But you aren't being realistic, you're shifting blame.
Let's play a little game of replacement to see how we feel. Suppose he is selling cigarettes, since you made the comparison. He's targeting children and teens for marketing and making it difficult for parents to detect when their kids smoke; after all, Instagram has no smell.
Do your feelings remain the same?
Do your feelings remain the same if you look back at the history of the tobacco industry, recognize they also targeted teens because teen smokers were far more likely to become lifelong users? When you realize that effective change didn't happen until actual regulation came into place along with vocal public discussion?
Do your feelings remain the same when you recognize that teens are human beings who have their own autonomy? That parents cannot watch them at all times NOR should they? We transition teens into having greater autonomy and independence. The only way your "it's up to the parents" claim actually works is with helicopter parenting and where they go from 0 autonomy when they are 17 years and 364 days old to complete autonomy the next day.
You don't sound very realistic.
You sound like you're dismissive of the parents. You sound dismissive of the very thing you claim to advocate for. Realistically parents try to solve things by themselves, like most people. Then they turn to peers and family for help. Then they turn to local communities. There is a natural escalation of these things. That's the reality most people live in. Maybe that's not your reality, but it is that of most people. Are you really surprised that people have to escalate and take collective action? Otherwise it's a million battles of one set of parents vs a multitrillion dollar organization with supercomputers and experts on psychology and addiction. I'm just being realistic here, but it seems to me that it is more effective to combine forces, to form a coalition.
Putting on my pedantic hat, does this qualify as a picture of the mountains? As in, is there any light hitting the mountains, then hitting the film/sensor?
Is a silhouette not a "picture"? Perhaps "picture" isn't the best term to quibble over, since it is quite broad (arguably its primary use is referring to paintings or drawings).
But if we instead quibble over the term "photograph," I'd argue that a photograph of a silhouette of a mountain is absolutely a photograph of a mountain. Similarly, I'd argue that X-ray photography is indeed photography.
After 4 years of Russia/Ukraine, does anyone think that a terror group would take down an airliner with anything other than a drone? Why take any operational risk of actually going through security?
The fact that nobody has flown a drone with a hand grenade gaffa taped to it right into the middle of some politician's security cordon says to me that either a) terrorists are not smart enough to go for the low-hanging fruit (and the Republican terrorism in NI demonstrates this isn't the case), b) it's actually a lot harder to do than that, or c) the intelligence agencies are really, really good at stopping people from doing that, and even better at keeping quiet about it.
That's like saying my C# is getting turned into CLR bytecode, so I do have to learn CLR bytecode because I have an abstraction over it.
Yet I know roughly what it is, but I couldn't begin to actually write the stuff myself.
Good abstractions mean you don't have to worry about the layer below.
Now of course it's not really the case that React holds up to being a good abstraction, especially when it comes to CSS and styling, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that abstractions force you to learn the level below.
Otherwise we'd all spend half our time learning assembly.
I do have sympathy though for a developer who just wants to focus on the higher level paradigm and let the library maintainers worry about the innards.
React is an abstraction over UI state, not the platform (ie HTML/CSS). This is by design and non-parallel to C#/CLR case. If you want something akin to this, then Flutter is what you should be looking at.
> That's like saying my C# is getting turned into CLR bytecode, so I do have to learn CLR bytecode because I have an abstraction over it.
For a good part of your career this is true, but eventually you will need to justify your senior salary by being able to debug react via looking at library code itself, or understanding the event bubbling under the hood, or figure out why the output css isn't working.
Saw a video, wish I could remember who, someone developing a game in c-something. There was some bug they couldn't figure out so they jumped into I guess the assembly for that block of higher abstracted code, and was able to find some kind of memory issue. Vague, sorry, but point is I remember being really impressed, thinking oh shit yeah if I really want to be an expert in my field I better be able to really understand my stack all the way to the bones.
That's possibly true, but I wonder why react as an abstraction fails to deliver that kind of independence.
In theory, react developers ought to be able to code against the react API in typescript, without seeing the "raw" HTML+JS that gets delivered to the browser.
So what's failing those developers? Is it the tooling, the abstraction itself, or something else?
That seems like an odd take. I don’t know that anyone ever intended React to completely insulate you from the actual UI framework (HTML/CSS in this case). You’d have to reinvent a whole new set of layout and styling features. Why would you bother? React is for orchestrating your use of the UI framework, not for replacing it.
That just makes HTML/CSS part of the React paradigm though. You can still use all those features in a React app, after all. The 'new paradigm' to learn with HTMX is how it does reactivity/interactivity.
Typical load management that’s existed for 70 years: when interactive workloads are off-peak, you do batch processing. For OpenAI that’s anything from LLM evaluation of the days’ conversations to user profile updates.
Work bought me a VisionTek hub. I wanted the 1 cable life - unfortunately, it only does monitors via DisplayLink, aka compressed & streamed to & from my desk. It's noticeably fuzzy.
So now it's 2 cables: 1 from the hub, 1 from the monitor. Both USB-C.
WTF guys?
My Apple monitor from 2009 just worked with 1 cable (no power, but still).
Anthropic lost $5.2 billion last year. So they are 40x better at spending investor money than Twitter.
Hard to call Twitter the archetype for Anthropic.
reply