HN user
Berlin based fullstack engineer. Former cofounder of weview.com (Techstars SAP.io 2018)
I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. Bazel has a very steep learning curve and is pretty much overkill for most medium-sized teams. Grog already powers all of our internal mono-repo CI and is a lot more fun to work with.
And? There's endless high quality content on YouTube.
I think that there is a huge leap between using the Kurds to do your fighting (like in Syria) and what he claims if you look at the map that he pulls up in that section.
He makes quite a few quite controversial assertions without evidence or even bothering to explain them. At the top of my head and paraphrasing:
- "The conflict is a game of chicken." Only in the vaguest sense in which any war or confrontation could be called that.
- "The USA is not equipped to handle a war against drones and fanatics". Idk they seem more capable than any other nation save Ukraine given that those two things have been a major feature of their recent wars.
- "Countries that are poor have more energy and are more cohesive". This is just demonstrably false, but he does not bother to explain why he thinks this.
- "The US wants to break Iran into ethno-states that compete for water until they are all dead." He even admits that this is pure conjecture and hand-waves this as the game-theoretic "optimal" strategy which is completely bonkers.
I do share his negative sentiment and outlook about the war, but there are way better critics that don't resort to this type of intellectual laziness.
I think we should hold people to a higher standard especially when they talk with this much confidence and present themselves as a professor. The issue is that "Game Theory" is a technical term so there really only is an "Academic" sense otherwise it's just a marketing term for whatever ideas you want to push.
While I agree with some of his sentiments the entire video reeks of half-baked conspiratorial thinking and shallow engagement with the facts.
A quick tell is that the video's title includes "Game Theory", while only referencing game-theoretical concepts twice in an off-hand comment. In both instances the usage is plainly wrong.
In general, he loves making big assertions without backing them up with evidence or explanations that go beyond hand-wavy examples.
Sops can natively handle .env files. All you need to apply them to your process is a small wrapper script that sources the decrypted file before invoking your command.
We just recently adopted this and it's crazy to me how I spent years just copying around gitignored .env files and sharing 1password links. Highly underrated tool.
I think you can come to a balanced view here where you acknowledge that Feynman was overhyped posthumously while maintaining that he was an exceptional physicist with some personal flaws. That's precisely the point of the video.
It's less axe grinding and more counter-acting an inaccurate narrative.
I'd recommend that you watch the entire video, because the point is that he did not even write any of those books.
The video points out that the legacy not the man is a sham.
Not entirely without reason though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc
This is a point well taken, but it also instills a certain incuriosity about expert opinions which is on display in this article.
In fact you can find a question to this very answer with a quick search: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nfz67t/comm...
Experts are also not a monolithic block. Within architecture and arts you can find many people who agree with your aesthetic preferences.
It is like claiming that there is a "curly-braced" orthodoxy in programming when you just haven't engaged deep with modern varieties.
Even worse so: Why does he not simply ask these people? What is it with this trend of sneering at expert decisions without even doing the bare minimum of engaging with them?
I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. A mono-repo build tool where all you do is provide your build commands and interdependencies and the Grog will run everything in parallel with aggressive caching.
Came here to post the same resource and to point out that based on it it rarely was a "two person's job" only.
I good a few good laughs out of this post, but I still hope it's just elaborate trolling.
I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. A mono-repo build tool where all you do is provide your build commands and interdependencies and the Grog will run everything in parallel while caching as much as possible.
I fully agree. I was also thinking about docker or symlinks, but it seemed hard to design the API without any actual user feedback. Pants environments [0] look interesting.
Very cool that you are also recognizing this issue and working on it. I sent you an email in case you want to exchange further.
[0] https://www.pantsbuild.org/stable/docs/introduction/welcome-...
There is a space between the two types of repositories you are describing. One where you just have enough tools/langs that a single-language setup does not cut it for you anymore, but investing all that effort into Bazel does not seem worth it yet. That is the gap that Grog is meant to fill.
The point about trying to stick with a single language build tooling really cannot be stressed enough. It is what prompted me to write a simplified version of Bazel, a generic "target determinator" with caching capabilities if you will. I call it "Grog", the monorepo build tool for the grug-brained developer.
If you are a small to mid-sized team, moving to Bazel is massively painful and basically requires up to one full-time position to provide your team with a good experience.
Grog on the other hand let's you keep your existing build setup while just parallelizing and caching it. It's not a full replacement, but it's more than enough for most mid-sized teams that want to have fast mono-repo builds.
I am working on Grog, the “grug-brained” alternative to Bazel. A mono-repo build tool where all you do is provide your build commands and interdependencies and the tool will run everything in parallel while caching as much as possible.
[2] The OP's OurWorldInData graph screenshot says beef emissions are 60, but the actual page says 99. Same chart. I don't understand. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-cha... I used 60 in the calculation above.
The chart I used does not include losses in the supply chain. The difference between both charts is further explained here: https://ourworldindata.org/faqs-environmental-impacts-food
2. It might not get close to real meat in taste and texture
That's not in the article, I think.
This was disappointing because I was expecting an analysis of the greenhouse gas contribution of lab grown meat. I didn't see anything (long article with lots of charts, I could have missed it). This is the key issue to me, will lab grown meat significantly help. I am fine with some meat substitutes, I want healthy and tastes good, lots of veg food is like that without trying to be meat.
I also would love to have this analysis, however, the data simply does not exist yet which adds to the uncertainty. I would also argue that the outlook on the techno-economic aspects is more pessimistic than what you put in 1. To quote the relevant section:
It doesn’t scale. One of the chief proponents of lab-grown meat, the Good Food Institute (GFI), commissioned a techno-economic analysis (TEA) to project what the production of cell-cultivated meat in 2030 might look like. They imagine a facility that would use huge bioreactors to produce 10,000 metric tons of meat per year at an upfront capital cost of $450 million. 10,000 metric tons might sound like a lot until you learn that it would only amount to 0.002% of meat production in the US. Further, due to the high capital expenditure, investors would have to lock themself into 30-year repayment terms to keep the price per kilogram competitive - this is why supporters of the technology are calling for substantial public investments. So investors are faced with the “choice” of either throwing away absurd amounts of money to maybe make the tiniest dent in our meat production or to make a profit with a niche luxury product.
My only argument then is that this is a bet that we cannot afford to make, especially when reductionism already gets us there. Fully agree on the points about veggies being good on their own.
There is a significant difference between scaling up high-tech pharma-grade facilities and just breeding more cattle.
Just to be sure: You are being sarcastic, right?
I guess they make up for it with accountability.
Seems like I get to be the first to post the standards meme: https://xkcd.com/927/
Except that this standard comes free of charge with the Pandora's box of crypto applications. Lovely.
"Everyone will be reasonable" tacitly implies "all of the time", which is unreasonably optimistic.
Resilient systems should anticipate failure.