ysavir

I think they mean the "just" in "Do you just want to host repositories?", implying that it's never "just" hosting repositories, and the needs will continue to grow beyond what the simple solution offers.

I've had them all my life. I remember watching a some video a few years back that said they're more noticeable against a bright/white background, which checked out with my past experiences. And judging by your skiing comment, probably for yours as well!

I surprisingly had good results when I told the LLM to only communicate in ASCII memes. It did a fantastic job of summarizing the situation using relevant memes, and the humor was enough to keep things fresh. As silly as it sounds, it's worth trying when you're in that LLM burnout corner.

I think the parent comment is snark. They're saying that since many Firefox users are saying "Let me turn off AI features, please!" for features they don't want at all, and few to no Firefox users are saying "Let me turn on AI features!" because few to no Firefox users want AI features in the first place, Mozilla is making AI features opt-out to "satisfy" the "want" of turning off AI features.

I've seen my cats pull on a cord in order to reel in the toy at the end. I don't find that to be all too different from the cow orienting a scratcher. Should I?

For what it's worth, it happens to me about 5 times each summer. But I also welcome spiders as pest control, so it's not a surprise, and I forget all about it 5 seconds later.

I wouldn't call ChatGPT "brand recognition". People know the term ChatGPT, but I don't think they associate it with OpenAI or any company in particular, in the same way that people might associate Civic with Honda. Instead they'll associate it like they do the terms Bandaid, Kleenex, etc., as a catch-all term for LLM chat interfaces, regardless of who is providing the service. When OpenAI starts ads, I imagine people will start saying "oh, here's a ChatGPT without ads" and point to Claud or Gemini or whatever.

That's all true, but I think the article's point still stands: React trades one set of compromises for another, and regardless of the tool used, software engineers using that tool have to do a lot of lifting to get the tool to work. It's not a question of whether react is better than backbone or vise versa, it's a question of whether we software engineers, as a group, are emphasizing the correct compromises, and what takeaways we can make from examining the compromises of today's popular tools.

It depends a lot on the rate of change of the document.

Documents that experience little change don't need classes because their structure is reliable.

Documents that change often have unreliable structures, and will require frequent updates to the CSS rules to match structure changes. Using classes insulates the CSS from the document structure, mitigating the need to update CSS as the document evolves.

It also depend your development strategy. If using Vue components and writing the CSS in the same file as a dedicated, small-scoped components, it's practical to update the CSS references alongside the document changes. But when there's distance between the HTML and the CSS, or there are components in use who's structures may change unpredictably (such as from 3rd party libraries), classes provide a safer reference.

There's no need to have an ideology of using classes or not using classes. The practical approach is to assess the nature of your work, the rate of change of the documents, and to adopt practices built around those assessments.

Location: Upstate New York, ~ 1 hour north of NYC

Remote: Yes, open to Hybrid in NYC

Willing to relocate: Possibly closer to NYC

Technologies: Ruby, Ruby on Rails, VueJS, React, TypeScript, Git, Postgres, ElasaticSearch, Heroku, AWS, Jira, OAuth

LinkedIn/Résumé: www.linkedin.com/in/yaniv-savir

Email: [email protected]

Seasoned software engineer with 11 years of web development and a proven success record using Ruby on Rails, Vue.js, React, and other frameworks. 10 years in startups, as small as 7 employees. Experienced mentor and coach to up-and-coming engineers, and champion of collaboration and efficient communication.

My ambitions are to build products I can be proud of. Software isn't an end, it's a means to an end, and the goal is hit our targets and win customers leveraging software. If you're looking for a level headed engineer who prioritizes a healthy and respectful work environment, a strong communication culture, and a deep understanding of the problems we're facing, reach out and say hi.

I am also open to work with technologies not listed above.

Happy to give you my spin on this. I use Vue, but in personal projects I mix Vue and vanilla JS according to page complexity. On pages that need more state management and would benefit from orderly code (such as the Options API for Vue), I use Vue. For simpler, shallower functionality I use plain JS. I want to emphasize my callout of Vue's Options API, which provides for very nice and easy to read structure to the code. React and Vue's current Composition API, I feel, look like and encourage spaghetti code. But hey, people get better typescript coverage, I guess?

> 1. I see that the event interface specifies detail with `id` and `value` fields. What is the reason for using this? The underlying event already has a target, which will have the id and the value fields anyway. Are the widget's in this system so different that they have different id fields to the DOM elements?

This is something I rarely use in Vue anymore. I think back in the day, when Angular first emerged and pushed these sort of frameworks, there was a philosophy towards making components embed in code as if they were HTML native elements, and not needing to write JS around the event. If I remember correctly, providing a value field isn't asking it for the value of the event. It's specifying which value in memory should be set to the output of the event... But my memory is dodgy on that. It's confusing and I rarely see it used these days, but maybe that's reflective on the projects I've worked on.

> 2. There does not appear to be a field in the emitted event for the event sub-name (other than the custom name in the event structure itself). What if a component needs to emit something other than a "click" event? Ordinarily we'd get the event name from the event itself, so the handler knows whether it is being called on "focus", "click" "activate", etc. This information is lost with a custom event.

Can you expand on the usecase here? Ordinarily, at least in Vue, there's no need to know the name of the event currently being triggered. The component emits a "change" event (or whatever you call it) and the parent component, when setting up the child component, will specify some sort of 'on-change' attribute that listens for the 'change' event and says which function should be evoked as the callback to it. So basically, instead of having to write `document.getElementById('foo').on('change', respondToFoo)`, you simply write `on-change='respondtoFoo'` directly on the element in the HTML.

It's not the world's biggest win, but it does reduce the amount of code our eyes having sift through in reading the JS, and attaches the event details directly to the element(s) they relate to, which I've found to be more readable.

> 3. I'm still confused why you can't emit DOM elements; I mean, if you said "can't do two-way data binding" or something along the similar lines, it'd (maybe) make sense, but your response makes me think that you have not even considered it. I feel, maybe wrongly, that this library is both unnecessarily crippled and over-engineered - it targets spaghetti-as-a-pattern React, but not the hierarchical DOM?

You can, at least in Vue, but it's working against the grain. There's two reasons why:

1. Separation of presentation and state. These frameworks like to keep the HTML/DOM as simple presentation tools, and store logic and data separately. So when triggering events, we want to be emitting the important data as data, and not be concerned with the presentational layer from which that data may have originated.

2. Reusability of components. Emiting dom elements creates a more tightly coupled environment where there are a lot of expectations of the object being emitted (and little assurance as to what that object contains). By only exposing data and leaving the DOM element behind, it's easier for invoking components to use that data without having to hold expectations of the data structures being passed through.

Seems the opposite way round to me. We couldn't conclusively say that AGI is possible in principle until some physics (or rather biology) discovery explains how it would be possible. Until then, anything we engineer is an approximation as best.

A large part of it is that we maxed out a lot of how communication tech can impact daily life, at least in terms of communication, but economically and culturally got in the habit of looking for new and exciting improvements to daily life.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw a huge shift in communication. We went from snail mail to telegrams to radio to phones to television to internet on desktops to internet on every person wherever they are. Every 20-30 years some new tech made it easier, cheaper, and faster to get your message to an intended recipient. Each of these was a huge social shift in terms of interpersonal relationships, commerce, and diminishing cycle times, and we've grown to expect these booms and pivots.

But there isn't much of where to go past "can immediately send a message to anyone anywhere." It's effectively an endstate. We can no longer take existing communication services and innovate on them by merely offering that service using the new revolutionary tech. By tech sectors are still trying to recreate the past economic booms by pushing technologies that aren't as revolutionary or aren't as promising and hyping them up to get people thinking they're the next stage of the communication technology cycle.

I agree that the quality went down, but I think it might be part of their strategy.

I think when they first started, they tried the HBO strategy of putting big money into big shows that try to win over broad audiences. But over time shifted to focusing on low budget shows that appeal to specific, smaller audiences. Which makes sense, if your goal isn't to have 70% of the total market as paying users but rather 90% of the market as paying users.

My understanding is that this isn't Netflix's fault. They were king when they were the first major streaming service, and studios and networks were happy to get extra income from hosting their content on Netflix. But Netflix knew that any success it has would be mimicked by those same studios and networks, and that they would pull their own content to their own services as soon as they have them up and running, and so Netflix started making its own content in preparation for that day. And that bet paid off.