notarobot123

it's proposer-optimal but the receivers gets the best of those who haven't already found a better match

It's funny, Bill Atkinson (of HyperCard fame) made PhotoCard - a very similar app around the same time:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-legend-bill-at...

I can't wait for the autotune remix of this.

Imagine if companies exposed access to their services via a discoverable uniform interface.

Each company would determine the range of actions a customer could perform in response to their request and current circumstances. A representation of state could be transferred between the company's server and whatever client the customer chooses to use. The customer would be free to interact with any of these services in a way that suited them via their chosen client.

Either that or we could kludge something together with MCP.

Similarly, programming is also a precise language of communication. Initially, we focused on direct machine behavior but every abstraction above the hardware (including assembly) has been to make that behavior legible to humans.

Developed notations and shared procedural abstractions have made thinking about computation more intentionally human and source control has established a protocol for conversing with other humans in the language of a program and changes to that program.

The moment just now feels like a neglecting of the idea of communication being central. If the program is a compile target but not sufficiently legible or if the conversation moves too quickly for us to keep up then we retain the effects of computation but loose its meaning as communication. We loose the understanding and the ability to develop and evolve further shared abstractions.

Open source programs could be more like motivated explanations of computation. For open source to survive, maybe we should start to make the distinction between free product distribution and programming as communication and community building.

...so lack of attention to detail as evidence of a focus on meaningful quality?

More generously: someone who resists new technologies due to their perceived harmful effects (economic but also social and environmental)

> vako-poku-piki-sino-dumi-wigo-bumo-subu-kuwu-suju-joku-wuru-libi-bafa-modu-pabu-zuro-kiva-givo-liju-pomu-ra

I like it. It feels like learning a magical incantation from some ancient lost language.

The browser-standards-or-bust moment has past, hasn't it?

If you want your app to work the same way across platforms, using browser defaults is not the way to achieve that.

If you want users to have a consistent experience within their browser across the web, I get it, but that's not how the Web has worked for a long long time.

I know when they say "such that ..."

Sounds good. They're encouraging others to join in but it'd be great to hear if this actually has an impact so far and how its worked out for HTMX. I imagine there are some interesting anecdotes about what actually happens when teams do this.

[Edit] just seen that OP is pitching this rather than practicing it. I wonder if any team actually do have a practice like this...

I assume by "orchestrated" you mean intended by the people involved in making them happen. Humans act in the world. Some people have power and influence that they bring to bear on their activities and desired outcomes. It's true.

That said, there's a tendency (that I think increases as we age) to want to explain everything in terms of order, control and power. Explaining away the world's complexities seems to be a pretty strong human trait.

Maybe the idea of a complex and uncertain world is just too uncomfortable for us to accept.

> sticky defaults... makes client authors the kingmakers.

Isn't this true of any protocol (to a greater or lesser degree)?

You may have developed the capacity for independent thought in that period.

perhaps themselves driven by global consumers culture that doesn't care how or where something was made as long as it's slightly cheaper.

The suffering of the slave isn't the only evil of slavery. What it does to the master is to alienate them from the creative process and turns them into a dependent consumer of the work of others. The master becomes detached from productive work and therefore dependent and less free themselves.

Digital homesteading is the essence of the IndieWeb. Building things with one's own resources and know-how is part of it's DNA, whether or not that is acknowledged.

Because it's anti-platform and pro-ownership, content is secondary to the means of distribution. It's why it is bound to be a tech-heavy sub-culture and never a real alternative to big platforms.

Sure, but code isn't the only barrier that's been lowered. A competent entrepreneurial team can also scale their sales, marketing and customer success workflows with AI.

I'm not saying business is easy now. I'm saying that a small team of smart people can do a whole lot more with the tools available to them. You still need strategy and vision (or the ability to copy someone else's playbook) but execution is a lot cheaper.

The risk for SaaS isn't that customers will build their own but that the barrier to entry for competitors is lower.

The Chorleywood process created mega bakeries that displaced regular bakeries because they changed the economics. AI is doing the same and fundamentally changing the economics of production. What used to take years and huge teams to build can be built by much smaller teams much faster.

SaaS isn't going to sublimate straight into consumer built tools but the boiling point for competition has gotten a lot lower.

What about design, build, marketing etc.?

I don't get why the maker market complains so much about the idea of businesses selling products at a healthy markup. Just because you know how the sausage was made doesn't mean that the logic of operating a business is any different to how it works in the consumer world.

If you're skilled and motivated enough to make it yourself, you might save some money. You'd loose a lot of time though and that's worth something too (perhaps a lot more).

A piano is not inherently a better musical instrument than a harmonica. You could argue that a piano is more complex and more puzzle like requiring more of an investment to learn for similar results.

A harmonica has a much lower barrier to entry and can be mastered over years of practice. So can a piano but with a lot more effort for more or less the same result. They both make music after all.

Ultimately, it comes down to familiarity and basic preferences. Pianos and harmonicas are basically the same if you've used them for long enough and you can get the same results with both (but a harmonica requires a lot less fuss and "games")

[I wish piano players would stop looking down on harmonica players - stop being so tribal!]

There is a fair question here (though presented with questionable integrity) about what notability means in programming languages. Especially for more recent and perhaps not widely used programming languages.

I have a particular interest in programming language design and, for what it's worth, I have heard of Odin. For someone like me, understanding different design decisions for languages that depart from mainstream languages is valuable. It isn't what academic journals are interested in and there are no notable publications for hobbyists or language design experts (that I know of).

Notability *is* worth questioning for a field like this since there isn't a clear signal outside of blog posts and user community discussion. There's no clear place where general discussions around program languages is happening to a reasonable level of depth and quality.

On that note - @dang I would love it if https://news.ycombinator.com/showlang continued to update. It was a cool resource for finding discussion on new programming language designs here on HN.

I've been thinking the same thing recently. I'm in conversation with a friend of mine who's much more aligned to the right and our philosophical conversations route their way around consistent logic in order to arrive at certain assertions about "reality".

Much of the reasoning is about what it opposes and where the error lies in the "other side" (nearly always a strawman) rather than a positive argument. Where there is a positive argument, it's logic doesn't consistently apply to other analogous areas. It's often a justification rather than a commitment to a reasonable principle or idea.

To be fair, wisdom isn't reducible to a set of rules or principles. It's a weighing of values and priorities and accounting for the impacts and implications.

I suspect there is something to the notion that consistent reasoning has a "liberal" bias in its nature. Whether this means there's more wisdom in that reasonableness is another question all together.

I see this kind of thing as the future of SaaS. Passionate developers out competing incumbents on both quality and price. One off purchases from "1000 true fans" is enough to make the effort worthwhile. It's a win-win for indie devs and their customers.

> Like making food supply work

Producers make what will sell but without any incentives, subsidies or regulation this would be a mess of profit chasing, unsafe practices and fragile supply chains.

In my view, the value of the public sector is in setting the rule of the game for private actors in exactly this kind of way (rules and incentives) instead of the politics of picking winners and losers directly or making direct decisions about what to build where, etc. Rule makers play the meta-game of designing how the game works and they leave agents free to play as they wish.

So why submit a PR at all if you're not even going to try to understand the aims of the project?

What happens when VCs, governments and tech companies drive demand for a genuinely game changing technology beyond consumer's appetite for it?

> pooling resources

Your argument would suggest the EU developing a European model would be a better direction. A heavy-weight competitor would help advance the field after all.

> getting bureaucracy out of the way and encouraging real investment

I don't think this is really about regulation - it's about network effects. The only way to compete with strong network-effects is to create your own.

> This vaguely-nationalist world view around tech

Nationalism breeds nationalism and it is the fundamental reason European states feel the need to build their own expertise. Can you imagine if your country was subject to the whims of an aspiring dictator?

> What does cursor have?

users

Power and intelligence are not completely unrelated. Are government officials, politicians, CEOs, judges, etc, usually above average intelligence? Probably. Do the institutions they work within make intelligent decisions? Sometimes.

The fallacy is assuming intelligence automatically equates to power and influence. University professors and doctors have very little power in their institutions even though they may often be more intelligent than their bosses.

A worse fallacy is assuming intelligence creates better political outcomes (in the broad sense of politics as contested collective decision-making).

I don't know many people who would willingly trade their freedom to make a bad decision for the enforcement of the "right" decision by a superior intelligence.