moonchrome

Is Mozilla really relevant anymore ? When they cut the devtools and rust/servo teams I view them as fragmenting the browser market and not driving web forward.

I didn't know about this - thanks !

I haven't tried this for a while, but just for comparison I actually got a GBA emulator on my Samsung via play store. It's very much an Apple thing again.

I switch between both every few years, on iPhone 14 ATM.

Honestly Android does a lot of things better - there's so many stupid "because Apple" things on iOS. For example it's impossible to tell the charging speed/estimated charge time, I have a lot of charging bricks between places and I can't tell if I picked an iPhone compatible fast charger/cable or not ? Or when I have Chrome/Firefox installed, highlight text and tap search the web - it takes me to Safari ? A lot of small annoyances like these where you can't do anything about it because the OS is so closed down.

Android is way more customisable, easier to side load stuff (like running GBA emulator on iPhone). Also a lot more exciting phones in the Android ecosystem (eg. Samsung flip phones)

I like the ecosystem integration with my Mac but I wouldn't say one is clearly better than the other.

I think the point is having stable recurring revenue. Giving you unlimited usage means on average you'll be paying more than you use, but, unless you're seriously abusing it, you can technically cost them more than you pay.

Just like you can go to the gym every day - if everyone with the membership did that they would not be able to function. But it doesn't mean you can't.

No they weren't - ASP.NET webforms and old EF was such a pile of shit it didn't matter how fast C# was (and back then it really wasn't, granted order of magnitude better than ruby/python, but way behind JVM). The applications built with it were dog slow and buggy - they couldn't even scale in enterprise setting.

Haskell, OCaml, D with great IDE support in 2006 ? Do they have that even today ?

I mean you're suggesting people use C++ for writing web apps (and c++98/03 no less !) - that's got to be facetious.

The real contender back then was PHP and Java, RoR really addressed a lot of issues from both. They both adopted the improvements brought by it since, but it took years.

C# in 2006 was a joke, probably worse than Rails in performance. This was the webforms era and old EF - meant for enterprise customers with a couple of hundred active users max... ASP.NET being a competitive/performant framework is a very recent development (since core basically which became usable past 2.0)

Haskell, OCaml and D are niche languages, probably aren't mature enough now to use for a production system that needs to scale (in terms of org growth and building complex systems).

Java web frameworks were also terrible in 2006 (this is the Java era that gave Java it's reputation) and the only thing worse for productivity I can think of is C++ hahaha ...

> Nobody can (successfully) run a plastics plant with decades of old hardware knowledge and expect to be in business another 20 years.

You would be surprised - I've seen production lines 30+ years old running profitably.

Note this was not plastics moulding - this was producing raw plastics/petrochemical facility.

First thing that comes to mind is friends father was hitting retirement age after working at a petrochemical/plastics facility for ~20 years, was in charge of maintenance of some section. I think he told me the owner had to call him twice to help diagnose problems that were causing product outages.

These things don't get built on a whim - there's risks, regulations, documentation, procedures, experts, etc. At the end of the day you have people doing the work for decades, with an intuition about how things work.

Given infinite time you can recreate anything - but by the time you're done putting the puzzle together you're out of business.

There's a lot of practical/contextual knowledge that isn't documented, and what's documented isn't guaranteed to be correct or can be misleading (terminology changes, standards change, some things are implied because they are obvious at the time, etc.)

But that's not based on evolution/biology anymore.

If it's anything like LLM for code review then I'd say it's not very potent.

No doubt it's good at paraphrasing code, deobfuscation sound like a good usecase. Other than that I've seen it mostly come up with bullshit :

- random opinions stated as fact (x makes code readable, y makes code simpler to understand, yada yada) - it's like a review from a mid level dev that finished reading Uncle Bob or some crap like that and suddenly there's 8 functions where there should be 2

- suggests changes that make the code subtly incorrect - like rewriting code with a different container type and messing up result ordering

- state false information like suggesting that a dictionary will be faster than array search (for fixed size/small array), or that some approach is faster because it doesn't allocate (but original didn't allocate either and the new approach actually does, it just hides it in a container), etc.

- can't catch complex logic bugs for shit, even with leading follow-up questions (once I figured out the problem and went back to see how long it would take GPT to figure it out)

> Like all engineering projects there are still physical constrains of course but there is no limit on the technology allowed

Except having to work from a legacy codebase via incremental changes. No way for evolution to explore silicon based life when it kicked off with carbon.

I think they probably finetuned that because it used to be the other way around and it was pretty bad UX to wait 1 min to apply a function change to a class or stuff like that.

> I’ve implemented “buy” for various systems where the work to integrate was essentially the work to build

I've felt this way before, but I didn't realize that I haven't factored in the risks of actually building it. I was comparing real world integration effort with an estimate, influenced by my experience of integrating with a working product.

Common sense applies, but in general I'm terrible at giving estimates unless I've done something very similar before.

From what I've seen Bethesda tried to get Nvidia support in optimizing for release but the game division at Nvidia is not getting resources because server/AI market is where the money is at and they only have so much experts available.

I wouldn't be surprised if this became a common theme with Nvidia in the future.