proxyon

A cheap micro container is $5 a month. A cheap dedicated server can be had for $20 a month. Budget is not the issue here.

AdonisJS Laravel Prisma NextJS Django

the weird part about this post is it compares a framework to a runtime. that's weird and dishonest. a more realistic comparison is ruby to javascript.

Yep. OP is comparing apples to oranges.

I simply cannot understand why people care about "fast" anymore with cheap containerization, CI/CD infra and no more dedicated servers. Who cares if its fast? Just add another box. I have this suspicion that anyone who still cares about backend speeds is stuck in the vertical scaling mindset where they need to keep adding cores and processes to a single machine

we use tailwind along with a component system. works great.

It's hilarious isn't it. That being said, as we all know cobbling Rails + Angular or Rails + Whatever other client side library was always a hack that just used Rails as a JSON REST pump. At that point why not just use Node/Express? And so we come full circle.

> The real purpose of TypeScript is job creation. Corporations constantly need new ways to keep their employees busy, distracted, and compliant.

You threw out a wild thesis and then said nothing to support it. Can you elaborate and actually provide evidence for what you're referring to and why Typescript is a trojan horse for useless busy work like you're alleging?

At our org Typescript has been a game changer for and by developers. It makes our lives better. It was driven by us, for us. And we had to sell it to management, who reluctantly OKed it knowing it was going to cost the org money but make us happy. How does that fit with your thesis?

JSX is just JS with brackets instead of nested function calls. I expected more from this community than this kind of commentary.

What you've said makes no sense. Coinbase offered a bunch of employees the change to quit gracefully with an exit package rather than fire them. That's not virtue signaling, that's material reality.

You can't actually believe that harassing and stressing out one's coworkers over a political agenda has a positive effect, changes minds and improves the world.

Is this a joke? You've just defined everyone who's not European as "native" which is a complete social construction and fabrication.

This is a conspiracy theory that financially illiterate people love to parrot. There is no benefit to keeping a property vacant on purpose. It incurs opportunity cost, which is the cost of rent. The only reasons a property may remain vacant is either due to regulations, incompetent management or maybe money laundering (an actual crime) in which case collecting rent would impose a burden on the money laundering operation. By no means is this common, it is an extreme exception and bringing it up in these conversations is a goofy platitude by people who know nothing about real estate. It'd be like talking about the supply of automobiles and bringing up "but what about cars destroyed at monster truck rallies or used on movie sets? it's limiting the supply of automobiles!"

Please tell me you don't actually believe this

> there isnt a history of marketing vaccines for profit

do you have any idea how the healthcare system in the USA works?

Not even close. The labor and materials cost far more than the land.

Current big tech here (not Amazon) and very few know lower level things like C, systems or OS stuff. Skillsets and specializations are different. Your comment is incredibly false. Even on mobile if someone is for instance a JS engineer they probably don't know Objective-C, Swift, Kotlin or Java any native APIs. And for the guys who do use native mobile, they can't write Javascript to save their lives and are intimidated by it.

What in the world does TypeScript have to do with Redux?

This comment is literally extremely racist. Why did you bring race into it?

Let people criticize things. I doubt you'd apply your comment toward your favorite political pet causes. Why are the Kardashians the one thing in our society that is not allowed to be criticized? This whole "let people enjoy things" is cynical, usually coming from the types of people who don't let anyone enjoy anything unless it is degenerate and mind-rotting.

I think this is a bit of a mischaracterization of both the science and what I was saying. Genetic intelligence is not a min/maxed limit that we all have to work hard to reach. It is something that is fairly static and innate. It can be disrupted by trauma/nutrition but obviously for the vast majority of people that is absolutely not the case. We are born with, and live up to, our genetic intelligence. Very few of us in the first world were undernourished or subjected to extreme trauma at childhood.

I'm trying to understand this. The part where you were saying that you were underpaid and being paid a pittance of what you were worth, that was making $150k in 2002? My understanding is that this is a strong mid-high salary for an engineer even today 19 years of inflation later. Could you clarify what you mean by all of this?

Because statistically poor people who remain poor have poor impulse control, prioritize short term pleasure and make bad decisions. Like many people who escaped poverty, I am not poor because lacking these traits elevated me out of poverty.

I don't see how this points at evidence of inter-generational trauma which to my knowledge is recognized as bullshit voodoo. Can you explain where it does so?

I think you're misunderstanding some of the moving parts here. All of those deductions you described would be taken either way, whether the tax is on the individual or on the corporation. They are already taken today to shave down corporate tax liability. So at best, the objection you're raising is a zero sum game. But even worse than that, and as a matter of fact, there would be less incentive to fulfill all of the compliance burden of tracking those deductions if corporations were not taxed but individuals were.

> Intelligence is not completely due to genetics as you are suggesting and has to do more with socio-economic conditions

This goes against all of the scientific literature we have. Intelligence is determined by genetics. It can be artificially lowered via poor socio-economic conditions, but it mostly cannot be lifted by higher socio economic conditions. In laymans terms, a traumatic life can make a child who was otherwise going to be smart not so smart, but a good life cannot make a child who was going to be dumb intelligent. Socioeconomic conditions can lower the intelligence determined by genetics, they cannot improve intelligence determined by genetics.

> Have you considered it’s because being a poor child is itself a traumatic experience that isn’t magically cured by being ripped away from family and put into an environment of material abundance?

What you've said is unfalsifiable voodoo mumbo-jumbo. Even if someone proved you wrong here and started the experiment with the poor child at newborn level, which is what people do when these bad faith criticisms are lobbed, you'd just claim that the DNA of the baby inherited generational trauma, which is what people with your bad faith criticism resort to once the criticism is inevitably proven wrong.

> I don't think intelligence is correlated with poverty much

There is a perfect correlation between the two

> However, it doesn't explain why being 'overweight' BMI consistently proves to be protective against death

I don't see how the "protective of death" conclusion is able to be maintained when it was determined by comparing the mortality of overweight people to frail and dying old people and cancer patients. The reality is that it's the opposite. It's well known that being overweight damages the organs and makes a person more susceptible to dozens of diseases.

> Did you grow up poor, as she did? If not, then you are missing the important context of what it’s like to grow up in a food scarce environment.

Yes I did and I'm still not obese.

> Being 'underweight' is associated with significant excess death; being 'overweight' is associated with a lower death rate than 'normal' BMI:

This is nonsense. In many medical deaths such as cancer (and especially since euthanasia isn't available) the person dies by slowly withering away. One of the first things that happens is that they become skinny and frail. That doesn't associate underweightedness with mortality. It intentionally draws a false correlation.