HN user

sattoshi

756 karma
Posts14
Comments326
View on HN

Location: Ottawa, Canada Remote: Preferably Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: React, Node.js, JavaScript, .NET (in short) Resume: https://knyazev.io/resume/ Email: slava@knyazev.io About me: I'm an experienced full-stack engineer with experience leading features at well-known names (Amazon, Airbnb, ESPN Bet).

Professionally, I've mainly been writing React in my last few position, but I am very well versed in designing backends as well.

Non-professionally, I have been writing deep dives into tech I work with on my blog: https://www.bbss.dev/posts/react-learn-suspense/ (sample post)

Location: Ottawa, Canada

Remote: Preferably

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: React, Node.js, JavaScript, .NET (in short)

Resume: https://knyazev.io/resume/

Email: slava@knyazev.io

About me:

I'm an experienced full-stack engineer with experience at well-known names (Amazon, Airbnb).

Professionally, I've mainly been writing React applications for the last few years.

Non-professionally, I have been writing deep dives into tech I work with on my blog: https://www.bbss.dev/posts/react-learn-suspense/ (sample post)

The reasonable course of action is to pick one of the three rewrites that codify a proposed interpretation of the currently ambiguous rules.

What would be unreasonable is to give those 3 options to a judge and ask them to do a coin toss on which one is right, and then let it sit that way.

I may be radical in this, but I wish the judiciary could force the legislative branch to decide on what the law they wrote means.

The problem aren’t interpretative courts, its unclear laws.

The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.

Are you saying that you want to pay to be provided with harmful text

This existence of “harmful text” is a bit silly, but lets not dwell on it.

The answer to your question is that I want to be able to generate whatever the technology is capable of. Imagine if Microsoft Word would throw an error if you tried to write something against modern dogmas.

If you wish to avoid seeing harmful text, I think that market is well-served today. I can’t imagine there not being at the very least a checkbox to enable output filtering for any ideas you think are harmful.

How is it not true? Instead of tracking data and function calls over a unified stacktrace, you track Things and Messages over databases, queues, and logs —- none of which you can trivially attach a debugger to.

I generally like event-driven architecture, but I need to admit that debuggability is sacrificed where it matters most.

The first and only question that matters: is this useful as a primitive?

Im inclined to say no. Signals seem like they are a UI concept, primarily. Just use any signal lib you want. Utility libraries dont really need to understand signals.