Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Theo - t3․gg" channel.

  1. 43:50 This is bullshit, even if Fireship stamped "SARCASM" in the beginning of each video he make, people would still be scared of the things he says, one should not blame him for someone ignorance and sensibility, when you have the option of "just not watching" him.
    83
  2. Github says so much about AI, yet not a single one thought "oh, maybe we can use AI to do something really useful, prevent spam and bots". Maybe their confidence is not so high after all.
    72
  3. 4:36 No, really, this is really not that true. Even in assembly days people were already trying to get rid of it because it was just not that practical. It obviously sounded like something hard to grasp, like "how the 'compiler' will make better optimized assembly code than us", but the unpracticality of assembly was very clear from the beginings (people already used a LOT of macros at the time, and this makes writing assembly way less manual labor than writing it manually, so the jump is not that far). It is completely different when you are selling a bs statistical machine that may or may not produce working code and, in the worst case, delete your whole database because people became so reliable on it they don't check things anymore (100% of the code writen, we know people take more time to read code than to write it, it is way harder to understand, the probability of hidden bugs is way higher as well, etc). The problematics of this are WAY different in this sense.
    56
  4. I don't think having money incentives is "not open source by definition", there is nothing in the definition of open source that requires non-payments, the idea is "free as in free speech", not as in "free beer". But obviously dumb monetary incentives creates dumb spammers all around (and not only monetary incentives, there was this case of a bunch of indians being instructed by their teacher were posting all over github at a time). I think the moral is more: if you don't know what your incentives will create in thousands of unnocupied crazy guys or a bunch of freeloaders, don't do it.
    54
  5. You can still modify them freely tho, lol. It is just that there is no point in saying an AI can be open source outside of this realm of "here are the checkpoints", because even if you had all the training datasets, the inputs and all you would not be able to ensure a reliable training to achieve the same model by yourself (because they are non-deterministic and very fragile), so the "build the thing myself" and "change it part" are impossible in the very own nature of the thing (unless we are being overly generalistic). You can still change it however you want, tho.
    53
  6.  mag2XYZ  No, it feels sad because these bots abuse the trust github has to its users. It is <also> sad because github don't have a basic spam detector.
    46
  7. ​ @jamesarthurkimbell  I get out of his videos with a laugh, I don't think (most of) they are made to make people have hope or "clarity" (whatever this means). People should start appreciating some dark humor, or at least not come into videos like these and hope to have their heads patted.
    27
  8.  @SeanJMay  "you start losing user attention after a few hundred milliseconds." Bro, I'm sorry but what the frick? The median response time for humans to click on things is like 200-300ms, how exactly are you losing user attention before the user reaction even landed on the thing? If it is about like 900ms or 1s or more, maybe ok, but with less than 500ms it is hard to believe this is reasonable
    24
  9. Good luck baning youtube, there are TONS of copyrighted material here. People that host things should not be responsibilized by people that consumes their services in a wrong manner, this is literally impossible in some contexts as well (like E2E systems).
    22
  10.  @amackzie  You clearly don't ship to third world countries, it is pretty common for machines to have very low amounts of storage.
    21
  11. Well, technically speaking async/await already is cooperative scheduling
    14
  12. The web slogan: "Making javascript better one runtime at a time"
    14
  13.  @AbstractObserver  A "children mentality" that is worth literally billions, I don't think your "adult mentality" is giving yourself that much in return.
    11
  14. You would not be able to 'build it like they did" even with the source code and the training data, LLM's training process has inherent randomness on it, I think it is as "open source" as it gets in AI terms. You also would not be able to train it even with perfect reprodution general conditions without some billion dollars to spare, no open source software ever had this kind of extreme reproducibility problems.
    11
  15. 9:15 I kinda got used to the ternaries, I made a numeric system and a number parser using pure typescript types before, the end result was cool, it is fun to explore those things
    9
  16. I can give you a helpful information: This model (the thinking version) is DRAMATICALLY harder to deceive with problems, so in this sense it is indeed better than all existing models (I have a specific question in which all of them fail, this model also fails but it at least recognizes the trickery to a certain extent).
    8
  17. ​ @ky3ow  This is caused by <clickbaits>. People see the title of the video and get pissed off. It is completely reasonable and if you don't want this kind of response generally you should just use titles that don't pass the wrong impressions.
    8
  18.  @personalemail9329  I do this (even if I hate clickbaits myself), I'm saying you cannot blame people when they get pissed off by clickbait titles. Maybe you also should read my comment fully before passing off a response.
    8
  19. 5:11 While this is true, and the chrome dev tools is objectively better, it is also objectively TERRIBLE in the performance standpoint compared to the firefox one. This thing is absolute madness the moment you need to edit inline styles in chrome and starts chugging more and more memory nonstop, while in firefox even opening it feels instant.
    8
  20.  @bangunny  Nah, I think this is a misconception. You can use tailwind before knowing CSS, and use your tailwind knowledge to use CSS better, or it can be the other way around: with your CSS knowledge you can know how to use tailwind better. In principle, this is possible because tailwind is very descriptive, it says to you what it is doing, "bg-xxx" is clearly about a "background color", "w-xxx" is about "width", "pb-xxx" is about "padding bottom", etc... you learn by the naming and by the experience when using the tokens. After that you will use CSS, and you will start discovering there are those same keywords but in an "extended form", so the knowledge is very transferable.
    8
  21. On the contrary, devs will do anything but not writing code. You literally need to write code to make an editor to not needing to write code.
    7
  22.  @tacocrunchies  nah, they should not.
    7
  23. I don't think you know which is a valid reason versus not.
    7
  24. Funny enough, I would pick React over Angular or AngularJS at any time of the day, even if I prefer solidjs. In my personal view, Angular is an extreme corporate mess that people chose only for sadistic purposes.
    6
  25. Why he did not used the Solid without hydration thing, was not it like 2x the speed and had the same equivalence with his templating thing?
    6
  26. 13:13 tbf, I think a simple captcha thing would solve this. I get it, it is possible to automate captcha solving, but it costs money and it is the best counter incentive existing.
    6
  27.  @potato9832  Bro, get out there with your cult.
    6
  28. I think this is a misguided opinion. Software developers are engineers, but also architects and also bricklayers, we do this all at once because software is that complex. It is obviously different from the physical engineering, but also not that different from all kinds of engineerings. It is plainly possible, for example, to build a simple robot as a proof of concept without needing to carefully plan it before, you need to have the right intuitions. Curiously, it is also possible to build a house without planning, I live in a country where this is kinda common and they tend to last for decades and more, they are obviously not marvelous constructions but are not explosive (bridges are in another league, but even they sometimes are made this way). Being a software engineer, you don't need to care about physics (unless we are talking about performance), so it is usually not extremely dangerous to make mistakes, it is also expected as it has dozens or hundreds of moving parts, where in a bridge you only need to make it stable, reliable and durable. Those are different professions, you should not collapse their definitions like that to compare and say "this is not engineering and this is".
    6
  29. You know, you can kinda learn anything as basic as this 'ky' in 15 minutes or less. I literally never seen it before and it sounds familiar. So I think there is a larger problem with people self declaring themselves "senior detection machines" or whatever that at the same time are downgrading the world into their own worldviews about how problems should be solved (and that everything outside of that field is "unexperienced"). Put 5 of them in a room and every single one of them will be saying the other is not a real senior very fast. But I get the point, I'm just being a bit harsh.
    5
  30. @ What exactly is this question supposed to mean? I live in brazil, here most cheap computers have this amount of disk space. Maybe "most" is a bit hyperbolic, but the defaults are around that, up to 500GB sometimes, but those are for newly bought ones. People that live in small cities have old machines from sometimes more than 15+ years ago, which means like second generation processors and such, small amounts of RAM (until I got my last PC, ~7 years ago, I had like 2GB or 4GB of RAM max, and after that I used one with 6GB for some years, the disk space was not much more than 128GB, it was almost always full). It's not that uncommon here.
    5
  31. I like tauri, what is your problem with it specifically?
    5
  32. ​ @KevinDay  Nop, you can also require payments for open source, this is also not against it <by definition>. You also don't need a license enforcing the paywall, this is a feature created artificially by proprietary software over the years. People will pirate your software no matter what you do, the question is just that you can sell and make money to those that wants to pay you for your job.
    5
  33. Browsers were already called as 'operating systems' for a long time now to be fair, they kinda do a very specific job and many users only use browsers while their computers serve just to store files and run the browsers.
    4
  34. ​ @andreilucasgoncalves1416  Blazor is slow because of some questionable decisions from microsoft (like shipping the runtime with the apps). Blazor AOT would be faster, but still very WIP.
    4
  35. ​ @cemreomerayna463  I'm not having a "hope", I'm saying about something I USE EVERYDAY, stop presuming I'm some kind of idiot and instead try to suspend your disbelief for a moment. I'm not denying AI code is useful, I'm not saying it is useless either, I'm saying the analogy don't work and I'm saying it is in the end of the day a random machine with unpredictable results. Unreliability is a fricking logical unsolvable problem, humans did not even figured out how to solve reliabilityt with them, to solve this with AI is an EXTRAORDINARY and probably impossible thing (this is why even the best """reasoner""" models nowadays are still dogshit and make up "facts" all the time). I'm merely stating some implications of that unreliability and of what follows from it, it's not about the fact that the technology will or not "get better and better", rather about an inherent and fundamentally unsolvable problem.
    4
  36. 6:23 Because this is almost the <anti git>, not for some random reason I guess. When you allow for arbitrary deletion in a repo that can have like 100 collaborators, how exactly do you know that all of the members are alright with it?
    4
  37. This appears to have the exact same secuirity level of using a password manager: - You generate passwords for every website - You rely on a tool to send and consume the authentication process - You create a single weak point on the security chain that is you instead of the server (as you still have an unique password in the password manager)
    4
  38. I think Angular needs to use rust in their compiler, this thing is EXTREMELY heavy for something that does so little.
    3
  39.  @dumboluzz  I think we already have some kind of analogs of this for a long time actually, like the queueMicrotask or the uses of setTimeout to stop work from going into the thread for a long time. But I get this is a bit more specific.
    3
  40. Oh, and I didn't heard anybody talking about the random chinese packages in npm with files with binary contents yet (derived from existing packages and misleading names), I perceived this months ago in some searchs for packages.
    3
  41.  @cemreomerayna463  1. I became angry because of your attitude towards my response, not because you offended me directly, nor because a "stupid technology". I'm just generally tired of AI apologists and people like the other guy in this comment that talk bs without any kind of appropriate reflection. But either way, sorry if my tone was not ideal for a discussion, I'm fine and this is all past now. 2. And what I'm saying, what I literally said in my comment, is that this is a fundamentally, computationally untractable problem. You understand what are the implications of this? The implications are that [it is not getting more reliable], or better, that the [reliability gains are marginal]. For one, reliability implies a grounded conscious compromise with the truthness of a sentence, you say someone is reliable when that person has a good amount of proven knowledge, has the right intentions (to seek truth) and has peers confirming that veracity, those conditions are generally reasonable to expect when we define reliability. Now, AI does not have 2 of these, it does not have true knowledge in any sense, it literally just spits tokens, it is [literally] how it works, you can make an AI say almost literally anything with the correct prompt, this is far from being possible to humans and is obviously a terrible sign for this prospect. It does not "understand", it spits the most probable token, it can be steered towards more "reliable" responses by reinforcement learning and other techniques (like dataset filtering or "grounding" with things like RAG and similars), but it is still fundamentally just spitting tokens in a specific order, there's no knowledge and it fails to suffice the condition (1). For (2), AI obviously does not have conscience, it also does not have any kind of known morality, it can just immitate and spit, it is extremely easy to understand why they can't by implication also not "compromise with the truth" nor "tell the truth" by any means imaginable, they are really just intrinsecally not reliable and that's the point. For coding the implications are exactly the same, coding language is not a "regular grammar", I don't know from where did you got that impression, most if not all mainstream programming languages are literally context-free grammars with specific context-sensitive aspects, even while structured (because they need to be parsed efficiently), they are obviously far from being as complex as natural language, but nowhere as simple as a "regular grammar". It is also the case that coding is extremely complex in and on itself, and even the best, most advanced, "reasoning" models make arguably extremely silly mistakes that you would expect from a complete amateur (like literally creating ficticious packages out of thin air, writing disfunctional code that does dangerous things like deleting what is not supposed to delete, and literally just having a basic to terrible understanding of coding patterns and expected solutions), I've used all models since even GPT-2 (obviously, it was unable to code almost anything but extremely short one liners that were terribly wrong almost all the time) to GPT-3 (terrible at coding, but was starting to enhance) up to 3.5 (way better, still terrible), 4 (mid at best, still very terrible), 4o (almost the same as 4, but a bit more precise), o1 ("reasons", but still commits the same basic mistakes I saw in 4o over time) to o3-mini-x (which is not that much better than o1). Those models are not more "reliable", they are better at making less obvious mistakes (which is arguably more dangerous, not less, as now you need to understand the semantics of the thing to catch those), they are making less brute mistakes, they are still making absolute copious amounts of silly problematic errors. Their "reliability" is getting marginally better with each new innovation, so what I'm saying is here. 3. This is not only false, but also a dangerous way of thinking in and on itself. See (2) for reasons why the reliability of humans is inherently less problematic, and truer, and even more: humans take responsibility of their actions, they are moral agents in the world, while AI agents are, again, just spitting words. If a human make a terrible fatal mistake, he would be fired or even sent to jail, he would have nightmares with his mistakes, a bot making mistakes is just a sociopath, cannot be held accountable, cannot feel anything, it's unpredictability is [absolutely dangerous], while humans have absolutely developed ways to deal with their uncertainty (ways that work, we literally delivered the man to the moon with a software so small that would be uncomparable with a hello world compiled in many of the most modern languages). Your response is unsuficient, and problematic.
    3
  42.  @JanErikVinje  I think not even OpenAI believe in this, otherwise they would already replaced their engineers with o3 at this point. If the question was that it had "human-level inteligence", but they themselves don't bet on it, they want to sell their product.
    3
  43. @ There is a clear ABSOLUTE difference tho. With Svelte, it was too magical at the point even svelte recognized it and made special markers on the code for it. In the react's case it is just doing optimizations under the hood, neither the semantics nor the syntax of the code is changed on that compiler magic. But I see how things are, haters gonna hate.
    3
  44.  @paragateoslo  it is called one of the hardest parts of programming for a reason. Naming IS difficult, the fact that you don't see it is concerning, but excusable. Because naming is a problem of syntax, semantics and readability, the more you need to name things the more you need to be careful to not make your code ambiguous or overly verbose, you also need to think on non-trivial names or the problem will only be exacerbated.
    3
  45. 4:57 Kinda arguably the contrary, you never really knnow the value of someone beforehand, but I get it.
    3
  46.  @Nekoeye  "Is it true that taiwan the world's largest chip maker?"
    2
  47. This is like a bot thing? Almost every video from every language there is 1 or 3 people like this that are just randomly stating the language should not exist like a generic hater.
    2
  48. 49:50 We can also simply add a meta tag for interpreting html in this new way...
    2
  49. @15:42 Oh boi... this gives me the feeling of the old days XML-Script and other xml-based scripting languages, creeeeepy
    2
  50.  @LaughingRam  Those who can work also teach. What you said is a ludicrous statement, Feinman was fond of being able to teach and he was one of the most important physicists of the last century.
    2
  51. me as well, I perceived this like months before today hahahahaha
    2
  52. There are a bunch of chinese named and written strange packages as well in npm (with binary content in files)
    2
  53. I don't think anybody was "pretending angular doesn't exist". But you are right in something, itr is for "money-making business", it has all the bullshit talk and style corporations like and go hard in this direction, don't change the fact it is only <one> of the tools that are money-making, react is also one of those and angular people love to shit on react a lot as well.
    2
  54. It is literally impossible for you to not compare past scenarios with AI, it is [what people do]. If you don't do this you are completely in the fog, there's nothing to be said and you would be purely another futurologist.
    2
  55.  @GateOfSteins  It's more like "Good for y'all, all my driving will be done by a tesla car" rather than a cars and horses comparison.
    2
  56.  @szirsp  Those are VERY unintuitive behaviors, it is not expected that most people would know about those. This "oh no, look he does not know this and he is a web dev" is a very weird conversation, almost too weird.
    2
  57.  @dryk-sdjberg  "I agree and seeing how Rust has largely been rejected by engineers" Source: Times New Roman
    2
  58. 42:00 But this is just, bad. You should not try to analyze people this way, principally if you don't know the people enough, you will certainly treat people like statistics.
    2
  59. Do HTMX work for client-side only things?
    2
  60. Would not it be clearer in react if you just made an utility, like: function effect({ deps, run, cleanup }: { deps: any[], run: () -> void, cleanup: () -> void }) { useEffect(() => { run(); return cleanup; }, deps); } that you can then use like this: effect({ deps: [slug], run: () => { ... }, cleanup: () => { ... } }) I feel like at least some of the problems with useEffect is that it is too much quirky to use, so wrapping it maybe provide some benefits.
    2
  61.  @lucas-barake  Chad
    2
  62.  @hola_chelo  HTMX is server-dependent, depending upon the application you make and who is consuming it the experience could be worse.
    2
  63. For the average reader: Maybe 23,540 persons that are already biased to searching about and answering this kind of survey are not a good measure of adoption. But at least I can concede it is somewhat interesting information.
    2
  64.  @alex-rs6ts  Nah, I'm good. OpenAI still have not fired any of their engineers.
    2
  65.  @Skyb0rg  The password manager can have pishing prevention as well by just checking the URL's for you, this is not a counter-argument.
    2
  66. Oh boi, TypedCSS is coming now! Just joking, of course (well...), but anyway this idea is interesting, there are valid use cases for having those custom functions in making reusable styles.
    1
  67. ​ @pedroalonsoms  classic brazillian "let's unify instead of competing" take
    1
  68.  @RomanTchekashov  I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you. I literally worked on many angular projects, in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE the pattern was extremely giant components with 700+ lines of code and templates that were an absolute mess. Not to talk about state management being scattered all around. Angular is just not good in leading unexperienced devs to good solutions, it will make them do the most messy thing they can because the framework has so much unneeded friction that it makes making a simple component a job of using a cli + having 4 or more files (in default). It is just not good. Obviously I also find some amusing things about angular, in some kinds of projects that structure shines, but certainly it is not for "unexperienced developers who need guidelines" (unexperienced developers just don't follow guidelines). Nor React nor angular can solve the problem of having messy codebases, I think React induces some great problems with his extremely wasting rendering model, but Angular is not much off the track. React at least makes making smaller components easier which in turn makes refactoring those generally simpler as well.
    1
  69. Regulations are just a byproduct of itchiness in a random regulator butt, it is simple as that, no need to argue about how is this a bad thing because it will not change how they act. When the itchiness comes, more regulations.
    1
  70.  @zeddash  It is only turing complete with HTML + user input currently, if I remember correctly.
    1
  71. As for the points: 1. reasonable 2. This is a bad response, it ALSO means the developers are bad, but it don't refute the claim that electron has terrible performance (because you are shipping a whole fricking browser with every application). Both of those things can be true, and they can both affect the end result. Telegram desktop app is one example of how a marvelous engineering makes a native app extremely faster, so much more than any electron app ever was. 3. reasonable Other than that, Electron is "fine", it's not an optimal technology, but it is usefull. My problem with it is more on how it is extremely overused rather than on it being slow, but it being slow is also part of it.
    1
  72. 12:00 At this point is not this just reinventing poe?
    1
  73.  @LaughingRam  If this was what you could extract from what I said, sure, HAHAHAHAHAHA.
    1
  74.  @jatinkumar7287  I read it, I just don't find this convincing enough. Feature parity makes more sense than testing the "normal operation of the framework" because the framework can do something that is very convenient but at the same time very expensive in the baseline. But if you wanted the same speed than fastify without that feature, removing it opt-in would be a thing you would already have in mind when chosing the technollogy. You can clearly see it by thinking about it this way: If you remove something that do matter and will make the features of solidjs less than the features of fastify, it would be very easy to just use it as an argument and say that "solid is only as fast or faster if we remove something that makes it good", but in the case of removing hydration it appears to not put it below fastify in any way, so the only perspective that benefits itself on not using that benchmark is fastify. Of course, you can also argue that we should prioritize the "out of the box experience" in that benchmark, which would be fair, but from the article this did not appear to be their intent.
    1
  75.  @tedarcher9120  Similar ones are tho.
    1
  76. I was more interested in a rewrite I saw a guy doing of TypeScript that would make it's types actually mean something
    1
  77. Yeah, civet lost me at this: switch x 0 console.log("zero") /^\s+$/ console.log("whitespace") [{type: "text", content}, ...rest] console.log("leading text", content) What the heck is that supposed to look like?
    1
  78. ​ @MrMudbill  Which you don't know a priori, so this comment is pointless.
    1
  79.  @alex-rs6ts  I think this question is capcious in and on itself, it already assumes AGI is possible in the first place.
    1
  80. I'm cool with brave, I don't remember the last time I was annoyed with crypto stuff.
    1
  81. 6:57 Just try angular, make a relatively big project with it, and watch your development server explode with updates taking 1-60 seconds each update you make to components that are used in a lot of places. The experience is definitively astonishing.
    1
  82.  @pakoottox262  I don't think the extremely large loading times are due to me being "bad at coding in angular", feel free to prove your statement tho.
    1
  83. Nowadays after 1990 there are those magical things called LSPs that allows you to simply search for keywords as if they were in a database, you know?
    1
  84. Not even close to that, lol. I know at least some that struggles with even basic programming.
    1
  85. I will believe in you when you start to actually make new theories and hypothesis using it and make your name, dear physicist.
    1
  86.  @PrajwalDSouza  I did some tests with it, and while it is clearly way better in "reasoning" (if you think this word apply here) I don't think it is qualitatively better as people are pointing out. I tricked it pretty easily for example with some indirection in the problems I gave it, like try formulating a problem with a deceiving conclusion that anyone would catch if they really solved the problem but that is not obvious enought so it is untangled from the bigger problem, it will probably fail and try to justify the tricky part within the framing of the bigger problem instead of noticing they are contradictory. I think the "memorized how to reason" in the video is a good way of putting it, even if not entirely accurate, for this particular reason. But anyway, glad to be proven wrong and hopping the o1 (not preview) will be better, if it really solves problems in physics then we will have many advancements in technollogy very soon, if not, well, at least it was a funny toy.
    1
  87.  @viinisaari  talk is cheap.
    1
  88. ​ @deatho0ne587  Because it is not needed. Or better formulating, what <angular devs> call separation of concerns is not an universla definition that everyone else should bow and agree, it is something that is debatable and in react can be also formulated as component = concern.
    1
  89. ​ @deatho0ne587  I think those benefits in maintenance certainly exist to a certain degree, but you must also recognize that those benefits come with drawbacks both in maintenance and in other aspects (such as literally everything in tech). As long as you can recognize you are making a tradeoff, which you think are better than the ones I'm making, I'm okay with it. I also recognize my tradeoffs, but I like the benefits of having everything in one singular location better (like having the entire thing in my head and not needing to swap around to find the template update logic, the less amount of boilerplate or similar things).
    1
  90. Nice try CEO of google, next time use a better fake account.
    1
  91. I would be concerned when OpenAI fire their engineers and use o3 in their place. Until them it is another bullcrap.
    1
  92. Where did functional programmers touched you sweety?
    1
  93. It would simply be better to be able to write this: ``` const x = try { 10 } catch(e) { 'lol' } ``` like most decent languages nowadays.
    1
  94.  @iLiran  Why can't you compare "anything that happened before" with the "current situation", exactly?
    1
  95.  @J3R3MI6  Sure buddy, you can stick to your new secular religion, but know it won't save you.
    1
  96. Angular is still very crap tho, talking as someone that uses it in a daily basis. If they manage to make smaller components easier to make and not needing to take a whole file (or, at least, with templates and styles in the same file that are not just javascript backtick strings) maybe my opinion will change to a more positive stance, but not now.
    1
  97. I don't think the paradox of choice is a real problem, these are competing products with very different capabilities, you cannot escape this kind of choice making when you have a market.
    1
  98. You don't need to use implicit returns, but they are indeed useful. Sometimes for quick prototyping they are everything you need, and most of the times TS can correctly infer the return types based on what you effectively returned, so unless you are doing something very wrong (and are unable to hover the function to see what it infered or enable type hints) it should suffice.
    1
  99. Immediate mode UIs are generally extremely simple in terms of layouting and style, this is the part of the picture you are missing. Rendering the DOM is slow because: (1) We use JS to do it (2) It is retained mode, so all the changes are cached and rendered the minimum as possible (3) The layouting and styling system of modern HTML + CSS is [extremely complex], it allows you to do a huge amount of positioning, calculations, transformations, event based styles, very compound and complicated responsive layouts, animations, etc... all of those things take time, and they are pretty slow to work It is a different beast altogether.
    1
  100.  @HolyMacaroni-i8e  We do know currently only animals possess it, so we have a good reason to say AI will never have it.
    1
  101. ~28:00 Yeah, I respect you for being open for his forgiveness.
    1
  102.  @jackdigilov4949  Because you can't avoid the pitfalls, the first big problem with AI is that it is generally unreliable, it is a statistical machine and the results of it are unknown before generated. The second is that when you don't write the code it does not fit in your head, so letting the AI generate it would not be more productive than saying to a Junior engineer "write all this code for me" just for you then needing to read all of it, familiarize yourself with his ways of coding and fixing manually all the mistakes he made, the time you gain is wasted and the code quality decreases (because you lose control over the output).
    1
  103. 1. It is easier 2. It is <generally> safer 3. It is easier
    1
  104. 15:50 I think this is an overreaction of the thing, many times you use tailwind you will also have both direct and non-direct children of your HTML that [should be] static and not something you freely move, structure is part of many components and you cannot change it and not change the styles as well. For some frameworks as angular that induces huge components with their "separation of html and code" this is also very reasonable to use, as well as with raw html directly. It is not [that] problematic and arguably good for some things.
    1
  105. Hm, actually, I agree with you partially. I don't think the *: is bad, but the **: is really problematic, starts to get more of a "spooky action at a distance" feeling.
    1
  106. I'm more on the line of my friend, robots were part of the division of labor since quite some time now, from industry automation robots to roombas. AI will not be different, but it will integrate on the intellectual line of work, and also will be used to improve intellectually the physical labor ones. I think I'm more skeptical than him on how much will the intellectual labor be integrated with AI as a kind of participant in it, but I can clearly see how it will be integrated around the edges of what we make, and possibly with time take more and more part of the process. Anyone that knows economics will see the productivity benefits of this and how it will expand the production of software and actually increase the demand for engineers (and even allow for more people to be engineers), but it is still very annoying to deal with AI apologists on the internet.
    1
  107. I always find it absolutely amazing how google can make one of the worst shitty developer experiences from all big companies I tried.
    1
  108. 4:30 This feels very similar to nim, I don't like it that much as well, but I think it fits better in the CSS declarative model in this specific sense.
    1
  109. Stick with your communist view of tghe world, Philip, people here live in reality.
    1
  110.  @sino_diogenes  Sure buddy, go back to your cult.
    1
  111.  @gooseythelucy  It is literally not the same thing.
    1
  112. 28:10 This is more your own preference than an objective truth, there are "implicit returns" in lambdas without bodies for example, the principle in those languages is similar. If everything is an expression, then it makes sense that even a multiline function can return by just using the last evaluated one. It is not that big of a deal like you make it sound, most functional languages have this as well.
    1
  113.  @DavidMulderOne  It kinda gives me the feelings of the times where we made XML based scripting languages (which essentially were similar, because it was also about the "frontend" [the XML "script" with it's triggers and behaviors] using the "backend" [the underlying program] as a means to execute code). But I also think maybe it can be good? It is hard to say without trying a bit, maybe I'll invest some time to adjust my expectations, thanks for the response!
    1
  114.  @Cat-vs7rc  They are still using them in their daily tasks, so nothing changed here.
    1
  115. ​ @SilvestreVivo  You should think "how much money is react making them" instead of "how much money is react costing", people usually don't just use technologies that don't benefit them in some way.
    1
  116. I think this is more of a "you" problem in believing those things (structure and appearance) should be considered "concerns" and be separate than some objectively good property of old-school CSS, but you give tailwind a go and check for yourself if it will not make you more productive in writting styles. For me it was a good fit, even if I still like CSS for the raw power it provides.
    1
  117. Quantum processing is not the same as "more performance", in fact they are [worse] than traditional computers in many tasks.
    1
  118.  @requindr  My whole point is that it does provide benefits (semantic ones), lol. And if someone gets confused by this I don't think this person is a programmer, those are literally plain english words with well defined meanings in react, I'm not presenting a theorem proof in modal logic.
    1
  119. HTML + CSS are a literal abstraction, tho. There's no point in criticizing a tool that does this some little more.
    1
  120. @ Let me get this sorted out here: If you are not doing more than one thing in CSS, you are just reinventing tailwind. There's no single world where you are not making an utility class library if you are not applying different styles to your elements in classes that do more than one single specific thing about the styling. In this sense, sure, the name IS the thing it does. Naming is hard because usually things don't do "one single specific and descriptive thing" as this in impractical for many cases.
    1
  121. @ Containers are not doing "one thing", unless you are talking about something very specific. But at the moment you have: color: ...; background-color: ...; border: ...; border-radius: ...; width: ...; height: ...; ... which is pretty normal stuff for classes in CSS, you are already [doing more than one thing] regarding that class, and the naming is now a problem.
    1
  122. 10:38 I'm not convinced, tho, that this covers the majority of the situations and explains how engineers in general work. For example, how many of those remote workers were hybrids and how much it affected the range? How much is feasible to just make a cut in the range of developers like you did and automatically lose the good engineers that would otherwise be willing to work in your company for the sake of it being remote work? That data per se is not sufficient to draw those conclusions.
    1
  123. This will just not happen.
    1
  124.  @dealloc  And he never said they invented it, he said they adopted it a long ago before it was even mainstream. Your hate for web3 should not blind you to what is being said.
    1
  125. ​ @dealloc  "figured out" = "invented it"? I think "figured out" can express "discovered a solution that most people don't use" or "had the idea to use it this specific way" perfectly.
    1
  126. Then why it frustrates you if you understand the tradeoffs?
    1
  127. Also, who reviews the reviewer?
    1
  128. 4:38 I've literally been using it for like 5 years now, and I must disagree. Firstly, because there is literally no reason for it to be "laggy" and I never experienced lag with it (I think?, not anything I did not experienced with chrome based browsers in general before) It has a bunch of cool ideas, it has it's own optional sidebar and customized reading lists (I don't care that much about it, but it is cool to have) It feels very fast for browsing, and it literally removes most of the ads from websites for you, no need for third party extensions for that, it also filters cookies and has a bunch of anonymous features that are very cool (even a Tor browsing mode, which is not ideal for total privacy but good if you want to test some things), it also passes most privacy tests for relatively good privacy browsers. I can't say nothing about the hotkey customization, I never felt the need to do this in a browser. Web3 bullshit is just your own ideological opinion on the subject, so why this is even listed as a con? It does not get in your way, you can literally use the browser normally without ever needing to touch the web3 stuff, I almost never use it as well and could not care less about that Other than that, it is a normal browser, so I don't see the reason why someone that uses chrome would not like that browser as well.
    1
  129. And the "better than brave" vertical tabs is insane, I'm literally using it right now with vertical tabs and it is <the same thing>, what the heck?
    1
  130. But well, guess I'll give Zen a try eventually anyway. It looks cool.
    1
  131. Why you feel the need to state that you are a 'self-taught developer' when speaking? I mean, I'm not judging, I am as well, but this sounds like a very artificial behavior and I want to understand the rationals.
    1
  132. ​ @Skyb0rg  But it is possible, my point was not about "the lowest safer password manager", it was about password managers in general and their best capabilities. A steelman of this argument would follow this lines: "A good password manager with pishing protections (for example by having an extension in the browser that checks the certificates and stores them when creating accounts) and good password protections (for example, that never shows the user their passwords, that generates strong and safer passwords, that keeps them encrypted all the time but on the act of login, that never repeats passwords, that associates passwords created with the sites they were created, etc) equates in security level a passkey".
    1
  133.  @LimitedWard  Again, this is not a fair response to what I said. 1. The degree a password manager can mitigate this problem <is literally the same> as passkeys on the edge. If the problem is "the user will ignore the password manager" then the problem with passkeys is that the user "will ignore them" anyways. If your answer is "we will just force them by limiting their options" then the same thing can be applied to password managers. 2. The same goes for a password manager that generate random strong passwords for each single account you use them to create. 3. I fail to see how this is possible. If they are offline the possible detection mechanisms should be the same for a password manager and the passkey software. For the last point, I can concede that passkeys have an advantage in this specific scenario where the password manager is stored in a local computer, but so does any kind of asymmetric encryption schema (unless you are talking about it in a very specific tone). The password manager could also be theoretically stored in a hardware device which ultimately would solve the same problem. And in the end of the day in both scenarios the hardware would then be the point of failure.
    1
  134. Angular is still slow as heck, and react is still a little better (with the compiler, WAY better, angular is still stuck with the old change detection mechanisms for most of its ecosystem currently). Most JS frameworks are trash at speed, with few exceptions like svelte or solid-js.
    1