RobertKerans

"Ruby" is the name of the size of the type

Apropos of nothing, but a few Christmasses ago the place I worked had a dedicated fibre line that some workmen doing gas line repairs sawed straight through, took out everything; I was just drone worker at the time & it was a beautiful thing

afaik there's nothing tying it specifically to GH (where the metatada is), and then the actual code is just in an S3 bucket, so in theory should be reasonably easy [ha!] to just host anywhere. In theory, I mean that's a massive lump of stuff, and surely wherever it gets hosted is going to face exactly the same issues (though if it does become very widely used, then you'd think every major provider that controls infra could easily have a mirror)

Ah, back to normal now. Getting intermittent flickers on some of our apps but all seems solid-ish again

Yep, S3 possibly the villain here

Assuming crates.io is AWS-backed? Getting fun situation where direct dependencies of an application are downloading but then the sub-dependencies aren't.

It's more analogous to an alternative history where the Ruby framework most people used was Rack [directly], not anything built on top of it (ie Rails).

Yes, that seems to be true (and is that % you've guessed maybe too low? Maybe far too low?). Even with that though, it's extraordinarily fine margins -- w/r/t the businesses that I mentioned, the majority of the income comes from those value-adds, if they weren't there it would generally be difficult for the businesses to survive financially. That's where I was coming from.

To me, Spotify seems to be using podcasts in a similar way. I assume it's because the central business model is unsustainable when combined with investor pressure; they can't just focus on core product because they're burning too much of other people's money in an attempt to outcompete everyone else

Well...yes, not necessarily fundamental, but it's the same class of problem cinemas and restaurants have (to pick two). What do cinemas mainly make money from? What do restaurants mainly make money from?

& Rust is surely a highly imperative language that has absorbed functional idioms (where appropriate), rather than something that falls under the banner of "functional language"?

You're likely literally doing the same thing with Webpack. There is only one complete implementation of the TS compiler in existence, so you have to use that to typecheck, it doesn't matter what bundler tool is used. If you need the type definitions as part of the output (eg you are distributing a library), then you have to involve the compiler to construct the output definition files, but for the code itself, it doesn't really matter because you're just generating JS. The TS compiler is very slow (and in any case is not designed to produce code bundles - it just dumbly translates all the TS to JS), so the standard way to speed this up is to use a module bundling tool that ignores the types and compiles the code as JS, and have the TS compiler set to not emit any files itself.

Nothing in the above precludes using the compiler to typecheck the code, that's the primary usecase & what sibling is saying about thinking of it as a linter: if typechecking fails, don't build

It's not the same thing though, SWC is a different category of tool.

Edit: though I guess if you include the sibling project swcpack, it covers the same ground. SWC itself doesn't though.

Aye very similar at my last job -- got asked a month before that if I was happy, then got given a task with a slightly weird vibe about it that noone except the CTO (also my direct manager and the HR, was small company...) seemed to know I was doing. Same amount of time for me as well, 9 months. My output wasn't great either (I'd made an error taking the job, ignoring a series of red flags the CTO was waving in front of me in favour of getting experience with a specific tech stack, which was stupid, and I p much hated my life by that point). Place had done random firings before though (designer and a business support were in one day, gone the next), so not surprised, but hey ho.

Ah, sorry, I misread that. GP has fair points though, whole situation in the UK is crazy, infects everything, it's an arms race

Two (import + require, which, as import didn't exist, was necessary). Most current tooling is built to handle both (Deno draws a line under it by disallowing the older one)

Practically, number of browsers + 2 (Node and Deno, and Deno is stretching the definition of practical at this early stage).

Edit: + Electron + the JS runtime used for Windows ecosystem based on Chakra (not sure if that's still alive though?) + a few other similar ones in that vein for desktop or mobile OS'.

+ whatever is available for embedded & similar devices, (I guess there will be a few but I know little about that area).

+ various [highly] specialised business/academic/hobby/PoC/etc runtimes, but they're not realistically things that many people care about.

Being valued at £2M doesn't mean you could sell all of them for that price or that the people living in them paid £2M for them

But in London these houses do sell, normally very quickly (and bullshit apartments in shiny new blocks that are in same price bracket I guess same, generally they do seem to sell, but I assume that's just parking money for tax purposes so not quite same thing).

Caveat that this is second hand info based entirely on GameFromScratch (I've avoided playing with it because of his updates) -- he's recorded a new review on afaics every recent Lumberyard release, and currently seems answer is "yes, ish, the actual engine seems reasonable, but the process of actually getting that engine up and running is staggeringly bad, albeit 100× better than it was six months ago"

Of course it is, but neither parent nor anyone else is saying anything close to the mistake being effective documentation. There's a single missing word which needs to be added in, but the overall text is clearly writing to a target audience. You are aware of this, and of how small the mistake is, and you understand what the sentence should read as, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Yeah, I think there's a fundamental problem with the implementation -- with small, single-file programs where the code can be written in a chronologically linear manner it works well. But with that there's no need for reordering logic, so much of the more complex parts of weaving are redundant. Scripts, for example, are pretty easy to set up as [for example] markdown files, which works great (particularly in a project that requires a set of helper scripts which need why communicated -- having a set of markdown files in a folder makes it IME much more ergonomic for other devs). Anything larger and it gets increasingly fiddly and (again IME) not worth it.

I'd posit that there's a general principle underpinning this that is true for most things (not games, or art, but everything).

This is a bit half-formed in my head, but: Computer tech makes certain important classes of things cheaper and more convenient to create. Sometimes it makes those things feasible in the first place. But it's always via enabling of cheap duplication of an existing process.

As tech evolves in power, it can do more. The high-speed duplicative properties of computers are the thing that makes them useful. For them them to be generally useful [and critically, financially useful], crafted, stylised, personal aspects are stripped out. So much does not work as well or look as good or is as interesting as things from the previous evolution that were built or provided or staffed by knowledgable, skilled practitioners. But given that skilled practitioners are finite, on average what comes out is better in some useful aspects than most of the efforts of the previous evolution. And on average it's easier to produce/manage/handle at scale. So pick anything: Amazon, Uber, Google search, medical records, 3D games, etc etc, ad infinitum. Almost anything you can use computer tech for.

What's being talked about in the comments: it's not generalisable, so it gets chucked. It's too hard to do, so sand off the sharp edges, cut anything that can't be reduced to an algorithm, package the inferior but much more convenient version that can scale

(I assume there is some body of thought with literature relating to this process that I should dig into, but I think people like Walter Benjamin and Milan Kundera have probably described it much better than I can w/r/t art [or maybe Ruskin or Morris, though their idea are all maybe a bit idealistic] this destruction of the personal to the service of the machine)

Always been that way, always will be I guess. Someone happens on a set of very specific behaviours they use to fix some aspect of their behaviour/health/etc. Sometimes delusional, sometimes not, sometimes fake, sometimes not. Normally taps into something that seems "common sense". They or someone else sells it as a more general fix. Rinse and repeat. Just taps into a human need to find simple solutions? Diets, self-help, temperance, etc etc etc. Sometimes descends into cult-like behaviour, sometimes goes other way -- origins get lost, edges get sanded off, become folk wisdom

Yes you are right, and it is this:

Simple/complex refers to a system or problem, while easy/hard refers to the difficulty of controlling the system or solving the problem.

I do think the distinction is important. I did realise as soon as I'd typed the last comment that it was just people talking past each other -- apologies to others in the thread, I should have edited. But what I mean: with specific exceptions (genetic, psychological, physical) normally both the process and the solution is simple, because of the energy model. Eat less, eat sensibly, exercise very regularly, and the majority of people will see positive results. That's simple, not quite trivially so, but almost. Actually doing that is not, however, easy for the majority of people.

A better example I think is: I smoke. This is clearly not good for a number of reasons. The solution, and the process to get to that solution is comically simple: I just stop. But yet it is hard.

Meaning seems correct afaics? In particular any commenters who build software or engineer products should recognise this, making simple things is often very hard.

This is the critical point, most sibling comments are conflating the two [when in fact they are completely different]

It's not a consequence of that, what you're describing is a consequence of poor justification algorithms + no manual justification. For books, generally want block justified text without rivers, that's why you need a good tweakable algorithm, which is what GP is complaining about. Lack of that makes it problematic for use in professional publishing work

Even with very good justification tools (InDesign's being the obvious example, as it's a direct competitor) a professional end result still requires a lot of manual work -- adjusting tracking and kerning, actually editing the text. But without that solid basis it's entirely slow manual work.

I'm slightly leery of that. But to be fair to the markets here, gov policy + protracted negotiations + lack of concrete information + conflicting guidelines surely made it impossible for a market to actually function properly.

(to be fair to the gov, not sure how they could have operated differently without advising everything the remain side was warning against. Which would have worked I guess, but would have also been bizarre and probably tanked the economy [more])

So based in that, how can it efficiently allocate resources? Given time, sure, maybe in theory. Which is great unless you're a. a business that has actual costs now or b. a real person that needs to eat and pay rent now.

With above in mind, I don't think it's about resilience. Maybe that ultra-simplified answer works! But it seems a pat free market 101 answer -- ignore the context, market will fix it.

[UK specifically] not seems, it has gone back to normal (as in pre-pandemic).

Yeah, fair as does depend on country (and region)

sorry, it just seemed a bizarre thing to comment on: yes the sales may have been higher, and anecdotally you may have seen longer pickup lines (at what times?), but you gotta understand why it reads as a joke, because regardless of above, in-person business is almost universally likely to have been lower, restricted to pickups clustered at specific times