HN user

luis_cho

105 karma
Posts1
Comments52
View on HN

This reminds me o sharp knifes argument. In programming you may want to provide tools that can shoot you in the foot, if the alternative is not as powerful. here is a conversation with DHH about it [0]. For instance, you may consider dynamic languages if the alternative is too much type gymnastics.

The first time I've seen the argument was in the prag-prog magazine that sadly is not active anymore.

[0] VIDEO: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vagyIcmIGOQ&t=8396

I was working in ASP.NET when projects like Backbone.js, Knockout, and Angular started to pop up. They were trying to address issues on mainstream tech at that moment (compilation times vs. hot reload, avoid full-page reloads). There was a lot of criticism around the use of JavaScript in the server back then.

Now I see the opposite. Web standards can solve the full reload page problem, so it's time to rethink if we still need to manage state in the client, with all the complexity that this involves.

The biggest issue for me it’s the division between backend and Frontend roles. I like to do both, but lately I’m doing backend. It changes a lot how we do things, refinements are mostly to create contracts between the Frontend and backend tasks, we’re they should focus on business use cases.

Europe and US have decreased fossil fuel consumption a bit We did not decreased fossil consumption we externalised the fossil consumption to developed countries production.

Developed countries use a lot of fossil fuels but most of that is to promote the lifestyle of developed countries.

Oxfam estimates that 1% of the richest people emit double the carbon emission of the half the poorest of humanity

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...

I once worked at a place where we all called each other “NERD.” One time a person outside the IT circle turned to us in the cafeteria and shouted, “What's up, NERDS?” There was complete silence in the room. I guess only a nerd can call another nerd a nerd.

The author states that MPA are not a solution for everything. Sure google maps don’t fit the MPA model but I’ve seen a lot of projects that would be much better using current browser features instead of react.

I would say that the main objective of the current system is to grow. We measure this with the GDP. This growth is necessary for the current system to survive, to pay our debts or keep our jobs, but is also incompatible with reducing carbon emissions [1]

If we could imagine new objectives we can change the paradigm. For instance we could try to have a carbon dividend as a complement to jobs creation [2].

[1] https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

From Donella Meadows [1]:

PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM (in increasing order of effectiveness)

9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).

8. Regulating negative feedback loops.

7. Driving positive feedback loops.

6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection.

5. Information flows.

4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints).

3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system.

2. The goals of the system.

1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises.

Regarding point 2: What is the goal of the current system?

[1] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-t...

Consider a graph in which one side shows how easy it is to achieve a goal, and the other side shows how useful it is,

At the beginning of industrialisation we were solving easy and useful problems. For example, sanitation, refrigeration, etc.

Now we're solving problems that are not only useless but potentially destructive, such as the attention economy, artificial intelligence and planned obsolescence. At the same time, these problems use up a lot of energy and cause pollution.