I suggest you expand your information sources to include contrary perspectives. These read like the typical hysteriaporn to freak normies out. It would be equivalent to my sharing supporting links from the NYTimes or WaPo.
In my experience, the Financial Times aren't terribly biased one way or the other, and do a good job of presenting the relevant facts and views.
If you have similarly significant, unbiased sources presenting some contrary view, it would behoove you to share them, rather than chiding.
If you just want to share your personal views, that is also welcome. The tone-policing and attacking reliable, unbiased sources is pretty empty, though.
I honestly believe the only way to get at "unbiased" sources is to triangulate all the bias. Mainstream publications are largely staffed by paid propagandists. To get at my opinion, you would need to hold all the propaganda in your mind at once, consider "qui bono?", and then find the point of common sense that all these positions are talking around. I would also avoid contemporary professional opinionators except as points of reference. Literally nothing said in such a context by such a person should be taken at face value. Go back to books on history or reflections/memoirs by people who were in the room when decisions were made to get a sense of how political reality operates. Long story short: there are no unbiased mainstream media opinions. If they were unbiased, they wouldn't appear in those publications.
> If you just want to share your personal views, that is also welcome
I meant your personal views on the topic (how Europeans view America lately), rather than your personal views on media bias.
Not that you can't share those, too, but it doesn't add to the discussion about how Europeans view America lately, and to be honest, the talking points I saw were pretty tired.
> I honestly believe the only way to get at "unbiased" sources is to triangulate all the bias
If you indeed believe that, and you have any sources with a reliability and bias level equal to FT (whatever you feel that may be) which you think are necessary to "triangulate all the bias" on this topic, please go ahead and share them.
The topic, as I see it, is propaganda. There are no sources of truth, only competing claims and differing levels of sincerity and reach. I'm sorry you find the subject tiresome. I do, too. But many in HN accept these sources as sincere when they are clearly factional and "biased". I'm not using "bias" in the Rationalist fallacy sense. That is very tired. I'm using it in two ways: a) the ideological, which is also tiresome but without which it's very hard to grok b) the progandistic function of "media" in the modern political order. It's not just the policing of the Overton window. There are certain thoughts you cannot take seriously until you shed some of this "bias". If you do you risk being "bad" and losing status. That is the ultimate function of mainstream media, to police status markers. Hence they are the cultural gatekeepers.
I mean that quite literally. Go ahead and try it. Assume the devil's advocate for any contemporary sacred cow and see how far you take it before you reject the position as not merely wrong but absurd or declasse.
Are you European? Do you live in Europe? Tell me how "Europeans" view the US at the moment.
> Tell me how "Europeans" view the US at the moment.
You were linked a reliable, low-bias source answering this question, but it's seeming more like you just want to spread FUD about the answer and complain about the media, rather than actually discuss the topic.
Your empty talking points about media bias, while unhinged ("propaganda" thrown out multiple times), are quite tired, and it doesn't seem like anyone here (least of all myself), is interested in the distraction of retreading such tired metadiscussion that one could see repeated ten times an hour from bots and humans alike while browsing truth social, if they were so inclined to so subject themselves (I no longer am).
Feel free to reengage with the actual topic if you're interested in talking about it, rather than being upset that other people are talking about it. Please don't reply just to complain at me about the media again.
I didn't think I was complaining about "the media." The links you're referring to are just fluff. As far as I'm concerned you could have just sent me advertorials. You seem very tired, but if you actually want to know my arguments, go ahead and read some of the other comments I made on the topic recently. I, myself, am too tired to spend much time ignoring your condescension in order to take your comments with more seriousness than you intend them. If you still think my points are "tired," I really do wonder what you think qualifies as interesting political discourse.
I'm not really interested in further engaging here unless you're willing to engage with the topic** in a manner more substantive than 'I personally feel this topic is fluff* / propaganda* / advertorial* / biased* / ideological* / hysteriaporn* / some other shallow dismissal / etc, and I don't want to discuss it'.
I don't expect that I'll change your feelings about the topic**, and I don't want to oblige you to keep replying in a post about a topic** which you personally don't like and personally don't want to discuss.
* – all of these are shallow dismissals from you here
** – how europeans feel about american tech lately
To be fair, you've offered nothing of substance to this thread. Just demanding that I accept the authority of an FT op-ed when I provide elaborated reasons not to is extremely lazy. Need I trace FT's funding sources, institutional backing, and factionalism for you? If you don't want to put in any effort, that's fine. Just bow out. Otherwise, stop sealioning me and do some work.
There's no need for you to accept anything, the minimal bias and high factuality of FT stands on its own regardless of what a single random internet commentator says or accepts.
You have an opportunity here to share these equally-biased, equally-factual sources you've been talking about which provide alternative perspectives on the topic*. You can take that opportunity or leave it. Personally, I'd love to read them and learn their perspectives, but as far as I can tell from what you've linked, they don't exist. Don't you want to help others "triangulate", as you called it?
If you just don't like FT or don't like the topic*, that'd be a different topic (and not one that interests me).
It seems clear to me now, that the dependency on US tech needs to be reduced _a lot_, and I sincerely hope this current political storm will bring renewed interest in protocols and European tech
It has many links to articles with an European viewpoint.
But you have to read between the lines as EU media does not like to write "this is too crazy to be happening, what are they thinking?".
E.g. a title like "Macron calls emergency European summit on Trump". How bad do you think it has to create a EU summit solely for handling the new US relationship?
tldr: large increase in EU military and which has to be EU made. US is seen as ending "rule of law" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law) and has become an unreliable partner, great loss of soft power and prestige.
Hardware APIs:
There is of course a good reason why websites don't get unlimited access to those APIs (and why they can't access them in the background). But Bluetooth and USB are both available on Chromium browsers on every platform except iOS (because Chrome on iOS is Safari).
Example: When Google closed down Stadia, they offered a way to unlock the Stadia controller so you could connect it via BT to any computer and use it as a regular controller. You just went to their website, hooked up the controller via USB, and the site would update the firmware on the USB device.
But sure, there are many use-cases for native apps. Also, there are many native apps that should just be a website (you shouldn't even need to install it if you only need to use it once or twice).
This is a fair point. I would hate spamming any maintainer. Most of these contributions will happen after the students have completed their curriculum and done 1-2 concept designs. [Apologies if I did not make it clear that I am just trying to replace the redesign projects -- not the new concept design]
At the same time, if I fork any repo of my choice -- I don't think we'll necessary work on the most important aspects. Reducing the chances of the design getting incorporated or the students getting any objective feedback to improve things.
Over the shoulder is often the developer explaining their decisions in the code, instead of the reviewer trying to reverse-engineer it, independently. It's just faster and has less resistance -- not necessarily better.
Problem with remote live reviews is that in a remote environment, it's harder to tell if someone is free or they are doing their own deep work.
Either the developer has to wait for the review to be done asynchronously before the merge... or ping someone to review their code through a screenshare and take away their attention.
The reviewer can ask questions on the pr? You shouldn't need to reverse engineer code to figure out their decisions. If it's really that noteworthy the programmer should leave a comment explaining their decision.
My team posts their PR reviews in our team slack channel. Which bothers the totally async purist in me, but we’ve found it to be a good middle ground between waiting for reviews requested via GitHub email and actually pinging someone.
If something’s super complex, and I don’t feel like it’s the submitter’s fault, or even if I’ve got a PR where I realize the code I’ve written isn’t optimal, and async feedback would be too slow, I’ll usually schedule a meeting on someone’s calendar, giving them at least a day of notice.
But otherwise? If I can’t understand what’s going on without too much difficulty, that’s on the PR submitter to improve their code readability through structuring, naming, comments, or as a last resort, external documentation imo. So I see not having the original submitter involved as a feature. Who knows if they’ll be around when you have questions about the same code in 2 years? Is someone going to document everything that was said in the “over the shoulder” review?
That being said, the work I do isn’t anything cutting-edge. More complex code justifies more involved review practices.
> My team posts their PR reviews in our team slack channel. Which bothers the totally async purist in me, but we’ve found it to be a good middle ground between waiting for reviews requested via GitHub email and actually pinging someone.
Why don’t you install the GitHub Slack application? It will tell you immediately when somebody asks for a review and it has other useful functionality as well.
Oh, I guess some additional context is that by convention we use Slack emoji to indicate whether we approve, comment or request changes. Then again when it’s merged/deployed. Reviews aren’t specifically requested of individuals, usually just the entire team. That way, if it’s a channel everyone is in, other people can see at a glance whether they should still review the PR.
> Over the shoulder is often the developer explaining their decisions in the code, instead of the reviewer trying to reverse-engineer it, independently.
If the reviewer needs to reverse-engineer the code to understand it without the author explaining it, this is a strong signal that the code is not high quality and needs more work. In this case, “over the shoulder” is actually bypassing something that a pull request would catch. “It’s not clear what this code does” is a perfectly reasonable cause to ask for changes in a pull request.
> Over the shoulder is often the developer explaining their decisions in the code, instead of the reviewer trying to reverse-engineer it, independently. It's just faster and has less resistance -- not necessarily better.
Ouch, this is a great point. So for code that has to live for a long-ish time over-the-shoulder review is definitely inferior.
I have setup review process in a company I work in, and one of the rules is "the best way to answer the reviewer's comment is to change the code or add a comment".
In Hasura your still need a 3rd party service such as Firebase or 0Auth for Authentication. Also, it depends on Serverless functions for doing any business logic.
This is a misconception. Hasura doesn’t depend on serverless functions for doing business logic.
If you are comfortable writing GraphQL, you can add your own custom GraphQL server to Hasura for business logic.
If you are comfortable with REST APIs (or something that already exists), you can use Hasura Actions to define GraphQL types and call your REST endpoint to perform business logic.
Now where this server is hosted is totally upto the user. It can be serverless functions or can be a monolith server (in language of choice) hosted anywhere.
> you can add your own custom GraphQL server to Hasura for business logic
> If you are comfortable with REST APIs (or something that already exists)
This is an order of magnitude worse than simply having to "depend on serverless functions". You're saying for any real-world business logic (read: non-crud writes to the database, every app has these), you need to re-implement another graphql server? or simply have something that "already exists" to solve your problem? Isn't that what Hasura is for?
> Now where this server is hosted is totally upto the user.
I think the dream of Hasura-like products is to not have a bunch of servers everwhere that need to be managed and coordinated. This is the beauty and power of Postresql. Containing our business logic in it is ideal. At the very least, containing our business logic in 1 Hasura instance would be 2nd best. Calling out to some other rest api or custom implemented GraphQL server defeats the purpose of a self-contained GraphQL layer. If some of the data lives elsewhere, sure. But what if the data just lives in our database?
Perhaps what they meant is it requires application code (server or severless) for business logic mutations, instead of surfacing database functions as RPC.
This was the particular reason I moved away from Hasura. Business logic mutations in SQL are too powerful to give up and replace with JavaScript in opinion.
A key insight I've arrived at over past few months is GraphQL is most useful for multiple teams to have "one" API endpoint and they can then work on front end features without blocking each other, as well as write different clients (and therefore many different possible "queries") without having to constantly re-write the back-end API. In other words, ultimate flexibility on the front end when you don't know what queries you need and you need to divide work across teams/developers.
This comes at the cost of complexity of implementing a performant GraphQL server. Perhaps another instance of a thing that gets really popular because it's good for large corporations rather than being ideal for solo devs or small projects. Like NoSQL and other scalability optimizations vs sql etc. Hasura seems the best I've come across so far at making this easy/quick.
But in many situations, at least for my use-case and likely many others, simply writing well thought out SQL queries are both simple, easily iterated upon, require fewer layers, infrastructure, code etc. In the Hasura scenerio, custom SQL queries inevitably are needed anyways, Hasura mostly gets you the "crud" operations quickly.
If you construct your "screens" or "pages" of a Next.js web-app, for example, as collection of RPC's defined in SQL either requested through "/api" routes integrated with the framework, or even better (when possible) directly accessing your database calls [using raw sql of course] within component "getServerSideProps" and "getStaticProps" calls[0], there isn't really anything simpler in my view. No ORM, no Graphql.
By RPC, I simply mean a stored sql function, or view. Executing this is as simple as:
// some api endpoint, which then queries database:
await db('select pay_balance($1)', [leaseId]);
return res.status(200).send("ok");
The stored function is written in SQL, not javascript http requests, and has full access to all the data in the database to implement transformations on this data.
Reading "The Art of Postgresql"[1] currently and a constant refrain is to push as much business logic into the database as possible. When you do this, you avoid so much complexity vs having this spread around in application code or cloud functions or microservices, etc. ACID, transactions, etc. all come with it.
The tagline: "Turn thousands of lines of code into simple queries" couldn't be more impactful in my thinking of late, and it's been extremely beneficial for making me more productive with simpler, less error prone code.
> In Hasura your still need a 3rd party service such as Firebase or 0Auth for Authentication
That's false. You can write your own service or use some open source authentication system, like you would in a normal website. Or use JWT tokens. It doesn't have to be a 3rd-party service.
nhost.io basically does this. it packages Hasura with its own auth backend, as well as an S3 compatible storage backend. They're adding lambda functions soon.
Effectively a firebase alternative using open source tech
For business logic you can trigger (Events) webhooks to any service or stack of your choice or use GraphQL schema stitching. And now there's a new Actins feature as well.
I think this thread [1] along with unstable modules were convincing enough for people not to trust their production applications with an open source project that has a shaky future.
Most people who were interested in the approach moved their efforts to TrailsJS [2]
We are a passionate group of engineers, design researchers and artists deeply focused on “Why of Everything”. We help our clients achieve more with our design and execution expertise.
For us, design is way beyond aesthetics. Design is how stuff works. Starting from how it looks to how it feels, we care for the details.We have developed from successful landing pages to full fledged enterprise grade applications. Have you looked at some of our work already?
Your job will be to work with our engineering team and get shit done. We love JavaScript and Python, although we occasionally work on PHP as well. You will get the exposure right from managing servers to writing your own application servers to creating progressive web apps and mobile apps. If you’re also interested in Machine Learning and Deep Learning, we have some really challenging work for you.
But when it came to large complex codebase or problems that required critical thinking everything fell apart.