Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aeonfox's commentslogin

> philosophically insulated

As an outsider, I'm curious on how?


A better example are sodium ion batteries, which are about to take off in a big way

https://www.catl.com/en/news/6812.html


The difference with biological brains is that the 'weights' (or synaptic action potentials) are updated with greater frequency. If one were reaching to make some kind of analogy to consciousness, this update frequency could be considered the 'resolution' of consciousness.

I've definitely found LLM code to be syntactically/semantically correct in one-shot pretty much all the time. It's usually the functional specification/behaviour that's found wanting.

Typing probably makes sense where memory-correctness needs to be enforced (e.g. Rust), and inferring those semantics require a much wider context. But memory-correctness isn't really something that afflicts BEAM languages.


How did you score freelance Elixir work?

Luck

OP might be referring to Jose Valim's 2023 ElixirConf talk where he's explaining why Elixir should go down the path of types.

He gives a lot more nuanced take than 'types are useless', which is more like 'types are less useful than people think in the context of Elixir development'. (Which makes sense because he's in the middle of implementing a type system for Elixir.)

https://youtu.be/giYbq4HmfGA?t=571


> types are less useful than people think in the context of Elixir development

With no insights at all into Elixir this sounds like a reasoned and defensible, if not outright correct, position.

The proposition I'm working with is "types are more useful than people think in managing a horde of degenerate short-cut taking co-workers whose failures I will be blamed for openly and quietly regardless of actual fault". Gradual typing is an interesting and appealing compromise, I'm gonna have to give Elixir a serious try.


Yes, that is a great talk. He really does an admirable job of exploring all of the reasons why people think that they want a typed language and concludes many (but not all) are not that helpful.

Separate to the self-host/datacentre argument, it would be interesting to see a speed/performance/watts-per-token leaderboard between leading models. Which model is the most watt-efficient?


Akbaruddin


?


> Using mouse motion as a control scheme is particularly genius - how did no one think of this before?

Point-and-click adventure games and the golden age of Macromedia Flash might be before your time? This really reminds me of novelty sites built in Flash which was all point and click and vector animation. A lot of those sites are lost to time, or perhaps hidden in some deep crevice of the web archive.

> I particularly like the points where the mouse control is taken away from you

One thing Flash couldn't do. But it had plenty of RCE exploits, so maybe it could.


And HTML/CSS/JS are far more powerful for designing than any of SwiftUI/IB on Apple, Jetpack/XML on Android, or WPF/WinUI on Windows, leaving aside that this is what designers, design platforms and AI models already work best with. Even if all the major OSes converged on one solution, it still wouldn't compete on ergonomics or declarative power for designing.


Lol SwiftUI/Jetpack/WPF aren’t design tools, they’re for writing native UI code. They’re simply not the right tool for building mockups.

I don’t see how design workflows matter in the conversation about cross-platform vs native and RAM efficiency since designers can always write their mockups in HTML/CSS/JS in isolation whenever they like and with any tool of their choice. You could even use purely GUI-based approaches like Figma or Sketch or any photo/vector editor, just tapping buttons and not writing a single line of web frontend code.


Who said anything about mockups? Design goes all the way from concept to real-world. If a designer can specify declaratively how that will look, feel, and animate, that's far better than a developer taking a mockup and trying their hardest to approximate some storyboards. Even as a developer working against mockups, I can move much faster with HTML/CSS than I can with native, and I'm well experienced at both (yes, that includes every tech I mentioned). With native, I either have to compromise on the vision, or I have to spend a long time fighting the system to make it happen (...and even then)


well, then you are really bad at native and should not be comparing those technologies despite your claims otherwise (which make little sense).


> really bad at native

Yikes. I spent 15 years developing native on both mobile and desktop. If you think that native has the same design flexibility as HTML/CSS, you're objectively wrong.

By design, each operation system limits you to their particular design language, and styling of components is hidden by the API making forward-compatible customisation impossible. There's no escaping that. And if you acknowledge that fact, you can't then claim native has the same design flexibility as HTML/CSS. If you don't acknowledge that fact, you're unhinged from reality.

There's pros and cons to the two approaches, of course. But that's not what's being debated here.


The real disconnect is that the user doesn't really care all that much. It's mostly the designers who care. And Qt for example but also WPF let you style components almost to unrecognizable and unusable results. So if everyone will need to make do with 8GB for the foreseeable future, designers might just be told "No.", which admittedly will be a big shock to some of them. Or maybe someone finally figures out how to do HTML+CSS in a couple of megabytes.


> the user doesn't really care all that much

They do. But not in the way that you think.

I recently switched from Spotify (well known Electron-based app) to Apple Music (well known native app). The move was mostly an ethical one, but I must say, the UI functionality and app features are basically poverty in comparison. One tiny example, navigating from playlist entry to artist requires multiple interactions. This is just one of many frustrations I've had with the app. But hey, it has beautiful liquid glass effects!

In short: iteration time matters. Times from design to implementation, to internal review, to real user feedback, and back to design from each phase should be as fast as possible. You don't get the same velocity as you do in native. Add to that you have to design and implement in quadruplicate, iOS design for iOS, Android for Android, MacOS for Mac, Windows design for windows. All that is why people use Electon.


Are there any polls (or any educated guesses) gauging what proportion of people who identify as Zionists want equal status with all Palestinians (particularly democratic rights) within the bounds of what was once Mandatory Palestine?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: