172 karma · joined September 16, 2019
1. Some bash is allowed, which has been confusing me. I'd rather call 'bash -c "echo stuff > file"' myself. 2. Watchexec has its own interface for "filter which files to watch". Entr just relies on unix tools.
With entr:
find . | entr COMMAND
watchexec COMMAND
How will your customer use your product to solve their problem?
What hypotheses do you have? How are you going to test those hypotheses? What is the link from "solving this problem is important to me" to "solving this problem saves me money"? Structured thinking is helpful here!
As others, I would nudge you towards testing the waters yourself first. Then hire people who complement you well. Then consider where you want to go from there.
It's risky to employ someone to do a piece of work you can't do yourself. How would you know what's good? It's way easier after having had a shot at it yourself, and then sharing the workload with others. It's also easier to recruit a good executive when you have already shown that someone wants your product.
> who can talk to investors, do the government paperwork, and other boring stuff
That sounds more like a secretary than a manager to me.
Why is your product valuable? To whom? I assume you're solving hard problems. Pitching the problem you solve to investors without understanding the problem is going to be hard.
A book that's really changing how I'm thinking. It starts by explaining how science makes progress. Defining a good theory as one that has explanatory power. A good theory explains stuff well.
Then proceeds to apply explanations. How to understand Physics from this frame of mind. How other approaches to epistemology (what we can know) works. What problems they face. What kind of errors other ways of thinking can lead to.
This is the best book I've read about what we can know, and it applies so generally to things I'm interested in. How can I know what I know. What about my team at work, what do we know. How should we communicate. About the products we're developing. How are they valuable? How can we know that it's valuable?
It's especially impressive how Deutsch navigates up and down the ladder of abstraction. Really general concept - then a really crisp example of how it applies exactly to an example.
I've been reading and re-reading this on and off for half a year. It's hard, but I'm learning a lot. Currently half way through the book.
Are you able to explain what it is? Why it's necessary? Are you able to spike any interest?
Creating isn't just building. It's sharing and telling. Without a reason why others should be interested, they probably won't care.
I've found Marty Cagan's work helpful. The role that would be answering/exploring many of these questions would be a Product Manager in a product team, and there's literature for product management and product discovery.
Problem 2: can that problem be solved with a product?
Problem 3: can that product be built?
Reading up on product management has helped me a lot here. Empowered (Marty Cagan) is good.
Someone is going to have to make a judgment call. If curation isn't built into the service, the user must spend more effort.
And I do want to think better.
Currently really happy with Slack, Org-mode and Roam Research, each for its own use.
But I don't like the idea that the prose you read is out-of-order relative to the code you write.
I prefer a modern language that reads well in-order, that you can read as an outline. That way, you can use tree depth for significance.
Important stuff on the first or second level. Less important stuff under a sub heading, because it doesn't contribute to the narrative.
> The Northrop (later Northrop Grumman) B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American heavy strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses. Designed during the Cold War, it is a flying wing design with a crew of two.[1][3] The bomber is subsonic and can deploy both conventional and thermonuclear weapons, such as up to eighty 500-pound class (230 kg) Mk 82 JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400-pound (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.
Firefox on Android.
If so, how does the CRDT solution compare to a non-CRDT solution? If a non-CRDT solution is feasible at all?
2. Miro
3. Roam Research
Each has advantages and disadvantages used as knowledge systems. Slack is directly accessible for the whole team. You can create #thunderbong-stream, and under a thread link directly to message sources. That's directly readable for others, and you'll encourage discussion if you want.
Miro is better for hierarchical organization. Top-level requirements, (or objectives, outcomes if you will), then smaller pieces below.
On the other hand, I like using my Remarkable because it's just for handwritten notes and annotated documents.
I wouldn't say that prescriptive is better than descriptive, or the opposite. As much as dislike the phrase, it depends. I want my fundamental tools to be flexible. But I don't want to waste all my time configuring stuff.
> We study gender and race in high-impact entrepreneurship using a tightly controlled randomized field experiment. We sent out 80,000 pitch emails introducing promising but fictitious start-ups to 28,000 venture capitalists and angels. Each email was sent by a fictitious entrepreneur with randomly assigned gender and race. Female entrepreneurs received 9% more interested replies than males pitching identical projects and Asians received 6% more than Whites. Our results suggest that investors do not discriminate against female or Asian entrepreneurs when evaluating unsolicited pitch emails and that future research on investor biases should focus on networks and in-person interactions.
Here's a place to start: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/punctuating-sentences.html
Reasons:
- DOOM Emacs is fast. Fast to start `emacs --daemon`, fast UX with the default config.
- I've experienced DOOM Emacs to be more cohesive than Spacemacs
I still keep my Spacemacs config around, but I haven't touched it in ... almost a year now.
I enjoyed developing Elm with TCR[1] a while back; also with an editor + a type checker (plus the revert part). I recompiled my whole source on each save; incremental recompilation should scale better.
[1]: https://medium.com/@kentbeck_7670/test-commit-revert-870bbd7...
Within the Clojure community, there's a perception that the Clojure REPL is one of its strongest selling points[2].
Are you using the REPL actively when developing?
Edit: really curious about the "-- >>> expression " syntax! I might have to give Haskell another go.
Edit 2: Example of this interaction in practice with VSCode[3]
[1]: https://github.com/chrisdone/intero#readme [2]: https://clojure.org/guides/repl/introduction [3]: https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server#features
- GHCJS and purescript are powerful, but the learning experience might be steep[1]
- Elm is an excellent entrypoint into ML programming in the browser. Solid story for new users, and a great standard library for interactive web applications.
- ClojureScript differs from Elm in that it embraces its host, with all its power and all its wrinkles. Writing Elm is mostly a smooth experience. Read the guide[2], then you can actually build a web app.
I've spent the most time with Elm. Other people might have different experiences.
[1]: a few years since I tried, might be better now. [2]: https://guide.elm-lang.org/
> nearly all of the claims made about Clojure here can be made about haskell
, but I'm not sure about `more strongly´.
## DX with Haskell (and ML friends) I miss in Clojure:
- Harder to do sound, up-front design with data types and module interface, where implementation becomes almost trivial after when the type signatures make sense
- Consistency checks from compiler / type checker
## DX with Clojure I miss in Elm/Haskell:
- REPL ergonomics, where every action I could think of makes sense as a REPL command, leading to very small incremental pieces.
- Excellent default data structures with literal representation and serialization (EDN)
I'd love to read a point-by-point discussion of the article sections comparing Haskell and Clojure, though that's much to ask for in the comments field.