HN user
The point is that we will still need senior level employees, but the way fresh grads get to that level is generally through entry level positions, experience and mentorship. I don't think we can expect the university system to start pumping out senior level graduates.
Good thing that's exactly what the article suggests!
This happens regardless of which framework is used or even if no framework is used. Plenty of web developers do not understand how the browser or JS work at a deep level.
How does versioning work? After you fork an HTML app, is there a way to update it and get newer features without manual intervention?
I'm thinking about the Kanban board example I saw in the demo video. It looks like column re-ordering wasn't supported yet. What if I fork the app, put time into creating my Kanban, then I want to update to a new version that supports column re-ordering?
a mishmash of vibe coded stuff you don’t understand.
No, there is a difference between "I wrote this code" and "I understand this code". You don't need to write all the code in a project to understand it. Otherwise writing software in a team would not be a viable undertaking.
Why do you say "JSX"? JSX is an HTML templating language for JavaScript. templ looks like an HTML templating language for Go. Every popular web backend language has an HTML templating language... so that it can produce HTML - is it really that surprising?
Here's the react-table example app with 112,500 records, just like your example. I am not really seeing much of a performance difference (and this is in dev mode - it would be faster if built for production):
This comparison is disingenuous and off-putting. When I read "a React button" I assume you are talking about `<button>` and the React runtime, not some third party libraries.
But logging in and posting don't seem like "undoable" actions to me. That would be similar to undoing a save or undoing a login to Adobe CC in Photoshop. Things definitely get trickier with network requests, but that can be solved with something like CRDT.
Does the fact that WFH is not a thing mean that in the real world, for most people, coming to the office IS actually more efficient?
I don't think the labor market is efficient to such a degree that we can draw this conclusion. Lots of startups are doing this, but it takes time, capital and luck to achieve the success of the big corporate competitors, which have a huge amount of middle management who hate WFH.
Huh? The average working week in the EU is 37.5 hours a week, or 7.5 hours a day: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...
Breakfast and lunch are not paid breaks in any EU country as far as I know.
Fair point, but I have seen a lot of shitty software developed with this mantra. Usually because the "iterate" part is forgotten in favor of the next "rapid" development. I agree that the quickest way to learn whether your solution is valid is to ship & experiment. But once you know the solution (which is sometimes not even that complicated) then you should really take the time to produce a solid piece of software before moving on.
But I agree, my original comment is probably a little too critical. There are valid times to rapidly iterate and ship. When it turns into the _only_ way you ship software, I think it becomes a problem.
It's important to note that this is only really relevant advice for a specific type of startup that is still trying to rapidly iterate to find product market fit.
Personally I find it incredibly annoying to work on and with with products that were developed like this. There are so many half baked features that technically "work" but are slow, buggy or difficult to integrate with.
I don't. Regardless who posted it, discussion and constructive criticism is warranted in the comments.
I think this is a fair criticism. You chose to share this on hackernews, which invites feedback (including constructive criticism). I don't see the problem ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Do you expect people to only voice praise for open source projects?
Do you think this "MetaWindow" is much more attractive? Here's a similar looking transparent sound barrier in a new building area that is already starting to be covered in graffiti: https://youtu.be/e7-Fd1HOw_g?si=OTNn_NyV_W7iJStz&t=265
At least some light will still get through in the gaps between graffiti, but I don't think they will end up looking much different than non-transparent barriers.
I’d argue that the rich nations have an obligation to find a way to structure a less carbon intensive economy. The global south can benefit from the R&D that the west does. It’s not a forgone conclusion that the only way to grow is by burning fossil fuels, but the global south will certainly go that way if there is no known alternative.
Sure, all mega cities have even larger metro areas. I'm not pretending Chicago doesn't have a huge metro area. But my point stands: the European route has much higher catchment than your proposed USA route, even if you include metro areas. Population density is not the only argument, although I think it's pretty clear why the US and EU are not comparable: https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#4/38.51/-51.06 Most of the US looks more like Spain and less like Central Europe.
There needs to be local public transportation infrastructure. This is where the US should be focusing efforts, no long-distance high-speed trains. It works in Europe because there are huge catchment areas (see population density) that funnel riders to regional hubs that are then connected with high speed trains. I don't think the first step to making rail work in the US is connecting metropolises with high-speed trains. Until there's a better local public transportation story, it's expensive and impractical once you arrive at your destination.
Oh if we're talking about metro area population, then the EU route is also significantly higher (for example, Paris goes from 2 million to 13 million). I was just looking at city limits in both cases.
Honestly I agree with your sentiment. We should connect all these urban areas with passenger rail. But I don't think that this is the first step. Most American cities have atrocious public transit, which needs to be fixed first. No one will take a train from Chicago to Minneapolis if they just have to rent a car once they get there anyway. It would be a shame to invest billions in connecting cities with high speed rail, only to have low ridership because it still doesn't compete with flying/driving.
I don't know why we're still stuck on the Berlin <-> Madrid topic, but I'll bite :-)
I added up the population of all those cities: 6.13 million. The population of Berlin and Madrid alone is 6.86 million, and our theoretical journey would take us through several cities of 1m+ along the way: Cologne, Brussels, Paris... The dense parts of Europe have 500k+ cities basically overlapping.
As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I would absolutely love this theoretical train, but I'm not surprised it doesn't exist (yet)!
It's only misleading if you disregard the rest of my comment :-)
You have identified a part of the USA with a decent density of cities - nice! That is exactly what I think. There are pockets where rail makes sense, and should be built up. But even this area is not nearly as dense as Germany, England, Belgium, Italy, etc, so I fail to see why it makes sense to compare this to the EU.
It's an average, so of course it says nothing about the distribution. I don't find that to be misleading, or at least I did not intend to insinuate that the USA is a perfectly distributed wasteland! It shows that while the EU and US kind of look similar in size, actually their population density on average is wildly different. Just look at a population density map of both continents side by side. It's fine to talk about certain parts of the USA being dense and able to support passenger rail. But when we talk about country-scale rail systems, that's where I have a bone to pick.
As I said, there are areas of the USA that are perfectly suitable to rail, and there should be more.
My criticism is the notion of "you can technically take a train from Madrid to Berlin, so you should also be able to take a train from Boston to Minneapolis". Trains in Europe go long distances, but most importantly they connect a lot of medium-sized cities along the way.
The scale of the country is an excuse in many cases. There are densely populated areas in many parts of the USA, but nearly all of Europe is densely populated. The EU has an average density of 112 people per square km compared to 36 in the USA.
The USA still can and should do better, but there are important geographical differences to the EU.
And as an aside, I don't think many Europeans are taking the train from Madrid to Berlin ;-) most people still prefer to fly rather than take a multi-day journey on the train. Maybe that will change if more sleeper carriages are introduced.
That may well be true, but it's not what the article is about. The article is about individuals removing personal data from GenAI products. GenAI companies in many places have a legal responsibility to facilitate this. Your concern about all internet-connected data being "public" is only a concern if you're dealing with malicious actors, which is not what's at hand here.
Did you read the article? There are cases where the data was explicitly not publicly shared. Why would this journalist have no expectation to privacy? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artis...
Even for publicly shared data, there is legislation in many parts of the world (notably the entire EU) that enforces an individual's right to have their data deleted.
As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever.
Maybe realistically any uploaded content can be found somewhere on the internet forever (I doubt that, tbh), but this doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and say "it's impossible to regulate".
We already have precedent for this in the form of copyright/DMCA takedown requests. The MPA/RIAA has a legal avenue to protect their content, why should it be any different for individuals?
No one is implying that. But companies have to comply with laws in jurisdictions where they operate. OpenAI and other generative AI companies certainly operate in the EU.
Of course, that's my point :-) It is illegal but still exists empirically today, which is one very good reason why salary bands should be public.
"Willingness to work for a given range" gets exploited by employers at the expense of employees. It helps prop up structural (gender/race) pay gaps and breeds distrust among employees as some salaries inevitably leak out.
the actual mechanics of what they are doing, the sensitivity of their work, the skills required for success, the markets/industries they are operating in
Surely these are all criteria that should determine your level. What's the point of levels if you're saying each level consists of arbitrary other levels?
I agree that a range should be public, but an employee's salary should remain within the range for their level. If they're demonstrably more valuable to the company, they should be promoted within a transparent structure.