> sqlite is awesome when you run it in one instance on a VM or something,
This article really needs to be taken in the context of the author’s target audience: He sells courses that primarily target web dev juniors doing learning projects and small projects. That’s why he includes the “most of you reading this” disclaimer in the article:
> So, can you use SQLite? For the vast majority of you reading this, the answer is “yes.” Should you use SQLite? I’d say that still for the majority of you reading this, the answer is also “yes.”
Pushing strong contrarian opinions is part of his social media marketing style. He’s also pushing a “why I won’t use next.js” article and opinion on his social media, while conveniently omitting the obvious conflict of interest that he sells courses that don’t happen to cover Next.js.
Even with his bias you still saw a lot of agreement to his criticisms on the NextJS subreddit (which you would assume was biased towards NextJS) and the React subreddit.
Last time I truly used NextJS was in 2020 (it was v9), and that was only to make a statically generated brochure type site. I had started the site with Gatsby and didn't love Gatsby, so I switched to NextJS and loved it.
Recently I did start up a Next v13 project using the new App Router. But I haven't gotten that far past the initial scaffold and creating a couple components. Seeing all of these complaints about v13, especially the App Router, are making me want to scrap that and use something else.
By the time you're labeling stating your opinions in public and then acting consistently with them as a "conflict of interest", you've abandoned any ability to get anything useful out of the term.
So if I like apples more than oranges, I write a blog post saying I like apples and won't eat oranges, and I also have a business selling apples...it's a conflict of interest?
If a company sells apples and they start pushing social media campaigns about why oranges are bad and they think you should be buying apples instead, then that’s a conflict of interest.
I think some people are missing the conflict of interest because the author blurs the lines between his personal opinion and his business. He turned his personal brand into his business and uses his name as his brand.
EDIT: I think people are missing the meaning of "conflict of interest". Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean something is wrong. You can be right and have a conflict of interest.
The issue is that conflicts of interest exist whenever someone's paycheck depends on an opinion being true. If someone on Twitter was alternating between trying to sell you vitamin supplements and then posting articles about why those vitamin supplements are good for you, HN would have no problem with pointing out the conflict of interest and taking it into consideration in the context of evaluating the claims.
If someone's entire job and personal brand are built around selling courses for particular stacks, that's important context to bring up when they start writing about why other technologies are bad. Agree or disagree with the conclusion, but you have to acknowledge that the writings should be read with the conflict of interest taken into account.
We're missing the "conflict of interest" because you are abusing the meaning of the term.
What you describe is simply a bias.
Conflict of interest would be if I take money from parties A and B. Party A pays me to give a professional opinion about which nutritional supplement to take, which frontend javascript framework to use, etc. Party B pays me to endorse their special Snake Oil Pills and Ointment or React or something else. I take Party B's money and make those endorsements to Party A without their knowledge and without any actual consideration of what is truly best for Party A. There is a conflict of my interests in Parties A and B.
Your definition is excessively broad and could be used to suggest, e.g., that Nike has a conflict of interest because it is their opinion that you should purchase their shoes.
> e.g., that Nike has a conflict of interest because it is their opinion that you should purchase their shoes.
It's even worse: that Nike has a conflict of interest because they think that wearing shoes while running is good, even though it would be extremely weird if a running shoe company thought that running with shoes is bad.
Remove the business from the equation and the opinion is fine — it's the existence of a business that aligns with the opinion that creates the conflict! Galaxy brain definition.
> EDIT: I think people are missing the meaning of "conflict of interest". Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean something is wrong. You can be right and have a conflict of interest.
He has motivations that make him not impartial, but that's not usually termed a "conflict of interest."
You're just using the term strangely. Usually the phrase "conflict of interest" implies the person has some sort of official commitment / obligation / duty to another party that is put in jeopardy because of another conflicting interest.
But this is just some guy selling stuff. He hasn't made any official commitments; he doesn't have any official duty or obligation to remain impartial.
By your definition, anyone selling anything has a conflict of interest because they want money from their customers, which may be against the customers' best interests.
> If a company sells apples and they start pushing social media campaigns about why oranges are bad and they think you should be buying apples instead, then that’s a conflict of interest.
Pretty sure that's just marketing.
A lot of product pages will spell out features they have and list competitors that don't have those features.
> I think some people are missing the conflict of interest because the author blurs the lines between his personal opinion and his business.
No, what's going on is that you don't understand what "conflict of interest" refers to.
Different people having different interests, as when the apple company says you should buy apples even though you prefer oranges, is just a regular conflict. A conflict of interest is when one person has two different interests. The apple company isn't experiencing a conflict in your example.
He made his courses before Next.js rose to popularity.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he offered Next.js courses if it becomes popular enough in the future. For now, the anti-Nextjs push seems like a clear defensive play to steer people back to the course material he already had for sale.
This article really needs to be taken in the context of the author’s target audience: He sells courses that primarily target web dev juniors doing learning projects and small projects. That’s why he includes the “most of you reading this” disclaimer in the article:
> So, can you use SQLite? For the vast majority of you reading this, the answer is “yes.” Should you use SQLite? I’d say that still for the majority of you reading this, the answer is also “yes.”
Pushing strong contrarian opinions is part of his social media marketing style. He’s also pushing a “why I won’t use next.js” article and opinion on his social media, while conveniently omitting the obvious conflict of interest that he sells courses that don’t happen to cover Next.js.