plants.
At the moment, barring magical energy sources that haven't been proven in any meaningful sense, nuclear technology has shown itself to have the fewest long-term consequences and the highest efficiency. However, it is unfortunately also the easiest to point to a few events in history and easily make the layman cast doubt on its safety. It's worth pointing out that the most significant nuclear accident in history took place in the USSR (which wasn't particularly notorious for its safety protocols), on a reactor that had several known design flaws that were ignored, and the only other major accident representing a one in a thousand years perfect-storm that overcame several redundancies.
This concern about "drones" in relation to nuclear power plants is borderline paranoia. Are you concerned about drones dropping bombs or somehow disabling safety systems on a nuclear reactor? Every single nuclear power in the world has nuclear power plants, so they're all equally susceptible to the same attack in the same way that they're all equally capable of responding to said attack- mutually assured destruction as it goes.
What if we could all just teleport anywhere we wanted at any time, instantly!? Like most things of this sort, unfortunately, we exist in the real world where such a naive fantasy will stay as just that; a naive fantasy.
I take issue with clear PR-speak trying to make the issue lesser than it actually is. When you're having an outage- call it an outage. Having a feature completely unusable and labeling it as "degraded performance" is clearly twisting your words to lessen the outwardly perception of the scale of the problem.
PR really spun gold when they decided to label everything from every single one of their databases getting deleted and backups nuked to intermittent connectivity issues as "degraded". Who exactly are they making feel better by not calling a spade a spade?
Ignoring all of the scientific evidence otherwise, there is not a chance you're actually parroting this nonsense without actually noticing a rather substantial difference when viewing something (say a movie) at 30fps versus 60+fps. It's literally night and day. Me and a few coworkers noticed the difference between 60 and 120 when upgrading phones recently, and that difference is much more nuanced than the difference between 30 and 60.
This may be a hot take, and one that's very biased, but I think people with bad intentions exist, and when they make a move against the interests of the good, we need to both be prepared to and willing to face that evil. This isn't to say that the US hasn't done countless things in the name of this idea that have been misguided at best, but there has been plenty of good things that have came from being a military superpower, and I truly believe WWII is an example of that. The Nazi military complex was incredibly strong, and without an equally strong response from the allies it's hard to see how we would've prevented them from going onto their larger goal of world domination. I don't think the incredible allied response was a bad thing, despite all of the bad things that happened as a part of that pursuing that interest.
In my opinion, we can't unilaterally invest resources otherwise invested in our military without equally opening ourselves and our allies to opportunistic attack.
> "The Beatles set off colossal waves of cultural change, but they anchored their revolution for only so long: Six years after chiming that unforgettable chord they weren’t even a band anymore. The maelstrom OpenAI has unleashed will almost certainly be far bigger."
There is no way I can interpret a comparison to the Beatles with the added statement that the Beatles cultural impact will likely be much smaller as anything less than an absolutely massive overstatement based entirely out of some internal bias. If the author was intending this to be written from the perspective of how they think of themselves then in my opinion they have failed.
The funny thing is that a video or article about the journo giving him a sexual favor would actually have been more easily digestible than this 9,500 word pile of crap.
I'm sorry- perhaps the intention and wording of the article changes towards the end, but this entire thing as far as I've managed is just a thinly veiled propaganda piece that tries to make OpenAI, the team, and their product out to be some kind of equivalent to a modern day messiah. For me, and everybody I've seen or recently discussed it with, the whole ChatGPT craze has largely died out, and all we're left with is the technology as it actually exists without the hype, which turns out to be less useful than it was built up to be.
I'm not sure I can fully articulate just how entirely biased this article came across from my point of view, but I can say that reading line after line of pointless fluff nearly made me want to throw up. The only thing I'm left wondering how much they were payed to write this piece of utterly atrocious propaganda?
Have you ever looked at Affinity (https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/)? I bought their universal license a year or so ago and would definitely recommend it over Adobe for anybody who doesn't necessarily need to use Adobe, it's a lifetime license and the product is pretty comparable to Photoshop/Illustrator for whatever a hobbyist could need. I would strongly recommend giving them a look if you haven't already.
Bootstrap and its newer counterpart Tailwind have been around collectively longer than a decade, and I can't see any reason why their popularity would die down. It's easier to learn, quicker to write, and reduces a lot of issues that arise from poor CSS. I can see why some people aren't a fan, but those people seem (from my perspective) to be either luddites or people who misunderstand Tailwind. When you have people across the entire spectrum of experience who find writing styles faster with Tailwind, I can't understand how people find themselves on the opposite side of the argument without having some underlying bias or no practical experience utilizing Tailwind.
Not to negate the information in the provided article (as I certainly don't know enough of the specifics to debate, so feel free to correct me here), but I'm unable to ascertain whether all potential environmental impacts were factored into those numbers. I would think on aspects such as biodegradability, plastic bags would be essentially one of the worse options available when compared to counterparts such as paper and cotton which seem to have a much more straightforward decomposition? At a surface level, the provided article seemed to be comparing environmental impacts from production and recycling alone instead of also accounting for the impact of the large amount of plastic bags that end up as litter.
It certainly doesn't absolve us- we should try to do good when possible. Should you recycle that aluminum can? Yes. Should you not throw trash out your car's window? Also yes. I was just trying to point out that the more extreme people among the movement to minimize carbon footprint are missing the bigger picture, and us as individuals are not going to be able to move the needle in a significant way, even with mass action and inconveniences.
Ironically enough it seems every time we find a new approach to minimizing pollution it usually comes in the form of inconveniencing ourselves, despite the fact that individual pollution is relatively minuscule as compared to the pollution committed by global industry. The paper bag to plastic bag conversion has just ended up creating a separate issue, and this same trade off seems to exist across the board. I guess there really isn't a way to have our cake and eat it too. The real solution is stricter environmental laws regarding industry, who have profiteered off of a total disregard for the environment for decades, not making everybody drink through shitty (and likely poisonous) paper.
It truly is crazy how most of us have been gaslit into thinking that global pollution is largely a result of our own individual actions, and not the action of mega-corporations who operate independently of any concern for the environment. Sorry, I'm going to have to opt out of all of the idiotic soapboxing about how I'm the issue because I don't drive a hybrid while BP/Exxon/Oil Corp #53 plunder the Earth and produce magnitudes more pollution in a day than I could hope to make in 100 lifetimes. /rant
Also was confused by this sentence. I have worked on several Node, React, and even PHP (albeit a long time ago!) applications, and every single one of them caught and surfaced internal server errors. Never was aware there were actually people out there regardless of language who weren't catching and surfacing 500s in a straightforward fashion to the user.
Agreed. I was going to point that out as well but a few other comments addressed the dating of the sources so I instead just wanted to address the people who read the title and were ready to jump into the comments to beat a dead horse.
Sigh Here we go again. I'm sure this post will not stir up yet /another/ post of straight arguing in the comments.
How can it seemingly never be acknowledged following the pandemic that young people do, on occasion, have freak events such as cardiac arrest for reasons not related to the vaccine? There are plenty of cases that predate the vaccines. Is it also too hard to suppose that maybe heart disease doesn't necessarily discriminate based on age for people who eat like crap and never exercise?
I have certainly considered that, but I don't understand how writing out ".[my unique, non conflicting class name (usually incredibly arbitrary to avoid conflicts)]{ margin: 8px };" and then referencing that class in the code is quicker than writing "m-2"?
Meh, probably is an example of a no-true-scotsman. A better way to word it would be to say that not many of the Tailwind codebases I've seen have styles of that length, except for on choice elements where most of the classes are overwriting default styling (such as on inputs).
You literally defended CSS in a similar way in your post "The cascade, selector chaining (see above), and specificity are all very powerful tools. If you misunderstand them, yeah you can cut yourself. Just like if you don't use a saw properly you can cut yourself.". In the same sense, just because some people write super long Tailwind classes doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that to all Tailwind classes.
Tailwind is both faster to write and more readable. Instead of having to read up and down and cross reference both inherited and local classes to find the active styles on an element I can look at a short string of instantly recognizable and easy to read utility classes right there on the element directly, as opposed to somewhere else in the file (or potentially in another file altogether).
My experience with Tailwind detractors has been of people starting with their opinion that Tailwind is bad and then working backwards to come up with almost entirely arbitrary and contrived reasons to justify that conclusion. I truly can't believe that anybody who has completely learned Tailwind could posit the argument that Tailwind isn't any faster than writing pure CSS void of emotional bias. Whenever I see someone make such a statement, I can tell it's more of a propaganda piece than a piece meant to spawn logical thought.
To not leave this comment with simply a hand-waving disregard of this post, let me say this: Nobody who knows what they are doing writes Tailwind styles as long as the ones presented in this post, nobody uses arbitrary styles or custom styles as many times as is presented in this post, and yes (in a shock to nobody)- it is quicker to write "m-2" than write ".[my unique, non conflicting class name (usually incredibly arbitrary to avoid conflicts)]{ margin: 10px };" and then implement that in code. Usually, when you try to write pure CSS efficiently, you just end up basically duplicating Tailwind by creating utility classes anyways, except minus all of the actual perks of JIT.
At this point in time, if you say that you see no benefit in using Tailwind, you are being obtuse.