HN user
I'm also a fan of maker! Good shout. Though, I will say, I tend to see "maker" and "creator" as pretty interchangeable. Right up until the point of saying "content maker". That...doesn't feel right.
If nothing else, this blog post certainly invites scrutiny over how much feelings affect what classifications feel comfortable.
I can certainly understand that, but I don't lend any specialness to anything I do, which may be why I don't consider any of it as needing to be differentiated for its craft. It's very useful to be specific when going in to specifics, but it seems very pedantic to be specific when I'm being general or broad. It might stem from just having so many different areas of interest. Feels braggadocios to keep chiming in with "I do that too", when I could just cover everything with "I create various types of content".
Though, I will admit that I never include cooking in that. Food, for some reason, has never felt, to me, like "content". Can't say I've ever interrogated why.
I'm with you. I would prefer to be known as a "content creator" rather than a "woodworker" or "game developer" or "illustrator" or "writer" or "musician". Especially because all of that work tends to overlap all of the time. It feels so limiting to be described by a singular part of what I do. And I'm neurotic enough to want a 'comprehensive' word, rather than to slash myself to death in a description.
I don't particularly like the term "content creator". It feels too blunt and sterile to be particularly useful. But it does seem to be generally useful in how wide-reachingly descriptive it is.
I'm also curious about this.
Sweet! I was just looking for something like this, this past weekend. Lots of command line stuff, but not much in the way of GUI apps. Excited to check this out! Thanks!
Hey, thanks for the follow up! That makes perfect sense to me. Personally, though, I was thinking more of a "competing service" than a "steal your content" kind of offering.
I know hosting an entire sign up process and user content is not something you can just build and forget about, so my thought was that a sufficiently decent website could bundle a package that could be hosted on existing organization infrastructure. A zip file of the user's content that they could upload to dropbox/drive/sharepoint/etc. Then the consumer page would match a url slug to a package file and serve the content that way.
It's... a lot of stuff for a quick workaround project. And it's a pathology of an engineer to make solutions where solutions aren't needed. So grain of salt on any of that. But I did want to clarify since you were willing to engage with the concept, as understood. Hopefully this proposition strikes you as less concerning/illegal! I never want to steal anyone's work or infrastructure. I just believe that better alternatives - even ones borne of seeing how badly other people are doing it - can and should win out, if people ever provide them.
Fantastic work! It's always nice to see the method, in case anything is out there making this stuff easier. But the result is the real prize. There's way too much nonsense out there that is an app when it should be a webpage. I'm so tired of all of these apps.
One criticism, though: I wish you would have made a simple form-based alternative to the app's population mechanism, rather than just make the one-off consumer for yourself(/those you shared with). Definitely way more work and not something you should have to do. But that would have been a cherry on top. Not only prevent needing the app for viewing, but also removing future incentive for an organization turning to an app like that in the first place.
This looks like something I've been looking for! Excited to give it a try! I don't even use a password manager because of the things you've seemed to work around here. It's been painful.
Honestly, though, I'm most intrigued by your P2P solution. I've built a couple of web apps as custom html elements that use indexedDB for storage and I've been trying to figure out the sweet spot for syncing the data between apps. I think this nostr relay hits the mark as something people can feel comfortable not self hosting, while power users can host their own solution. Seems like a great solution, to me! Any advice as to some footguns with the approach? I'm very interested in giving it a try myself[0], so any notes you think would prevent some re-work would be really appreciated!
[0] as a public domain/oss-licensed module, if there's a reasonable method of packaging it as a standalone library
The more I see of social media, the more I'm convinced that it's not really a fulfilling way to share and socialize on the internet. I've come to believe that anything that can platform every voice on the planet forces noise to drown out signal.
Since you've actually started a social media site, I wonder if you have any insight on that? You say you believe in this project; what is it that you think is valuable about letting everyone talk to everyone, as opposed to exclusive and curated spaces for people that semi-self-select based on community interests and values, like forums? Separately, why do you think that removing organizations/brands and psuedo users is going to be the crux of the solution?
Honestly looking to have my mind changed. But mostly just curious.
Thanks! Yeah, I kind of figured that was still the case. Not really any use cases I have that I would feel comfortable with that paradigm, but I'm glad it's available!
I remember having a goal of eventually publishing on a Nintendo and/or PlayStation console, when I first got in to game dev. Now they've both gotten so far away from gaming as I knew it that I would be embarrassed to publish on either company's consoles.
Now my focus is to be able to publish high quality games that run well on those anbernic/miyoo/ayn-style handheld devices. Those things are actually priced for consumers and the ones that have card slots provide a method for physical media. And of course, using those as a floor, the games could always upscale for more powerful machines.
I'm just so tired of this continual march toward investor appeasement at the expense of the consumers. They're games. They're entertainment. For people to play. Not how I want them to play them; how people want to play them. People shouldn't have to have an account to play them. They shouldn't have to invest a month of rent to play them. They shouldn't have to worry about me revoking their ability to play them. It's just so frustrating to see how far we've gotten from "drop in a quarter and enjoy". The industry is in sad shape and getting sadder by the day.
I'll add to the "is it still...?" questions.
Last I was told about it, there was no way to delete stuff from IPFS. Nothing enforceable, at least. Setting aside that public stuff is "impossible" to delete on the internet, there's something appealing to me about being able to shut off my server. Feels like that is less possible with IPFS hosted content.
Does anyone have some perspective for me about removing content?
Fair point, but I see that as kind of a simplification? It's a perspective, rather than a refutation, but I see any argument about how you made someone feel as either a mistake or an argument about something else.
No perfectly logical actor would ever argue with how someone is feeling. It's impossible for a second party to know or rationalize, and the person with the direct evidence is giving you their best representation of the feelings. To argue that someone doesn't feel what they say they feel is tantamount to ignoring direct evidence which negates any practical value of the argument. It's this not worth having.
On the other hand, if what you are actually trying to argue is whether they are being truthful, or reasonable about their feelings, those are arguments that do have a practical result of deciding something or understanding something better. The more you dig in to why people are feeling the way they are feeling, the more you can reckon with what that means for whatever the disagreement is. Of course, it cuts both ways; if someone telling you that they feel a certain way makes you feel a certain way, it's only reasonable to interrogate why you are feeling that way about it. But then, that gets further toward the most salient part: most of the time when it comes to feelings, an argument is the wrong tool for resolving disagreement. In my experience, open ended discussion that focuses on each individuals' feelings without consideration for correctness is more productive than any sort of confrontational method like an argument.
This feels like a very immature understanding of argument. The entire framing is wrong, even if it's both understandable and a very widely held viewpoint.
I credit my mom for teaching me very early on that the POINT of argument is to come to a decision or understanding, not to determine right or wrong or assign any credit or blame. She was insatiable in running down every technicality. I learned to ask her, "okay, so how does that help with what we're doing?", which she usually had no answer to. That might sound antagonistic, but it was really just a personality thing. She would say, just as matter-of-factly, that it didn't help, it just was true. She has no malice, and no intention of "being right". She just couldn't help but be pedantic. Something about the way her mind works. Luckily, she's working as a quality control supervisor for a warehouse, where the details are essential. Nice when things can work out like that.
The point crystallized for me when I met one of the best developers I've ever known. He would calmly and firmly insist on his absolute correctness until you were blue in the face. But the second you gave him even a hint that he could be wrong, he would run down your point to its conclusions and then adjust his stance without ever changing disposition. You were wrong without question until you gave him any reason to believe you weren't. At that point, he validated his argument against your new information and changed his position without any equivocation or excuses. Just "oh, okay, you mean this? Now I see what you mean. Yes, you're right, that will work.". Sometimes he would laugh at himself for not getting it, and he would always be upfront about being wrong if you insisted he acknowledge it. But he didn't offer up any humility because now we had an answer and could move forward. No reason to dwell on the wrong stuff. It's still my favorite working relationship. I get so tired of the effusive repiping of the whole argument to assign right and wrong that is so common in corporate spaces. Feels like such a waste of time, once you've experienced true absence of ego. I still think of him as a kind of compiler. Provide exactly the right info and get what you want. Provide the wrong info and there will be no way to move forward until that is reconciled. As a dev, it's a breath of fresh air from humans who are often so far from strict logic.
No, I'm not going to cite you examples. The hypocrisy is evident in the Arkansas voting rights flip flop from last session to this one. The chevron ruling is as Republican as it gets. I don't care anything about your rationalizations and I'm not here to debate the minutia of the most destructive bench in my lifetime. Roe v Wade was not an abortion issue, it was a fourth amendment issue and they absolutely botched it. Sell your bullshit elsewhere.
Very relieved to admit I was wrong about this verdict and even happier I didn't put money on it, but it doesn't undo the damage they have already done and I don't have any tolerance for faux centrism that equivocates about the pure nonsense being legitimized by our current judicial slate.
It's disturbing that the statistic you cite does give me hope (if true). But if I had an account, I'd still put $50 against it. I'm cynical enough to at least entertain the possibility that these corrupt dickheads have let the market get that lopsided as a way to cash in on top of their odious ruling (by way of bribes after they make other people richer).
Yep. And this hypocritical bench has had a pattern of ruling sensibly on minor issues like this just before ruling with torturous rationalizations to strip rights from people on larger issues. Feels like there's about to be some pure bullshit spewing from the right flank of this illegitimate court. I'd dearly love to be wrong about this, but I'm not holding out hope. Until alito and thomas are impeached for unconstitutional rulings and bribery, there's nothing worth hoping for.
Hey, thanks!
In college, I wanted to test my resolve for addiction, so I started smoking a pack a day for six months. The idea was to see how hard it is to quit so that I could better understand what people go through. Never took, though. Every cigarette was gross to me from the first one down to my last day. I threw away the box on the last day and never had a single moment where I wanted another one.
Instead of learning about addiction, it taught me a ton about socializing. Sharing a cigarette with a romantic interest is such a low friction way to be able to keep close enough to have a conversation, and subtly reinforce intimacy. And after I quit, I would bring a pack to any party I went to and not tell anybody until someone was asking. There was a double whammy of providing one for a stranger, and saving a friend from having to donate one.
By the end of the night, when everybody was either trying to bum one or find someone sober enough to make a run to the gas station, my reputation for both having cigarettes and not smoking made me pretty popular. It was also really nice that when people praised me for it (mildly; "that's really cool of you, man") my stock response was "yeah, no worries. I know how great it would be if someone had a Dr pepper for me when I was dry", which made a lot of people offer me my favorite soda all the time.
I still can't stand smoking, and have only had a dozen or so in the decade since then, strictly for ingratiating myself to people. But there is nothing out there like cigarettes for socializing. I'm with a lot of other commenters here in wondering how much we've lost by stigmatizing it without ever reconciling with the (trivial, in comparison) benefits.
Maybe try reading the article to are the land sizes they are targeting for this installation.
Then check out the reason they are building these data centers: speculation for a hypothetical future where people can't afford compute hardware (due to this speculation) so they subscribe to a compute hub in their neighborhood, so that all compute is subscription based instead of owned.
I got the libertarianism (or what modern morons claim is libertarianism as cover for their hyper capitalist oligarchy) from the arguments you made, not from the things you claim. Same way it's diagnosed for anyone.
All I got out of any of your comments is 'my psuedo-libertarian disposition has rotted my brain past the ability to understand why the problems with megastructure ghost towns are obvious to and unliked by normal people'
so what makes you think that you aren't responding to a bot intending to sway your opinion by giving a shape to your preconceived notions so that your position crystallizes further, right now?
Wild to see people pretend like this isn't true while we're still in the middle of seeing how badly this shit has already fucked up hardware prices.
in b4 the 'apples and oranges' cope
you nailed it! I tried it on a different machine, just to be sure, and it worked without a problem. So then I did a full restart on the mint machine and I got a whole new error that was talking about missing files. So I uninstalled deno and reinstalled it, and it worked exactly like it did on the other machine.
I actually started this after another user said they couldn't reproduce the issue, but you figured it out before I finished reporting back.
Thanks for straightening me out on this! As I said a few days ago on the Deno Desktop HN Topic, I'm looking forward to this newest version!
here's a dump of the console:
```
catapart@snake:~/Development/magnitce-code-example$ deno install
Warning The following packages are deprecated:
┖─ npm:boolean@3.2.0 (Package no longer supported. Contact Support at https://www.npmjs.com/support for more info.)
catapart@snake:~/Development/magnitce-code-example$ deno task dev
Task dev vite
You are using Node.js 20.11.1. Vite requires Node.js version 20.19+ or 22.12+. Please upgrade your Node.js version. error: Uncaught (in promise) SyntaxError: The requested module 'node:util' does not provide an export named 'parseEnv' at file:///home/catapart/Development/magnitce-code-example/node_modules/.deno/vite@8.1.0/node_modules/vite/dist/node/chunks/node.js:11:46
at async CAC.<anonymous> (file:///home/catapart/Development/magnitce-code-example/node_modules/.deno/vite@8.1.0/node_modules/vite/dist/node/cli.js:706:27)
also: I'm using Linux Mint, if it matters.
unfortunately, while the project is in the public domain, it's pre-alpha so I haven't made the repo public yet.
but the project is structured the same as another public domain project I've built, and I just checked to make sure it has the same issue. I've gone ahead and made that project public so you can give it a try[0].
but, just to be clear, I don't think the message is wrong? The Node version on this machine is out of date. And when comparing the deno.lock file to the bun.lock file, I can see that the deno.lock has a slightly newer version (8.1 vs 8.0) of vite. So I think the message could be correct and is just telling me to update my version of Node, which is perfectly reasonable. It's just the discrepancy between not needing the newer version of vite/node on bun while invoking an error using deno. Feels like I should have either gotten perfectly matching versions, or error messages (with commands) to update node.
in any case, if you're still interested in seeing the error yourself, my steps were: 1. clone the repo 2. run deno install 3. run deno task dev
EDIT: This was my fault. My machine did not take the update well and I did not confirm that the update worked before complaining about it (burned once before, so I was biased). After testing on a secondary machine and then forcing the upgrade on the initial machine, both machines ran both projects just fine. Great job by the devs! Sorry for the misinformation here.
Original message: --------------------------------
I just tried to migrate using their `deno install` -> `deno task dev` instructions, and I got an error about vite needing a newer version of Node.
I'm not pathologizing deno, and I have (and will continue to) consistently tried to migrate my projects to deno, first from npm, then from pnpm, and now from bun. But every single time I've tried, there has been some kind of stupid "edge case", "simple fix" issue like this that stops me in my tracks. It's not a huge deal, but the simple fact is, when I run the project using bun, it runs. When I try it using deno, it doesn't. That has been a consistent pattern every single time I've tried. Last time, deno blew up because it wasn't able to work out the IndexedDB api calls I was using without some kind of bridge/shim/environment config. These are terribly minor issues, but it's the lack of care for the details that really sours me on this stuff.
Obviously, deno should have used the version of vite that bun did which would have worked with the version of node on this machine. But even barring that, they could have dropped a little note around the instructions that says "if some packages need updates, you can run X command to do that". Even that would have allowed me to just move on, instead of forcing me to query the solution and hope for the best. Like I said, none of this is damning. It's just the exact kind of friction that prevents immediate adoption. At least for me.
Awesome! Looking forward to trying this out.
tough ask, but since we're here: has anyone done this with 16GB of VRAM? I've been getting projects finished with LM Studio, but it definitely could stand to be more efficient. lots of time wasted with trying to get models to understand a problem with so few tokens.
What was smart asssed, or rude, about it? That's what those games are called. GoldenEye was multiplayer. Halo 2 was online multiplayer. If you were asking what to call a game that has P2P multiplayer support using webrtc and therefore only supported countable concurrent players, my honest thought would be to call it an online multiplayer game and forget about the "massive" part because it's just not relevant. Even though it is meant to mimic the gameplay of games that happen to be MMOs doesn't mean it needs to adopt the moniker. Final fantasy 12 mimicked the gameplay of MMOs, but it's just a "single player game".
On the contrary, if you're trying to convey to a mass audience that what you have built resembles something else, the best strategy is to reference that thing by its most familiar name.
Sorry if I came off as petty. Was just trying to answer honestly, and realized I didn't have the right context.