marziply

Honestly? I kind of suspected this would happen, just not nearly as soon as this. Even though Rust is gaining a lot of traction, it simply isn't the tool of choice (yet?) for large scale web applications most of the time. Furthermore, there's _a lot_ of competition in this space. It's not too surprising that the market for this kind of service was an uphill battle - it's a smaller market for Rust based web applications and sometimes it's cheaper to deploy to a more conventional cloud platform. That being said, many of their articles have been very insightful and I have personally benefited from them greatly.

It's a tragedy but I think it's true that SO has lost a significant amount of value given AI's new presence. Having said that, it's not like it's dead - it's a community of real people rather than an amalgamation of knowledge in a single tool. What sets SO apart and will always set it apart is that human aspect. For future problems that AI has no knowledge of, there will always be a group of people better equipped to answer questions through real life experience and deductions that AI simply cannot apply. I suspect in the next few years, SO will evolve into a platform that focuses on that human aspect because ultimately that's the only avenue I can see that would work. It's unlikely SO will die any time soon, it's more likely that the platform will find ways of pivoting to keep business flowing. It's not like SO is struggling for questions right now anyway, it continues to be a massively popular platform. Predicting the future is somewhat of a pointless task but I think it's safe to say, for now, that SO is still alive, and will be that way for a while at least.

The only good thing this clown has ever done for America. It's a weird day to be agreeing with the orange man.

I find both of your stock apps (API and investment) quite interesting but both websites are eerily absent of any information outside of their respective purposes. Both websites are clean and the designs are nice but struggle on mobile it seems (I'm on Android, Brave browser, horizontal scroll seems to be buggy). I wish there was additional information outside of just what they do - I'd like to know more about the developer that created them, goals/ambitions for the future, that kind of thing. Right now, the investment app looks like a scam from an outside perspective. One page, limited information, nothing personal about it. How can I trust such a website with my hard earned cash? I think an improvement would be to have additional pages on who you are, why I should trust you, and what exactly I might get in return for my subscription. It's also probably important to make it clear that you cannot promise any long term profits from this app and that it is almost akin to gambling so users should be prepared to lose money.

Don't use Bindows then? The tech industry is largely focused on Unix systems so of course there will be inevitable sharp edges when you work on a garbage system like Bindows...

I don't think you could have given worse advice is you tried

Do you never build anything just for fun?

There's nowhere to upload my resume to? There's only a form with a required "why do you want to work for us" field... You might want to update that.

Just to be clear, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with Lit. The proposal is strictly regarding templating HTML DOM with JavaScript strings. Similar to how Lit renders, which is why the title mentions it.

I think you should apply this feedback because I agree that the emojis are pointless and pandering. You're creating a tool for (hopefully) technically minded folk, not children.

You've literally answered you own question - DX. To some, developer experience and the ergonomics of utility is more important. Others aren't of that mindset which is equally okay. I'm guessing you're of the latter camp in this case.

Runescape

The amount shouldn't matter, it's the unprofessional response from CF that's of concern. Also, the author doesn't necessarily say that they would be unwilling to pay more or even negotiate a higher price. The author has made it explicit that CF were more or less unwilling for any practical conversation. That, to me, is the problem. A lack of professional courtesy, communication, and transparency. Obviously there may be details from this exchange which have been omitted but if I were in this position, I would be equally upset.

Is that a problem? Condoms are not a perfect solution.

Why 'no'? Care to elaborate or did you just want to throw your baseless opinion out into the wild?