talove

It’s all brinkmanship: if you can’t unilaterally control it, the instinct is to destroy it.

I work in tech, but thanks to some stubborn drive for creation my parents instilled in me, I also make music. And honestly, compared to music, even the advertising industry feels cutting-edge. Music is still operating with one foot stuck decades in the past.

The reason every complex application I've worked on has had a staging environment is because you do need to test production deploys in an environment that mirrors production dataset and infrastructure. Especially with data migrations, distributed databases. That is prohibitively expensive and not feasible to run in n+1 envs.

I drink one cup of pour-over coffee that I make every morning. I like it medium to medium strong. I perceive many physical effects from it. At this point it's my morning ritual. 20 minutes in bed or on the sofa reading or doing a crossword while drinking a coffee.

I am also an hobbyist endurance cyclist. I do cycling 'events' that last as long as 12+ hours. And average somewhere between 6-8. While I've tried for years to add caffeine into my nutrition plan for these events. I have only ever had adverse effects.

I seem to manage 6-8 ounces of coke. But in spite of my morning ritual, if I consume any coffee or caffeine infused energy bars or gels I will be miserable. Every time I get weak, shaky, feel like I am going to pass out, and feel absolutely miserable. After about 30-60 minutes, I'll have to suddenly pee. Once I pee I slowly feel better and in another 30 minutes back to normal.

I've talked to a hundred people about this, nobody seems to have the same effect. But it seems as if my body just rejects the caffeine, pees it out, and carries on.

Ya but we do know the universe exists without any fucking clue how or why. So, it seems fine to let your mind wander a bit.

Following up to add some context to this since it struck a lot of debate. I feel very matter of factly that the assistance of a bike computer when used responsibly increases rider safety. All of the debate seems very semantic but look at a video such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUTiwocccE

This is a 10-mile descent that thousands of cyclists do a weekly that would put you at 30-50mph for most of it. You can very obviously safely glance at your bike computer from time to time to see things like your speed, sharpness of upcoming curves, angles, upcoming obstacles, intersections, merges, and other important metrics that help inform your braking, turning and mental route preparation.

I've been road cycling and racing for many years. Taken many safety and skills courses. The most dangerous experiences I've ever had have been from incidents where glancing at a map would have prevented. Where I was riding moderately paced and unanticipated obstacles were around corners such as blind intersections.

Having laser focus on the road AND knowing what's ahead where you can't visually see are both equally important.

I'll also add, you might be riding brakes preparing for a turn on a descent. Under many road conditions, especially a steep descent, a road bike is much more likely to break traction than a car which can literally be fatal (sliding out into an opposing lane, barrier, or off an edge). Anybody who has descended, even at reasonably safe speeds on a road bike with a bike computer knows it is the safe thing to do.

In popular road cycling areas, things like 10+ mile descents aren't unusual. Momentarily glances at the map is how you know you need to slow down.

As an example, search YouTube for a video of someone descending a road in the Santa Monica mountains.

I have a 2021 Y with FSD and more or less echo the I've got about the same sentiment. It's nice use it, but does weird stuff. A recent update seems to have resolved many of the FSD issues. It no longer phantom breaks at flashing yellow intersections, and a few stop signs for diagonal merging roads.

And btw, they certainly have the data whether or not you report it.

I am affected by this. I own 4 bikes, all with electronic shifting and 3 hammerhead computers.

This isn't just losing nice-to-have features, many of these features are for safety.

One example, the thumb toggles on the Di2 shifters allow me to change screens on my computer without removing my hands from the hoods / grips. They is now disabled. If you are descending at 40-50mph you have to remove your hand from your hood in order to see your map.

This might seem minor but the point is that cycling is already super dangerous. The tech is there for safety as much as anything else. I find this incredibly anti-cyclist and anti-consumer.

FWIW, the electronic drivetrains are superior in just about every performance metric, aside from needing to be charged every few weeks. You might not want an tablet computer in your refrigerator door but electronic bike shifting is more akin to going from carbureted to fuel injected engines, it is the more reliable and tunable of the two options.

Here's the REAL twitter link to that take: https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440#m

I want to refute this reply since it's up at the very top to say... even with moderate hearing damage your ears are still very capable and amazing.

Equipment and room acoustics play a great deal in how much information you perceive from an audio wave. It's shocking when you step into a treated room from high-end speakers. I've done a lot of damage to my ears over the years as a sound engineer, tour manager, musician. I have mild tinnitus. I can still walk into a treated room and listen to audio from a high-end sound system and have a bunch of "OH SHIT" moments where I perceive so much more information than I do through headphones, car stereos, high-end home systems.

The last 1-2 decades of computer audio have been a race toward the bottom of punchy bass and air'y high end. It's the equivalent of motion smoothing on TVs. Except nobody talks about it, you can't turn it off, and 'good sound' is just stuff that has a tight thump. This is true of every range of products from Airpod Max's, to high-end Bang & Olufsen to Sonos systems.

Anyway, my point with that is...Sure this stuff may not get preference in a blind test. That's missing the point tho. The audiophile's pursuit is to limit points in the signal path that create distortion and cause loss of fidelity.

Do these cables do much? Probably not compared to another pair of cables with gold plated connectors and high-quality copper. That said, the real test in high-end gear is not a blind test of one song, it's doing something like listening to the snare drum ring in 10 different songs, something with a lot of resonance and overtones, and see if you can actually perceive more information across a set of songs.

If all these cables offer is high-quality materials, construction, and quality control and the cost to produce them is 60-80% of that. Then great, I am glad they exist and I hope they make a buck making them.

Preface: Gonna do my best to not add any commentary for or against the social aspect of decentralization / blockchains. Also gonna be high-level.

I can't help but feel distributed computation is a really really fascinating problem and if the socioeconomic wave we're going through now sustains even a fraction of this current moment it'll be a longterm engineering focus.

It's impossible for me to not recognize that the diff blockchains mirror that of different database designs as the web scaled from nineties. First read capacity was needed to support e-commerce. Followed by social platforms where read/write needed to scale and adopt distributed models and eventual consistency.

Now we're scaling distributed computation and all sorts of interesting problems emerge. If things are gonna turn out to be even remotely what an idealist might lead you to believe we're at the cusp of rearchitecting every single layer of computation. Networking. Machine code compilation and execution. File storage.

PS I did a couple of cmd+f for keywords to find someone answering with this context and didn't find any. That seems crazy.

Axie Infinity isn't interesting as a game, but as a model it is.

The other day I was going through air port security. I had to wait 10 minutes for one of my bags to be screened a second time. I happened to be waiting while some type of manager was doing a huddle for a new shift of employees about to start.

The dumb shit the manager was telling the group of 12-15 TSA workers was abhorrent. Just really vile statements about how to interact with people going through the security lines.

It dawned on me that the only rationale for this completely useless facade of stress inducing security was simply that these were low-income workers who needed a job, and we're subsidizing it through various types of taxes.

I believe Axie Infinity is dumb, but so are much bigger things around us that we talk much less about. However, Axie Infinity is a good model for a way of creating economies to support people who need jobs. What might help society is if, instead of time wasting games, and meaningless security jobs we paid people to learn valuable skills through a gaming like system.

This. That's why they call them 'attack vectors'.

I disagree with the main thesis for why JWT is a problem. JWT isn't necessarily encouraging you not to hit the DB for user lookup. This is the claim the article makes as a problem with revocation.

It reads like a really long thoughtful article based entirely on false assumptions for how to best use it.

It's ok to carry around some encrypted state in your tokens for some uses cases.

- Airdrop for immediate stuff. Gets dicey around 30-50GB tho.

- iCloud drive for personal stuff I need to share between devices. I trust this to sync anything up to a TB reliably.

- Google Drive when I need to share to someone else.

- Occasionally external drives when I need to move data fast locally.

- Some combination of S3 / AWS CLI / EC2 when things go beyond personal computer capacity depending on where the data is coming from and going to.

Lane change can be configured to happen automatically with FSD in autopilot, I prefer the stick confirmation though.

Yes. Enters and exits freeway without intervention or confirmation. On a recent road trip there were several times where it exited one freeway, circled around, and merged onto another without any intervention at all.

re: product. Yea. Known issues with trim, body alignment, etc. Where it really counts tho, drivetrain, range, a computer system that feels a hundred years ahead of any other car tho.

re: auto-pilot. My recent car purchase was almost solely on picking the best autopilot. Current day, short of the Super Cruise nothing compares. I read a lot of "it doesn't actually drive itself" but as of the last few months it literally goes onramp to offramp, handling all the merges and lane changes with zero intervention reliably. It's remarkable. I don't expect anyone is close to complex traffic signals and urban driving regardless of platform.

I agree. That doesn't mention the actual product milestones and accomplishments either...

- 10-year lead on the EV market

- Undisputed best product in the EV market (not the cheapest).

- Proprietary charging stations rolled out globally that'd take years (even a decade?) for anyone to catch up with.

- Hands down best autonomous driving system

- Diversified into solar, upcoming diesel.

The audience of Tesla fans is, not my cup of tea. But I can't help but draw some parallels to the $30-40/share Apple days when it started growing and there were similar arguments against it. But in my head I thought, well, have you actually used the laptops? There was nothing close to them.

For $7,625 invested at the opening offer price, you’d have a million dollars today.

This statement from the article is incorrect and doesn't account for the stock split. Had you invested that much at the opening price you'd actually have closer to $5mil today.

IMO, maybe but unlikely any time soon.

I've lived in NYC for the last decade+. Had many friends that had legitimate careers as models. Some lasted a year with just a few shoots and a self-funded trip to Paris fashion week before they quit or went into debt over it. Some have been going at it for more than a decade and you would recognize if you flipped through a fashion magazine even semi-regularly.

I also work in media, date someone in fashion and have knowledge of what actually gets paid to models.

While there are a rare few who find a real career out of it and rise out of the traps of shitty agencies and contracts, usually by branching out and establishing a self-brand, none of them that I know made something they can comfortably retire on just with what we would consider the job of a model.

There are certainly exceptions to this but in general, if you're a fashion brand, digital or print magazine offering any type of exposure, hiring a model is inexpensive. Rarely if ever livable wages. That goes for most of the people who work on sets or for fashion shows.

So with all of that preamble out of the way, what I am getting at is...

1. Coordinating an AI model, that has to wear these clothes, and that bracelet, and be on this location, or pictures with this lighting sounds complex and expensive when hiring a set to produce the real thing is a known quantity and cost virtually minimum wages. 2. There are still people who deeply care about the art of the whole thing and do most of their work for free to be supported in anyway to keep doing it. I am looking on the not so bright, bright side here but I'd like to think AI is little more of a thread than stock photography.

Not sure how this is on the front-page. The article chases to debunk something that is only used as a metaphor for the capacity of the mind. IMO the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is oversimplified way to get the attention of a child when conveying the minds power. For example, you only activate 10% of your brain when reasoning a difficult math problem, or recalling a memory. I don't think anyone ever asserted that 90% of your brain is turned off.

The Outline and Input are owned and operated by the same company.

I run a collection of websites that all use infinite scroll and serve ~90 million MAUs.

#1 Poor performance issues

We started doing off-screen clean up, but it's a similar pattern to any ListView like component. Setup and teardown. The browser is smart though. It's not any more work than the setup/teardown a typical SPA should be doing.

#2 Footer is drowned

Footers are useless. Put it in the menu.

#3 Difficult to implement analytics

No more difficult than triggering a SPA pageview. This is misleading.

#4 Navigation is muddled

This is the most valid argument. We solved by being clever about History.pushstate(), triggering when the next article title hits 50% of screen. Bookmarking works fine.

#5 Scrollbar is hard to use

Misleading. The web is mostly mobile. People generally use efficient scroll input devices, scroll wheels trackpads. Most browsers hide the scrollbar because of this. Scrolling many tens-of-thousands of pixels is NBD.

#6 It is hard to use

Misleading, not quantifiable.

#7 Disorients users

Misleading, not quantifiable.

#8 No skipping allowed

Easily solved. We built an in-between module to provide the user with the option to modify their infinite scroll path. If you pick something here we use that to make the rest of articles closer to your interests.

#9 No bookmarking

Solved with History.pushstate()

#10 Terrible user experience

Any UI pattern can be abused to be bad UX.

# Pagiantion UX is usually bad

To counter the arguments. Arguably pagination is more broken. Navigating pages. Generally they aren't bookmarkable unless you implement advanced cursor pagination.

# Content consumption flow

Data supports that users want to consume content with minimal interaction and engagement. If you provide a consistent scroll experience to get from one thing to another, and it's relevant enough, people will really stick around and consume it.

Bounces, time spent, and other KPIs for web-traffic engagement have all gone up as a result of using infinite scroll.

Perhaps we're an outlier and paid attention to the difficult to solve implementation nuances but I don't mind it on other sites.

The alternatives were footers full of information I'm not interested in and outbrain modules...

Actually this is quite false. GraphQL queries are deterministic and Apollo offers great tools for query analysis.

For example the Github GraphQL API has a restriction on the amount of nodes an unauthenticated requests can query. Because of the deterministic nature you know the query complexity before execution time.

As a result you can come up with simple to implement mechanisms for restricting query complexity. This is far superior to any mechanism I have ever seen in REST APIs which are inherently far more restrictive because of the limitations of the design and much harder to predict. e.g. it's easy to exploit O(N) DOS type attacks in REST APIs that expose queries that are relational.

GraphQL supersedes REST in every way. For those who haven't realized that yet are simply missing context or experience.

But does this lock you in to Amazon? Sorta. You can always do more yourself, usually for a cost.

Most AWS services IME offer a fair amount of portability. My high-level point is: I just want tools to build things. Not to obsess over the tools I use the build them.

That said, I don't have specific enough domain knowledge to answer your questions or suggest alternatives.

Just wanted to share a perspecticve:

I think it's a misnomer to call it expensive or compare using a more abstracted service like Fargate vs something more granular like EC2.

If I need a service that lets me prototype, build a product, be first to market, etc. splitting hairs over compute costs seems moot. Not to say it isn't interesting to see the difference in pricing or how AWS quantified how to set pricing of the service.

FWIW, if you watched the Keynote stream, the theme of it was literally "Everything is Everything" and a bunch of catch-phrases basically meaning they've got a tool for every developer in any situation.

One other note: From my experience I'd also argue it's often times easier to migrate from fully-managed to more-self managed services than the other way around. By nature of owning more operations, you make more decisions about how it operates. Those turn into the pain-points of any migration project.

Here's one way to look at it: A graph database can be reflected with common, well-understood data structures. You can use a lot of backends to represent those data structures.

Graph database projects are often times just an adapter for doing Graph queries on-top of another store.

At their core, a graph database can be reflected simply with just documents and adjacency lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjacency_list

Bustle Digital Group (https://bustle.company) | New York, NY | Full-time | Onsite

We're hiring very talented developers of all types to work on building the best tech in digital media.

Over 50 million monthly active users to our products. Entirely serverless architecture. GraphQL. Redis. ElasticSearch.

Modern Javascript. Swift. Open-source first.

I helped start Bustle 4.5 years ago and I couldn't be more proud of the tech and diverse culture we've cultivated. If that sounds at all interesting just hit me up @ tyler@bustle.com.

I've had a catch-all for *@mydomain.com forward to my primary email address for 10+ years. In that time I signed up for services and websites with [domain]@mydomain.com thinking I'd catch all those dirty scoundrels selling my email address and have an easy way to filter unwanted mail.

But you know what really happened? I wound up with hard to remember email logins and caught less than a handful of services sharing my email address without my permission.

It wasn't worth it.