Also, like… the fact that it has a compiler. It’s like saying C is incompatible with assembly because you can’t yeet a .c file at an assembler.

Yeah, that’s uhh… that’s technically true for very strange and specific definitions of “compatibility”… but it wildly misses the point of TypeScript. Not sure what he was thinking there.

Trusting your own judgement on ‘AI’ is a huge risk

All IP laws are fundamentally “honor system”. The idea of digital locks is a pipe dream, only possible as long as legal threats scare people away from looking too closely at how the lock works.

But every digital lock can be broken, because we only know how to make one type of computer: the turing-complete universal von neumann machine. It can run any program, as long as it’s presented the right way.

So yes, it’s piracy. Just like how the crime of “breaking and entering” means “breaking the seal” and entering without permission (not necessarily breaking a physical lock), piracy just means unauthorized use of IP-law-protected content (not necessarily breaking a digital lock).

Breaking a digital lock is an additional crime on top of piracy, under the DMCA. 5 years and 50k fine for a first offense, I believe.

Now as to whether we should even have a concept of “piracy” to begin with… that’s a reasonable question.

Beautifully put.

I especially like that they called out the “it’s just a tool” BS:

Yet technological artefacts cannot be separated from the conditions under which they are created, or from the realities of who controls and profits from them. Today, developing these technologies expands racial capitalism, intensifies imperialist extraction, and reinforces the divide between the global North and South. The technology is inseparable from the labour that produces it — the expropriation of work by writers, artists, programmers, and peer-production communities, as well as the highly exploitative crowdwork of data annotation.

Big agree.

But also: people seem to only focus on the output side of the task of writing code, and forget that the developer also receives input from the codebase in return.

Even if you end up with exactly the same code artifact after completing a work item, you’ll have a better understanding of the codebase without delegating swaths of it to AI. But bosses tend not to consider this.

Tech bros have successfully convinced people that mental states do not exist, or at least do not matter — for laborers, anyway, cuz they’ll happily claim that their superior thoughts are exactly why they deserve to be billionaires.

Code is a liability (not an asset)

Related: Jevons Paradox

Not sure about Apple-mediated payments, but you can usually support the creator more directly and get an ad-free RSS feed that you can plug into the Podcasts app and it Just Works™. Usually ends up being a better deal for the creator, too.

Trying desperately to keep the ponzi scheme going, but his biggest customers already have warehouses full of GPUs that will never get connected.

The bubble is full, dude. Just try to minimize the damage from the pop so we don’t try to figure out what size pitchfork your dumb leather jacket is.

It also discouraged you from finding/starting an open source solution for those problems, thus undermining the high-quality open knowledge ecosystem that it relied on in the first place.

As Cory Doctorow says: code is a liability, not an asset

Keychron is solid, and offers a wide range of sizes so you can balance real estate vs functionality

I was once a fool like you :)

Mike McShaffry’s book “Game Coding Complete” is a good guide to the practical side of using a game engine IRL to get things done.

It’ll give you a good idea of how things should be shaped in order to be useful, and some things you can “skip ahead” to. Off-the-shelf engines have to be extremely general in order to be flexible enough to be useful to many customers, so game devs have to put in the effort to make them more specific. You’ll have to start off by being specific, if you have any chance of actually finishing something.

Eberly’s book “3D Game Engine Architecture” deals with the nuts and bolts, the rigorous academic engineering stuff. It’s pretty solid, but it’s aimed at making a general-purpose engine, which is beyond the scope of a one-person project.

Backing up though… You don’t have any language or library opinions? You might need 5-10 years of experience doing general programming (or game dev) before you can sustainably tackle this, or else you’re likely to paint yourself into a corner.

Edit: Probably the biggest PITA with game engine dev is testing. If you’re not already an expert in setting up test harnesses at multiple levels of detail, you’re gonna find it impossible to keep moving after a few months.

Good luck!

I can tell you that when I use GameHub Lite on my Retroid 5, the stats widget sometimes shows Zink, along with DXVK, DXVK+, and VKD3D

Or the original upload: https://youtube.com/watch?v=39jsstmmUUs

Not to be confused with SOLID, SolidJS, or Solidity.

It’s a neat idea. Because of the need to operate on data close to web servers and backend services for potentially long timeframes, I think we’ll need a widely-adopted CRDT solution in order for something like Solid to really take off from a technical standpoint.

And from a business standpoint, there’s really no upside. Sure, you delegate some cost for storage, but compute tends to be the more expensive aspect, and if you’re spending more time to interact with these external data stores, it may be more expensive in the end.

Security guard is one. Had a friend in college that basically got paid 8hrs/night to do 2hrs of actual work and 6hrs of building his portfolio. It can definitely work well for some folks.

Fuck AI

Mostly agree.

But I think their advice falls prey to the “only a Sith deals in absolutes” problem, when they start contrasting “concrete advice” vs “generic advice”. They are offering “generic advice” with this post, aren’t they?

They hedge against that hypocrisy by offering some special carve-outs where generic advice is still “allowable”, but Idk. I think this post could’ve stuck to the 60% of the topic that was a slam-dunk instead of trying to take on the entire topic of design principles.

After all, I think you could argue that when experienced designers appear to contradict design principles, it’s because they understand the underlying logic of the principles and are recontextualizing them for this specific problem. That argument prioritizes concreteness but also doesn’t paint design principles as unimportant.

As Picasso or someone once said: first you must learn the rules, and then you must break them.