Since this requires state to track should be up to the developer to define how they want to track and respond to changes in timezone? I'm not sure I would want Temporal to have an opinion on how to handle that?
I would expect a timezonechange event to get emitted on the window and that the developer would be responsible for handling it accordingly. This wouldn't require any changes to Temporal.
To be clear, the operating system is responsible for keeping track of timezone changes. Every major OS has a way for applications to be notified when the timezone changes. The major browsers are already hooked into these notifications, so what I'm suggesting is that when that event is received by the browser they should also emit a "timezonechange" event on the window. Any further handling is up to the developer.
The AI companies were happy to take whatever they want and put the onus of proving they were breaking the law onto publishers by challenging them to take things to court.
Don't get mad about possible data theft, prove it in court.
What engines are they using? I thought Boom was having to develop their own engines after everyone else pulled out, but assuming they haven't built their own functional supersonic engine yet?
More of the same but bigger? While it is a feat of engineering to make an aircraft the size of an A380 it is essentially the same design as every other commercial airliner, not revolutionary.
Super impressive, but I agree with this, it was an easier project to plot on a spreadsheet and forecast a path to profitability.
Using current technology and looking back at the Concorde to make any predictions on supersonic passenger travel generates a spreadsheet with a lot of red on it.
If somebody wants to burn their time and money trying I am totally cool with it. If they succeed in their vision they will be handsomely rewarded and transport gets faster. If they fail they still tried to make the future more amazing.
They won't do supersonic jets in particular, but they already have a ton of moonshots to try make sustainable aviation possible and with economics that make sense. Stuff like hydrogen propulsion, hydrogen electric, and battery electric designs, with a variety of weird shapes and forms. They're the only big aircraft manufacturer with such a wide array of potentially groundbreaking (if they make it) research. And theirs is drastically more important than Boom - time and time again, it has been proven that mass aviation is all about economics, not speed. Soon it will be economics + sustainability, speed being a niche which might not even be profitable (Concorde, Convair and many others have tried differentiating themselves on speed and failed).
I think this depends on the context. I would argue that opinionated frameworks are *more* reliable, with the caveat that you need to know, and agree with those opinions.
I think of RoR, Laravel, Next.js, and Django etc. like I'm crowdsourcing my apps architecture so I can just worry about building out my business logic.
Even if you don't choose a framework at some point you end up building your own framework and introducing new opinions anyway, what I often see in these homegrown frameworks are.
1. Somewhat conflicting opinions expressed across different layers of abstraction that you build into your app over time.
2. In not having an opinion you try to satisfy many ways of solving problems introducing more edge case problems and serious over engineering.
For context, I've been in mobile for 10 years and in general it's the opposite - frameworks are rigid, but the layer under it shifts a lot. These frameworks tend to collapse in an earthquake like manner after multiple updates. We usually support iOS up to 2-3 years old, that's how bad it is.
The other approach is to build it on a platform that shifts with the changes, i.e. hybrid and web. But if you crack open the source of Cordova, you find all kinds of tangled, unmaintained, bad practice wiring and rewiring. I spent a few months trying to hack Cordova plugins and we decided to just scrap the entire code and build native; fully rewriting the app into a custom framework took 3 months.
However, it sounds like tools like Rails are built on a very sturdy platform that doesn't introduce breaking changes every year? That's an angle I haven't considered.
> People have been coming here and working on holiday for years, even though people are supposed to get a work permit if you come as a tourist and work remotely there's no practical to enforce it and no government has tried in the past.
This in itself is a very good reason to actually enshrine reality into the law of the land. I don't disagree that the fanfare and PR around it is overblown, but hand waving and saying this is nothing is unfair. Clarifying the law is precisely what a government should be doing.
> Making this change will have no practical effect on the economy.
I don't know if this alone will change much, but I can guarantee the number of companies that don't let staff work remote for a few weeks in NZ because it's a legal grey area is not 0.
They didn’t say it was nothing they said it was nearly nothing “no practical effect” on the economy, which is true.
One of the exciting and appealing parts about remote work is the enormous lifestyle increase you can get by living in a country where cost of living is low and the currency exchange is favourable.
NZ cost of living is pretty high, and also housing is a problem, the government press release and posturing is acting like this is going to bring a swath of digital workers to accelerate the NZ economy (they actually said that was the primary reason for this). Which is just not true at all.
In NZ on a 6 figure USD salary, you can get a nice apartment (single bedroom) in the city and live comfortably.
In southeast Asian countries you could have a villa with a pool and a personal chef, cleaner, for less money. Same in most of Europe if you go to the right places (not the big cities). How do I know? I was a travelling nomad for 6 years and lived in 6 different countries. NZ is where I have settled now, but there’s NO WAY a tidal wave of digital nomads are coming here to revitalise our economy, like the ministers claimed.
I'm not going to argue semantics about the difference between 'nothing' and 'no practical effect'.
Very rarely does one law change in isolation have a significant impact the entire economy. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, and it doesn't mean it has no effect.
As someone who made a competing product along these lines (that got no attention or traction): Tailwind gives CSS a "place" in the codebase. It benefits orgs, not necessarily apps. I didn't get it at first either. But it's very useful to the people to whom it's useful.
> Tailwind gives CSS a "place" in the codebase. It benefits orgs, not necessarily apps.
That is a better argument. But couldn't we be able to achieve that by, e.g:
- Create one standard HTML document with a predefined structure and including all the web components needed by your product.
- Having all designers and frontend developers developing their CSS (or SCSS) against this single base document
This would be basically the CSS Zen Garden approach. It would still keep separation of content and styling and it would create a "place" for styling code.
This works for products with a very limited scope that are mostly content focused, with a very small design team so everyone can agree to use the very limited toolkit in standards.html. The approach of saying “All ui shall only use these 29 components, anything else is forbidden” is not going to fly in a company with 10s of designers and 100s of engineers.
We tried this style at Airbnb and it turns out forcing all UI changes - from either designers or engineers - to acquire a single exclusive lock on standards.html leads to a fuckton of contention and frustration, and soon people are just going to yolo their own thing totally ignoring the pristine blessed system because the system doesn’t work.
The art of design systems isn’t a single technical approach - it’s finding an optimal workflow so your design engineers can build a UI toolkit that your product teams will actually adopt and contribute to, within the constraints of your existing tech stack & organization.
There are more "modern" ways to do this for large organizations like Storybook. Tailwind is a proposition for a small business that has a very small budget, want to buy a ready-theme and then make slight modifications. In a sense, no, it doesn't make any sense beyond that to use it. And once you use a good React/web-components framework, you realize there isn't really much value there as you shouldn't be really changing the CSS from page to another.
The process for large orgs is tedious and too lengthy/expensive for the small ones. Imagine having to go through planning, visualization, creating the component (or adding props for customization, writing e2e tests, publishing it to storybook with docs, and then finally adding it to your page and get it pipelined in the merge CI/CD process. A small org with tailwind just open the page in question and add a class to the html element.
As others have said, this is exactly what many large orgs do, but in a slightly higher-tech / more polished way with tools like Storybook, essentially creating their own CSS libraries and component libraries.
IMO a decent analogy is that Tailwind is to the above as something like Shopify is to being large enough to build your own ecommerce platform from scratch.
Does Ruby have an ORM/HTTP request handler/URL router in the standard library?
I am not sure I follow the analogy. If all you are taking from tailwind is the utility classes, fine. This is the part that provides value. But tailwind is not just that, is it?
Rails is a fully formed opinion on how you should write a web app in Ruby and all the various technical components you need to fully realize that opinion.
Tailwind is a fully formed opinion on how to use CSS (utility classes etc.) and all the various technical components you need to fully realize that opinion.
Thinking of Tailwind as just a bunch of regular CSS utility components is misunderstanding the scope of the project. That alone has a lot of tradeoffs and compromises - the file size is absurd and you can't bundle things into components, you also can't have arbitrary values in the utility classes. It wouldn't be a complete opinion on 'the best way to use utility classes', or however you want to frame Tailwind.
Housing is a massive bomb because for so many people is is the singular investment that their net worth and retirement is held in. This idea has been so deeply entrenched for so long that a reversal will wipe out millions of people's net worth.
At some point the bomb will go off, but there's no incentive to look at the long term of 10+ years out when the explosion will destroy people's political careers in the short term.
I know so many people 20 years ago who "I'll sell my CA house and retire elsewhere" was a majority of their plan.
As of now, I can only count a very few who actually did it, turns out it's hard to leave where you've lived your entire working life to move somewhere you've never been, and the price differential isn't as amazing as it once was (since Covid flattened that out somewhat).
The ones who did end up doing it ended up following their children (who were priced out of where they grew up).
Normally you'd expect measured, predictable, steady inflation to be the method to "defuse the bomb" but so far that hasn't been really tried (if houses keep going up 1-2% a year, but inflation is 5%, you have a 3% drop in value each year even though on paper, you have an increase).
20 years ago is when the bomb probably could have been diffused, but I think the recovery out of the GFC put it on the back burner and then it was too late.
Housing should have been getting built like crazy in places like CA so that those people thinking of selling had a reason to sell. By not building houses property values keep booming, and even if you plan to sell and move somewhere it's easy to endlessly delay that decision when you're getting rich as hell.
CA housing cannot be fixed without across the board reassessment. Otherwise the winner with an old property paying 2% of their 1980s purchase price will never sell. The immediate tax hit for moving to a similar house would be financial insanity.
And reassessing across the board is not going to happen either because it would price out grandma living on a fixed income.
I bought my house (in CA) in 2019, and my property tax bill is ~$30k/yr. My literal nextdoor neighbor's property tax bill is less than $1k/yr (it last sold in the 1960s and has been passed down within the same family).
Tax deferral to the estate for anyone over X age or that has owned a property for more than Y years. Or some gradient on either age or property ownership duration would address some of the issue. Even if you mitigate things with some kind of blanket exemption either of the estate or just to for life for a small set of folks that qualify, you need to stop it from new homeowners getting locked in.
If we have supply start matching demand, we'd get closer to the the "houses keep going up 1-2% a year, but inflation is 5%, you have a 3% drop in value each year even though on paper, you have an increase" approach.
Most metro areas are still not keeping up with demand. Even the ones that are doing better in things like zoning (such as in TX, NC, FL) are getting enough growth from other locations that the induced demand is still outpacing supply.
We need state and federal policies that can override the local NIMBYism. CA's recent experience is both a good start but also provides a bunch of lessons learned on how these policies can fail and should be improved both in CA in other jurisdictions - especially when localities are actively trying to work around them.
What is demand? People who want to live somewhere and people who want to park their money in land or real estate. Prices won't go down if you deal with only one kind of demand.
Technically multiple bombs explode here and there. Here's how:
* Family bought 1 house (assets), big mortgage (cause it's expensive), live until retirement
* Parents sell the house (lost the assets) to either a wealthier family or investors to downgrade
* Parents potentially share the proceeding to the kids to support their Housing endeavor but Kids will be forced to buy something smaller (usually Condos) because detached is expensive and kids wage just starting from the bottom of the paygrade.
You just touched on another one of my big concerns – Condos.
I love condos, but the older generations have no idea what modern condo living is really like and what maintenance is required for these kinds of places. They get talked about like 'starter' homes for young people that can't afford a single family house and so often they nudge younger people to buy them and 'get on the ladder'.
Often they are TERRIBLE investments though. Property tax is relatively high in most cities, ongoing fees are huge, governance is normally terrible, and every now and then something major goes wrong and the current owners are left with huge extra bills.
'Getting on the ladder' in this way, along with student debt really cripples so many people into a life of debt payments while building very little wealth.
The current global realpolitiks shows that unless you have a very heavy industry that you can invest in, to replace the cratering housing prices, no country is willing to blow it up on purpose. China is trying to strategically do it, but they still have so many more people that they can lift up, move around and put to work into different industries. It's just not really the case for developed countries. I'm assuming India will take the same course in the near future, but their challenges are a bit different.
Also, when supermajority+ have the same problem, it's in the interest of the government to do anything possible to delay the problem for the future generations. That's why I have reservations about US, Canada, UK, Australia and others doing the same thing. It also doesn't help when your entire population growth is depended on immigration, as you can, theoretically, keep the demand higher without many complaints, while limiting the supply.
There's also the Japan problem, but it's weird. In Tokyo we're seeing rental prices actually going up, as it's the only region where the population is growing for all the wrong reasons.
reply