I don't know, it feels odd to declare people wrote "because they enjoy it" and then get irritated when someone finds a way to monetize it retrospectively.
Like you're either doing this for the money or you're not, and its okay to re-evaluate that decision...but at the same time there's a whole lot of "actually I was low key trying to build a career" type energy to a lot of the complaining.
Like I switched off from Facebook aboutna years after discovering it when it increasingly became "look at my new business venture...friends". LinkedIn is at least just upfront about it and I can ignore the feed entirely (use it for job listings only).
People worry about tooling because they don't want to create a future mess they have to unpick: or the process might be hard enough they just won't do it.
For my private blog for example, how to easily - as in drag and drop - insert images was a big thing that needed to work. So was reasonable code rendering.
I settled on the requirement "must be able to publish a Jupyter notebook" since that format roughly handles all those requirements while still being markdown mostly.
Then you have hosting: I want low touch so how whatever I pick interacts with that matters a lot too suddenly.
It still took some tweaking of Nikola[1] to get the process right for me, though not much.
Keep it simple doesn't help much if simple is actually just missing features that enable you to write efficiently and often (if that's what you want to do, I think I mostly just keep technical notes for myself).
What's the isolation level? They only mention write-write conflicts.
The reason SQLite's BEGIN CONCURRENT does not greatly increase concurrency (unless you're very careful with your schema and queries) is as much due to page level conflict detection as it is because it enforces serializable isolation.
MVCC is a non-locking algorithm for concurrent writers that the big databases like postgres use (with caveats like aborting some transactions if conflicts would exist). It's not a matter of pushing locks around but allowing multiple threads to operate on the data concurrently.
It natively supports vector embeddings, which seems like it could be nice. The sqlite extensions I've tried for vector embeddings have been a challenge to get working (may just be me though).
> Turso Database is a project to build the next evolution of SQLite in Rust, with a strong open contribution focus and features like native async support, vector search, and more
Universality matters though. It's less interesting that a hyper specific machine exists for a task than that the same machine might be able to do a wide range of tasks, provided the price point is right.
“Less interesting” is an interesting value to compare things that are typically measured by utility. Human form factor robots are definitely more interesting to us as humans, but really only economically viable for high mix low volume tasks (of which there are many).
But past a certain scale special purpose machines will always be more cost effective.
And more annoyingly they will no doubt be given modular behavioral capabilities that require separate subscriptions to use (even the big cube-shaped farming robots do this)
The human form is terrible for most productive things. We are slow, weak, short, and inaccurate. Robotic arms are the true multitalents of manipulating the physical world.
That doesn't say anything about the human form: it says something about the human body.
But it's also not very accurate on that count: we are actually very strong compared to mechanical systems of a similar size, weight and energy structure.
This is on full display with the US's Venezuela problem: no one believes the US will hold it, so oil companies don't want to invest because last time exactly this happened - they had everything seized.
Imagine if you'd invested in lithium mining in Afghanistan 15 years ago: you'd likely have paid a lot, made little money, lost employees and then lost it to the Taliban.
Oh wow the changes to new() are an enormous ergonomics unlock. ErrAsType will also replace a similar package for me (too bad value errors will still be a thing though, and beginning new type errors still so wordy).
The lone gunmen mythology has basically been key to getting America en masse to surrender it's rights.
So many complaints about government have the form "I'll hit my breaking point and then I'll shoot a bunch of people".
No plan to join a militia, no plan to engage in coordinated action before that. Just a plan to commit a mass shooting and then be gunned down as another statistic. And probably kill a bunch of people who have nothing to do with whatever the problem is.
Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change.
And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.
> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.
Yes it is. If a normal commodity item such as bottle of milk was outrageous overpriced in a particular store. I would just go to another store.
As for whether I would pay for something without the threat of violence. I do so everyday. I've walked out of stores by mistake with an item I haven't paid for and gone back into the store and paid for it. I don't like my things being stolen, and thus I don't steal other people's things.
I pay for my eggs from a farm and it is a honour system.
> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.
... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust.
You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought yourself?
Of course people have agreed on the price. That's why you don't see anyone trying to negotiate the price, even though they would be perfectly within their rights to try. And it's why you do see people comparison-shop.
You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.
> I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment.
What do you think happens to people who do that though?
You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach.
Implying violence is never necessary while repeatedly describing not doing violence even if the state's violence distributing apparatus isn't currently present rather undermines the case.
> but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach.
This is not an accurate representation of GP:
> I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying.... I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.
The OP is presenting a stupidly simplistic model of the problem, as though their regular middle class life ably answers the question of the role or threat of violence when demanding political change.
In a world they note of police, military and security guards, they're acting like whether this might have a reason is determined solely by whether people are planning to steal from a supermarket or not...while they're not poverty stricken or hungry, to boot.
Arguing "I simply obey all the laws" is real easy to do from a position of privilege.
Violence is never the answer is easy to say when it's not happening to you. Its also easy to say while you stand by as violence is done to others.
Which would matter but the entry box in no major browser do was this.
The HN text area does not insert em-dashes for you and never has. On my phone keyboard it's a very lot deliberate action to add one (symbol mode, long press hyphen, slide my finger over to em-dash).
The entire point is it's contextual - emdashes where no accomodations make them likely.
Yeah, I get that. And I'm not saying the author is wrong, just commenting on that one often-commented-upon phenomenon. If text is being input to the field by copy-paste (from another browser tab) anyway, who's to say it's not (hypothetically) being copied and pasted from the word processor in which it's being written?
Like you're either doing this for the money or you're not, and its okay to re-evaluate that decision...but at the same time there's a whole lot of "actually I was low key trying to build a career" type energy to a lot of the complaining.
Like I switched off from Facebook aboutna years after discovering it when it increasingly became "look at my new business venture...friends". LinkedIn is at least just upfront about it and I can ignore the feed entirely (use it for job listings only).
reply