lolinder

16 ms·

211.
by lolinder 1y ago
Forks introduce chaos and are sometimes impossible. If WordPress had a different government structure from the beginning Matt would not be in power anymore, but because it's a dictator for life he's still there and the community h
212.
by lolinder 1y ago
I'm increasingly disaffected by the idea of BDFL-run projects. The concept is appealing—it's essentially Plato's philosopher king. The BDFL can unstick decision making and ensure the project moves forward without having to li
213.
by lolinder 1y ago
I'd have agreed with you a year ago, but the WordPress debacle shows that the BDFL concept really hangs on the "benevolent" part of the job description. If your BDFL goes rancid your only option is to fork, and hostile forks
214.
by lolinder 1y ago
> even though TS has its own share of problems with its 'kitchen sink type system' Eh, people critique the kitchen sink type system but at the end of the day that system is why TypeScript took over, not a weird add-on you hav
215.
by lolinder 1y ago
If you assign a value judgement to that statement that's on you, not me. I was just providing the missing context: why OP didn't need a frontend framework to meet their requirements.
216.
by lolinder 1y ago
You and a few others are missing the point, which means I probably failed to communicate super effectively. Counterexamples aren't really a thing here because my point isn't that you do or don't need a framework for any speci
217.
by lolinder 1y ago
Right, I agree with all of this. My point was always that requirements vary and it's pointless to talk about frameworks-vs-no-frameworks unless you're clear up front what your requirements are. In this particular site's case,
218.
by lolinder 1y ago
I could, but it would be a distraction because my entire point is that there are an enormous variety of apps with a large variety of requirements being deployed on the web. If I give examples that's going to turn into an argument over
219.
by lolinder 1y ago
You missed the "teams of 30+" part. I believe that a single individual who's dedicated to it can absolutely build a lot of cool stuff without frameworks, but there's a reason why large teams working on complex software t
220.
by lolinder 1y ago
This is spot on. Load times do not matter for the kinds of apps that: * Are exclusively loaded on high speed internet in corporate networks. * Have a high hours-of-work-per-page-load count. * Update infrequently. We're engineers, or
221.
by lolinder 1y ago
Ah, you're right, I forgot a category: The people who will shamelessly dismiss other people's work and assert that they could do it better no matter how much context you share. This group is particularly fond of leaving dismissive
222.
by lolinder 1y ago
It's not an attempt to belittle it at all, but as far as I know a news site and a blog have the same feature requirements—the main difference that I'm aware of is that a news site has more traffic and more articles and so may need
223.
by lolinder 1y ago
Agreed that it's a trade-off. In your case I probably would have made the same call. Again, though: that's why use cases matter. Web app/blog is only one dichotomy—the most common two types of web dev but far from the only.
224.
by lolinder 1y ago
And if you can point me to an example of that I will happily lampoon them. If we're talking about Medium, then yes, Medium is a complete disaster zone that should not be emulated anywhere. Their reader-facing use case does not require
225.
by lolinder 1y ago
I think that this comment is a great example of the total disconnect these conversations always have. On the one hand we have lots of people on here who are building full-featured web apps, not websites, on teams of 30+. These people look a
226.
by lolinder 1y ago
Definition 4a in Webster is "paramour", which is "an illicit or secret lover". It isn't the primary definition for sure, but in this context that's the vibe it gives off. https://www.merriam-webster.
227.
by lolinder 1y ago
Yeah, so I get why it was attempted. It's likely they didn't realize that "lover" carries with it a sense of a clandestine or illicit relationship, especially in the kind of saucy story this already is by default.
228.
by lolinder 1y ago
Technically they never married, which is why the original article uses a bunch of other phrases to describe their relationship, but agreed that the change from "partner" to "lover" makes the title needlessly provocative.
229.
by lolinder 1y ago
It was modified in the HN submission to replace "partner" with "lover", probably as an ill-conceived attempt to distinguish from him being just her business partner. It's a great example of why not to change titles,
230.
by lolinder 1y ago
If we're going to go with the seatbelt comparison then we'd have to flesh it out a bit: Your new car sounds an alarm non-stop if any seat belt in the car is unfastened, whether or not a seat is occupied and whether or not the car
231.
by lolinder 1y ago
I don't think any of the negativity is about whether MCP works. It's just about whether MCP is a horribly ill-planned design that could have been much better if they'd taken the time to learn from the 50 years of experience w
232.
by lolinder 1y ago
Exactly. "Response times will be higher" sounds very confusing as a way of saying we'll take less time to respond, right? So why should "response times will be lower" mean we'll take more time if the opposite c
233.
by lolinder 1y ago
Yes, this is a good explanation for the phenomenon! Thanks.
234.
by lolinder 1y ago
Sounds like you're the kind of person who will insist to Spanish speakers that a double negative is logically incoherent. Good luck with that approach to language!
235.
by lolinder 1y ago
No real human being would misunderstand because, as you note, time can't go slower. This is just an excuse for pedantry.
236.
by lolinder 1y ago
This case is about their search monopoly. There is another case pending about their ad monopoly. And also: breaking everything else off of the ad company is the obvious answer to the ad monopoly. Every other part of Google exists to feed it
237.
by lolinder 1y ago
DeepSeek is a perfectly knowledgeable English speaker in China.
238.
by lolinder 1y ago
So those portions of the business will stand up fine on their own. The consumer-facing side is anticompetitive, though.
239.
by lolinder 1y ago
I'm not sure where you got that I'm trying to impose anything on anyone—sounds like you latched onto a side note and decided to reply to what you thought the side note was implying instead of the substance of my comment? The argum
240.
by lolinder 1y ago
Maps/mail/drive/docs/flights/translate: provided for free using their dominance in ad tech to bankroll it and feeding the data back in to the ad platform. No one else can compete, and using dominance in one market t

More ›