kalcode

Games and other specific applications call for such unidirectional data flow with such massive amounts of "independent" entities. It isn't that it'll catch on or not outside the gaming industry, it is more of a unique solution to a typical gaming problem.

So their are apps that do use similar or ECSs architecture under the hood, it is just more problem related not a solve everything solution.

Not omniscient but I do let them update the system information from one station just because it caused me issues with goal weighing since their information was so limited they almost always chose to stay within a known route versus exploring, this helped giving them more information.

But I did think, one station info per station probably also did not make sense, technology-wise, so I thought expanding it worked.

The faction system was my answer to what makes ships or planets' goals go beyond their immediate needs, and factions came naturally next. They want to make money and shift priorities to do it through incentives. Like subsidies almost.

I was hoping/thinking they (factions) could escalate to blockades, monopolies or just more supply control, skyrocket prices and events combat to hold choke points, blockades or sanctions. That way that agents FSM is focused on those goal oriented actions and ships can focus on their well being plus their factions incentives, and the crews needs handle immediate needs.

Does that make sense? (Terrible at proofreading)

I did! I am more familiar with Godot but just ran into performance issues and then switched off their node scene straight to their rendering API, which made me feel like I abandoned Godot at that point. I am sure it could be optimized more but I want to worry less about chucking rendering and more scaling the economy simulation the further it went out, thus the more things to render, the harder it was for Godot.

Bevu/Rust just made it easier to brute force that scaling, since they have smaller footprints (overhead?)for each thread/process spawning.

Yup, lots of stuff I'd love to dive into that having an assistance coder makes way more approachable on nights or weekends to get things done.

And yah, ideally there should be tons more! The shift will be interesting.

Meh, we should just ignore that kind of propaganda. We copy things too, we use a system to protect IP because copying is such a normal and strong human thing to do.

In fact, when we don't discuss China, most find modern software patents and copyright to be abusive.

Finally, copying UX standards has been done for ages, it gives users a comfortable way to start using a product and instead of fighting that to be unique, some rather embrace it.

It can be jarring using so many different apps if each one tries too hard to be unique.

And this is my two cents, here it makes sense to have a similar interface, it's ultimately an app with chat sessions.

There seems to be a team sport mentality with AI topic in HN these days. Almost feels like people are picking sides, and thus not being very thoughtful or rational.

Sigh, there definitely an attitude creeping into the community and it's a huge turn off unfortunately.

I liked the Lua filters for solving issues on DOCX stuff for Markdown to Docx.

For PDF stuff I haven't needed much Lua filters since switching to WeasyPrint for the PDF engine.

I'm confused, why are you arguing about this? Stick with YouTube. This isn't for you.

It's even in the name. PeerTube. Peer. Your talking about 'consumers' of a product you produce vs a way to share videos that isn't YouTube with your .. PEERs.

Not 100k views videos. Think you should step back and think what your actually trying to debate or argue. It comes off kinda like your misunderstanding the software and conflating a lot of things that don't relate and not relevant to PeerTube.

Thank you. It is a bit bizarre reading this thread.

It's true, but I see it happening. I’ve watched seniors with 30+ years of experience adopt them successfully without losing their classic rigor.

Personally, I get huge mileage out of LLMs, and yes, I care deeply about code quality, readability, and debuggability.

I've seen juniors absolutely rock with them.

And I've seen the exact opposite, where they just struggle to get good results.

In the end, I think the divide comes down to management experience. The people thriving are the ones who have led teams, especially teams of contractors, which is the best analogy for how you have to interact with an LLM.

Those folks know how to break down problems, provide the right context, and scope a task just enough to see the "contractor" succeed before letting them move forward.

On the other hand, individual contributors who are used to just grinding solo often struggle. They expect a one-shot miracle. They say, "Hey, my code is buggy, fix it." When the LLM inevitably hallucinates or steers them wrong, they give up. The results are completely different based on how you treat the tool.

They might just have a high quality of control and standards that it is hard to find that pattern with the LLMs.

I think fierce individual contributors are a lot more valuable in the era of llms as well. We as humans typically achieve better balance with new stuff when we allow backlash from new processes that start to trample on old ones without understanding AKA the Chester's fence.

Anyways, more of a ramble than my two cents.

I think a better analogy is cartoon or animated films. The artist, creator, engineer lays the key frames, the plot points, characters, etc. The team builds it. Fills in gaps, especially with direct input from the creator.

The creator still gets the credit.

LLMs can just be the part that accelerates laying the code down.

I think folks are just too emotional over a tool that we are ignoring drawing similarities on purpose. That or just different audiences, hackers vs professionals. The latter just meaning being payed and usually working in a team. The styles can be different and the value placed on crafted code vs results.

I thought bringing this article up during the AI era might spark some good discussion.

My thoughts to start:

I read this a while ago, and it shaped how I think about iterating on software. For example, I've been working on an internal tool for several years. While it was immediately useful, it has become significantly more valuable over time as we discovered what features it actually needed, adjusting the roadmap based on real usage, correcting poor assumptions, and working with behavior driven feedback.

Code generation is not the bottleneck of great software. Human discovery is.

Like Joel notes:

"[...] getting good software over the course of 10 years assumes that for at least 8 of those years, you’re getting good feedback from your customers, and good innovations from your competitors that you can copy, and good ideas [...] You have to release early, incomplete versions"

Good software takes ten years to build, and I don't see AI accelerating that timeline. In the end, it's the human in the loop that matters when it comes to refining software over a decade.

AI is a multiplier for the typing part, but the limiting factor of software (especially software built FOR humans) is human bandwidth: the time it takes for users to encounter a pain point, articulate it, and for us to engineer a solution that fits into the system. True innovation is found in the balance between the tool and its users.

Well I've enjoyed making little "flash" like games with AI. I have a SKILL.md for how to build out a pico8 game that it updates when it finishes a game.

I give it an rough idea, or none and have it make a game.

See if there something here you enjoy to convince you I do think AI can slowly as they improve make more variety of lightweight 15 minute games.

https://4rc4de.com

I thought modern science doesn't reject anthropomorphism anymore? That's it's more nuanced and that it caused more problems than it helped by rejecting it out right?

I think we were taught anthropomorphism was wrong and that wasn't truly settled.

Anthropomorphism between animals though, not machines.

That's a good point. For me it's getting people to realize they need to take up practice that help minimize these things. It's kinda us and them problem.

We need to ensure we don't just blindly install the latest, patch every CVE by just bumping everything to the latest even if the vulnerability has nothing to do with their system or use of said library.

We should have rules that we install the latest that's older than three days.

We should be running "npm audit" and other stuff like Trivy.

The three day rule alone could save most people.

It's the exact same logic people used for Apple computers back in the day. The idea that Macs didn't get viruses because they were inherently more secure. But that wasn't true. It was purely a numbers game. Windows' popularity was so far off the charts that hackers naturally targeted Windows users instead of Mac users; it was just a better use of their time. The same thing is happening here. Other package managers do get compromised, but the sheer frequency of npm incidents just reflects how overwhelmingly popular Node.js and web apps are right now. JavaScript simply has a much higher usage rate than most other languages.

People make this joke often. It's package managers and how loose we are with installing them, not NPM.

Cargo,PyPi,Nuget,PHP has had these recent too.

It's not just only NPM. It's frequently repeated here just cause of the average bias against Node.

But this problem isn't isolated to NPM.

That being entirely unfair. It is still a skill. They still learning stuff. It does not help them to be trapped in a bubble. But nothing is not transferrable. Things we learn, even if they are only a React can't write vanilla JS, it's still unfair to say they have no skill.

Just not a correct interpretation. Many skills start that way and even some people make a whole career mastering one thing and one thing only.

Not saying being trapped in React land unable to break out is good. But being able to create something, even if it's just with Nextjs is still a good thing.

We should hate on the businesses that force us to take shortcuts, value quantity over quality. They wanted boot camps with code monkeys.

Vagrant I used a lot early on in my career to learn Ruby on Rails in Windows. Thanks a lot for your work!

I've tried these with Claude various times and never get the wrong answer. I don't know why, but I am leaning they have stuff like "memory" turned on and possibly reusing sessions for everything? Only thing I think explains it to me.

If your always messing with the AI it might be making memories and expectations are being set. Or its the randomness. But I turned memories off, I don't like cross chats infecting my conversations context and I at worse it suggested "walk over and see if it is busy, then grab the car when line isn't busy".

Very neat, never thought about how different beaches are. Like the sites theme, easy to read as well.

So based on the article's own observation: no, of course not.

This had very little to the discussion. Of course it can't be replaced. Code is created by humans, and as long as we have opinions nothing gets truly replaced. Just decreased usage over time.

C++ and Switft just became "more dominant".

Yup, like this. Of course a general statement is no.

I have very little interest in this topic. But I seen this SAME comment a million times on anything thats new that attempts to challenge something. And as usual whether something "dethrones" something is less interesting than what changes or ideas that it offers.

Just like ALL those you listed, they didn't replace any of those, but they definitely challenged the ecosystems, or improved the old ones.

Naunce discussion is far more interesting.

For example, why do you think Carbon won't be able to gain dominance over time? I mean I think thats a huge hurdle too.

I get it is a strange idea. But putting a quote that doesn't really have any substance isn't really an argument nor adding value against it.

I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry.

To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man

(see this quote disagrees!)

The way that company has posted blog where they seem to have complete lack of understanding what graphql is and their comments on dev.to show a huge amount of disrespect.

The blogs posts comments themselves shows the company's author of these seems dense, rude and unknowledgeable in what they argue. Which also means their product they are making is likely being made by the same mindset.

Definitely wouldn't trust them.

It seems also like a ploy to get attention, which is definitely gonna keep me away from their product.

Seriously, check out these comment section. It's like they posted about something they have no clue about and then are gonna defend it to their grave regardless if they are wrong.

Wait until some security flaw comes out and this attitude makes them unwilling to admit they are wrong. Gross.

https://dev.to/polterguy/oop-a-software-development-mass-psy...

https://dev.to/polterguy/graphql-is-a-hot-smoking-pile-of-ga...

That is more related to the frontend, the frontend doesn't have to overfetch data.

But the graphql still will fetch that data and just filter what does out, it still has to get that data.

Example is a query like

``` { currentUser { id name todoLists { title items { name } } } } ```

The resolver will likely get the whole user object from the database, then just send name and id. Then when it finished getting the user, it will then query for the todo lists, and then only send the title (even though it got the whole row for each todo list), then after it fetches those lists, it will query for the items. And retrieve the whole rows of each item from the database.

The data the server needed to fetch didn't change, just what the frontend receives. It is still loading and fetching all the data on that query and then graphql filters the results leaving the server.

Also in the above steps, you notice it queries AGAIN after a data set has been retrieve, this causes an N+1 problem.

It is not inherent in the specs or implementation that fixes these. If you want to avoid fetching the whole object you will need custom code, and to avoid N+1 problem, you need batching of data within requests that "caches" or consolidate nested requests like data-loader, and some form of response caching to help with these issues.

Not siding against the tech, just clarifying those cons.

It's still like putting comments above your functions.

If you're used to a certain language then sure that makes sense. Your comment seems like you are boxing yourself in, limiting yourself to just what makes sense in Javascript, very opposite of a programmer who looks to improve their craft.

Take a moment and think about that. Because it looks like Javascript comment...you only see it like that to a point of making this statement. There is a lot of ways different languages uses tokens/symbols to indicate something. Not everyone agrees what those symbols are used for. Some languages use it to define macros like C++ or preprocessor directives like C#. Some as comments JS/Python/. Some as like Java nothing.

Because the languages you use are use to it, and the language you use doesn't use something similar, it looks "wrong". That is in itself a narrow view.

I think you should question that kind of thinking, I believe it will be helpful.

now that it has become evident that the brain is merely a kind of a computer

I am ignorant in this area. But I keep reading how brains are nothing like computers the more we learn. Your statement seems to suggest otherwise and id love to read about it. Can you drop something where I can start exploring about how the brain has become more evident that it's merely a kind of computer? Thanks!

Pretty important point for how far we should regulate something.

I think the gaming community would want loot-boxes completely banned under the guise of "gambling".

The individuals that would spend an unhealthy amount on these loot-boxes are not individuals that will stop their behavior if lootboxes are banned or even regulated.

These individuals have know that you can't get your money back, you can't earn more money and you can blow your life savings on it. With no return promised, monetarily, these individuals know the money they spend can't be gambled back. Thats the crux of gambling and their laws. People truly believes one more bet and they can get it all back.

It's insane if a person on Overwatch or Fortnite truly believes the money they waste if beyond their budget is a good investment at all. That problem lies with the individual not EA and loot boxes.

Those people will have constant issues with their finance until they seek the help they need to stop. That could be learning better budgeting behavior to identifying they have a gambling problem.

That could be a gambling impulse but really we know people that constantly spend their money carelessly regardless of some mental addiction. A lot of people lack of financial control shouldn't create laws to dictate to companies what they should do, especially in a market saturated with competition that don't deploy any of these practices simply because these people refuse to follow a monthly budget thats within their means.

We don't remove things from society just cause others have difficulty with it. Now I have no issue with more regulations especially targeted at kids, but let's be honest here. Most of this should still fall on parents and education. Companies caught pushing to sell these random loot-boxes to kids should be addressed and fined. Especially the ones that use streams that buy these boxes and open them with kids audiences. These companies that sponsored these streamers should receives fines for targeting kids. Also like to see some form of guarantee or odds exposure.

Long rant, but I find the fact you can't get monetary value back makes it extremely different than the current types of gambling and should effect the way we regulate it. End of the day, when no monetary value can be extracted we are regulating random chance and rewards...silly path to go down to call anything random and rewarding essentially gambling.

because now you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux

Gonna have to quantify that. Cause I imagine if you did, you'd redact that statement. Redux is a very straightforwards and SMALL library that handles global state.

Its concept can be difficult to follow at first which may cause some to think it way more complex under the hood than it really is.

I don't think peoples complaints of YouTube are invalid at all.

But I think it is interesting how much credit these people that monetize YouTube don't give google at all.

Video hosting has always been expensive comparatively. They are large files. You tube stores multiple resolutions of your files.

YouTube hosting your video is free. You don't pay for it. These people that are bringing in $500 - $4,000 crying that 'youtube isn't giving me all my money' seem to also have a sense of entitlement in itself.

YouTube has a relationship with its creators. Creators get free video hosting, a video social platform and they can earn quite a bit of money doing it. YouTube in turns get a portion of the ad money too.

When YouTube demonetizes something they lose money too. They know their system can hurt their bottom-line in the end.

Understanding this is a business relationship between the two entities would probably make their attempts more professional. Maybe open a business that represents a large sets of these YouTubers instead of each one make a video about it. That way their collective views are significant chunk and they can apporoach YouTube as a professional entity.

Instead they post drama videos about it.