jkaplan

9 ms·

1.
by jkaplan 11mo ago
Right, because an internet designed by profit motive is going great
2.
by jkaplan 3y ago
1. Microsoft was heavily involved in orchestrating the 95% of employees to side with Sam -- through promising them money/jobs and through PR/narrative 2. The profit incentives apply to employees too Bigger picture, I don't th
3.
by jkaplan 3y ago
> was it just Helen Toner’s personal vendetta against Sam I'm not defending the board's actions, but if anything, it sounds like it may have been the reverse? [1] > In the email, Mr. Altman said that he had reprimanded Ms. T
4.
by jkaplan 3y ago
I feel like the "safety" crowd lost the PR battle, in part, because of framing it as "safety" and over-emphasizing on existential risk. Like you say, not that many people truly take that seriously right now. But even if
5.
by jkaplan 3y ago
I think the surprising thing is seeing such cohesion around a “goal to ship” when that is very explicitly NOT the stated priorities of the company in its charter or messaging or status as a non-profit.
6.
by jkaplan 3y ago
Probably some combination of: 1. Pressure from Microsoft and their e-team 2. Not actually caring about those stakes 3. A culture of putting growth/money above all
7.
by jkaplan 4y ago
That’s a fair point. I guess there are contexts where pseudonymity can be useful and enable types of interactions that otherwise might not be possible. Especially in online contexts where you’re interacting with people you don’t know anyway
8.
by jkaplan 4y ago
Oh for sure! I’m not saying using real names automatically creates real relationships and trust, just that it helps. I just generally want to see the internet moving toward deeper, more meaningful interactions, which, like you say, is a big
9.
by jkaplan 4y ago
It’s interesting to see all these ideas built around the idea that “more anonymity is better.” I think the opposite is usually (not always) true, and that many of the issues we see in today’s internet stem from the fact that we have complet
10.
by jkaplan 5y ago
This comparison feels like it's less about Node vs Rails and more just about "batteries-included framework" vs not. (Although, perhaps there isn't really a Django/Rails equivalent in Node yet? I'm not definitiv
11.
by jkaplan 5y ago
The sophons are here
12.
by jkaplan 5y ago
Even completely leaving aside the language/software diversity, the point is that the vast majority of web "frontends" are really just one thing (rendering the UI and responding to inputs) whereas web "backends" are
13.
by jkaplan 5y ago
Check out Amplify! I've heard good things and my limited experience is good so far. (Although running locally isn't the best, unfortunately... but that's always going to be an issue the more you lean on a cloud services.) Dep
14.
by jkaplan 5y ago
1. I'm not sure about this premise: "leader of the production-ready frontend-as-a-service space." They def seem like a good fit for some frontends -- but they're certainly not a good fit for ALL frontends generally. (For
15.
by jkaplan 5y ago
> That does not mean there isn't a general underlying "cognitive ability" factor. Careful. "g" is a statistical regularity, not proof of a generalized "underlying cognitive ability." From the same Wikip
16.
by jkaplan 5y ago
Maybe this is outside the scope, but one thing I’m really curious about —- what about the radiation!? I’m guessing the payload could be sufficiently shielded and/or would just outrun it. But would there be any eventual issues with blas
17.
by jkaplan 5y ago
Ah yes. We did end up using extraReducers, but didn’t love that the thunks and their corresponding reducers had to live in separate parts of the file. (For me at least, mentally simpler to have an action and it’s reducer close together.) Th
18.
by jkaplan 5y ago
Can someone elaborate on the privacy concerns (e.g. with Amazon "becoming a pseudo-ISP")? It seems like most (if not all) of the network use would be Amazon devices anyway, which is data they already have. Additionally, as far as
19.
by jkaplan 5y ago
High-level, we wanted to minimize the need to "jump around" to multiple files or multiple places in a file to make a single change to an action (and also just minimizing the amount of boilerplate generally). If I'm rememberin
20.
by jkaplan 5y ago
There are for sure lots of bad ways to use React, and lots of bad React developers. I actually had a very poor experience with React my first project using it. But that's true for any framework (or lack thereof.) It's definitely p
21.
by jkaplan 5y ago
Nope (if only!)
22.
by jkaplan 5y ago
I'd encourage you to give React a try for this use-case! I've done this exact thing -- slowly introducing React in certain places in a large web app -- and it's worked great. You're right that tooling/tutorials are
23.
by jkaplan 5y ago
I agree with a lot of these points, but differ slightly in two regards: 1. In my experience React DOES lure people into the "pit of success" in at least one important aspect -- modular and re-usable front-end code. React is certai