Semiapies

I believe it's a response to something posted recently, but I don't know what.

Which was naturally used to train the models.

If you're routing like it's 1999, sure, 404.

On the other hand, if it's a CRUD app and you're filtering a list of entities by various field values? Returning that no items matched your selection (or an empty list, if an API) makes more sense than a 404, which would more appropriate for an attempt to pull up a nonexistent entity URI.

I'm maybe less pessimistic, but I expect in the next decade or two, I'm going to spend a lot of time fixing apps that people who were moderately technical vibe-coded years before. They seemed to work well enough until they didn't, and at some point, they became central to the business.

MS Access and so many more "you won't need a programmer again" dev tools over the decades blazed the trail.

Sometimes when I log into Hacker News, more than half of the posts are about AI.

And I don't ever see it under a fifth, anymore. There is a Hell of a marketing push going on, and it's genuinely hard to tell the difference between the AI true believers and the marketing bots.

It's not a "reminder" for people who've never been to the site before. Especially not when the icon isn't even visible on some devices, like my phone in portrait.

It's at least a factor in why I value HN commentary so much less than I used to.

My having to prune my subscriptions says otherwise.

And they're always desperately insisting that won't go away and you can't escape it. It stinks a lot of Big Lie techniques.

Illusion. Mirage.

Also, I want it to do everything that this really cool house I saw does. But, I only want to pay for a day or two of labor in order to accomplish every feature that massive contruction project had, plus this one key feature that that house didn't have.

What? You can't do that? My husband/ son/ nephew/ gardener knows how to draw with pencils, I can have them do it if you won't see reason!

On the one hand, I think everyone should try to put together a simple website with a few pages in raw HTML, just to get an idea of how it works. And actual, semantic HTML is not terrible in this day and age, much better than it used to be. You don't have to learn a static generator to put up a website, because you're the static generator.

On the other hand, I've written a lot of HTML since the 90s. And there's a dirty secret behind why so many static generators exist--the effort of slapping together something that builds a site how you want it is similar to learning an existing system. Often, that's a short build script rather than some expansive framework.

But let’s substi­tute a different phrase: “learn to cook”. People don’t only learn to cook so they can become chefs. Some do! But many more people learn to cook so they can eat better, or more affordably. Because they want to carry on a tradition. Sometimes they learn because they’re bored! Or even because they enjoy spending time with the person who’s teaching them.

This is actually why I think more people should learn some coding (and why there should be more HyperCard-like environments for non-professionals). It makes the computer or phone a tool to do the things they want, not just what some programmer in SF wanted to write and try to market.

Looking forward to a brief rush of editorial cartoon-level works doing absolutely nothing not already covered by parody or fair use. Maybe a bad horror or porn movie.

Then nothing, just like happened with Winnie the Pooh.

I still support a few sites and continue to update one large app written in it.

If you take it as "life on land", it's accurate on both counts. Those are some old mountains.

Also the royal "we".

Really, book covers were getting terrible by the late 90s and early Aughts. I remember the especially cringeworthy period where a few female Asian-American writers got semi-autobiographical books out, and the publishers slapped vaguely arty photos of bowls of rice on them.

I think the fading, if I paused to think about anything, would make me lose track of what I'd already written.

Really, I always assumed that of a lot of their articles.

I wouldn't feel bad about anecdote in this case. All the online descriptions of the performance, including this Wikipedia article, rely solely on the artist's narrative of the events.

Probably safest to avoid people raining hate in them for any perceived falling.

I've had good results with wsl2. The only thing that frustrates me is magit performance on a big project with literally twenty years of commits. (It was originally an SVN repo.)

Even this has some culturally confusing elements, doesn't it?

It's never not going to.

Not universally, no. The closest for English-language use is to put a spurious comma between family and given name (e.g., "Cixin, Liu" for Cixin Liu).

In an ebook management system I've been developing, I use a full_name and a sort_name field for authors/editors/contributors, because books are a reasonable thing to want to sort by author names.

Fewer neo-Nazis, though.

This sort of delusion/pretense isn't a good sign.

"Retro-future" is a common term for it, at least in certain blogs and forums.

How do things make it to the front page with just eight votes?

It would have perfect search engine anti-optimization.