Totally unwarranted--you allowed Biden to be US President and he was mentally impaired the ENTIRE TIME and you were just fine with that, probably. So get over it! I had to. The absurdity of modern life is unbelievable.
On top of that, the complexity of front end (for me, which is in a “real time” app) often comes down to providing a user experience that “feels good” while also accounting for the complexities of keeping things in sync with the backend(s). For example, I often want a user to be able to update a thing and I want that change to feel immediate, but if 1% of the time that errors out because of business logic reasons, I need to be able to undo the immediateness, restore the previous state, maybe reconcile the local state with the newer remote state, and then display the problem to the user.
Maybe I’m just doing things wrong but there’s just a lot of complexity related to that and I struggle compartmentalizing it in a maintainable way
It’s a pretty unconventional way to do it these days, but blow it all away and load the page fresh from the server.
Maintaining a consistent state is very difficult at the best of times. This obviously has implications for the backend, it needs to respond quickly and the page render in a decent time(minimal libraries).
It really depends. For a "regular" website or blog, I agree. I think people over use complicated web frameworks to just serve what amounts to a mostly static page.
But the approach just doesn't work for things like Slack, Figma, Google docs. When you're trying to create an experience that's somewhat similar to a native application on the web, you need to start worrying about local state.
Personally, to the degree that I ever distinguish between “web apps” and just normal sites, one of the distinguishing features of web apps for me is whether forcing a page reload on the majority of interactions would be unacceptably clunky to most users.
Provided page reloads are fast, I think far more sites would be completely fine with just being sites and not rich client apps.
> This bypasses the intentional sabotage that’s been applied to bay area public transit
I lived there for a long while and I'm genuinely wondering what this is? I feel like there were at least some unintentional secondary effects of certain policies but can't think of anything recent and intentional.
I remember when I lived in Livermore, and there were residents fighting against a BART extension to the city, because they didn’t want “more of those people” around. Likely a similar mentality.
> Very roughly the ratios for me were 100 swipes → 1 match → 0.1 dates → 0.05 lays → 0.005 meaningful connections
Yeah I think I'm going to stick to becoming friends with friends of friends and with random new people at places where we generally have shared interests, and then seeing if there's any mutual romantic interest after that.
I imagine this is completely serious, and isn't that different from what I've seen in a big city (NYC). Back when I was permitting myself to use these apps (2017, before I truly assessed the cost-benefit analysis), I met a girl who apparently swiped left on every guy. She showed me her Tinder and she had over 5,000 matches (and for some reason was meeting up with me, although it didn't last very long. I think she did get married a few years ago, though). That experience makes me think that the 20,000 number is legitimately a reasonable estimate.
They apparently recommended† spending an hour a day on swiping and chatting; six months of chatting is presumably on the order of 2000 different chattees, so in all likelihood the number of swipes is closer to 0.2 million.
______
† I'm getting a server error, so I'm taking others' word for it.
How? I feel like I'm being trolled. None of it makes sense. There's an unexplained great flood, unexplained human ruins, weird whale-like creatures, some kind of being sucked up into heaven thing that happens to the stork-like bird. I've seen people online trying to put it into a sensible plot but it's so heavy on made up symbolism that to me it's bullshit.
> There's an unexplained great flood, unexplained human ruins
And that's the point. Perhaps you didn't like the movie because you are used to movies that every single detail needs to have a meaning and you were expecting that everything would be eventually explained. In this movie, things just happen and its story is not about them, but about how the characters react to them. Just like real life.
Specially for animals like the main characters. From a perspective of a pet, it's unexplained why its owners leave and return to their homes everyday at the same time; it's also unexplained why they can't pee everywhere. But they can manage to follow their lives and adapt to those unexplained facts without needing to understanding them.
And for me, this is what makes this movie great. It puts me in that perspective of an animal in a human world, where nothing really seems to make sense and it's pointless to try to find a meaning. And that's the opposite of <insert here any mainstream movie with animals as main characters> where we try to give a human perspective of what happens in their lives.
I haven't seen the movie, but based solely on your comment, it reminds me of how Miyazaki films are often described—full of fantastical, otherworldly wonders that evoke the joy of exploring the unknown.
I assume people found it refreshing that for one there’s an animated picture that doesn’t just pour down your throat the same story rehashed for the 1000-th time, and spelled out by a committee to ensure it’s “easy to understand”.
That's the whole point. That it's not explained and you are left with tantalizing questions. It's ok to not like it. Not everyone likes the same things.
Your brain is just on one end of a spectrum that doesn't really respond to the same things as some other people's brains. There are plenty of people who are moved by things that have nothing to do with plot, and would never say something like "made up symbolism". Images, sounds, and symbols evoke mental connections and feelings in many people. A painting has no plot, an abstract painting is made up symbols. Many people find incredible depth and beauty in these things. Some people find that David Lynch's work is the most impressive tapping of human dream like subconscious ever achieved, and others absolutely do not understand it at all.
Why do you expect everyone to come away with the same message? Watching it, I thought about friendship, growth, climate change, death. Other people will see something else in it.
I love Ocarina of Time speedruns. The sheer level of love that went into that specific run was sooooo beautiful, and like the fact they made it internet live.. via an N64...?
I want to shout out ZFG if ppl arent aware cause he has IMO done the most technically impressive real time speedrun of any game - specifically the 100% SRM run he did is inscrutably insane. But it wasn't just about him - it was an effort by so many people. The number of glitches and exploits that have been found by the community, as well as the NP hard routing and tools created for finding angle perfect setups by various people..
It's straight up community driven exploit art. And it's like yeah, the fastest way to beat the game is to practically manually manipulate memory to redirect specific function calls to give you stuff you need and float around and purposely void out facing exactly a 1/65536 perfect angle setup a hundred separate times to randomly jump around to various rooms in the game?? Wowwwww
And the community around it is so wholesome. The sheer amount of collective curiosity, ingenuity, and effort to dismantle and exploit a 20+ year old game for no other purpose than going fast.. idk. Love it.
reply