Like a decade ago I got into a huge fight with a Staff Eng at our company over Dart. I had just been put in charge of the company's architecture and one of the first things I did was migrate everything to TypeScript (which was relatively new at the time). He was so angry I didn't pick Dart. Good choice by me in retrospect (though picking Angular 2 over React not so much).
It sounds like you're coming at this from a perspective of popularity and thus access to engineering candidates with expertise in it which is fair, but speaking as someone who also went with Angular 2 over React during those times, I'm still using Angular and I'm very happy with it from a technical perspective. Yes, it does mean there are less options for hiring, but it has been a positive experience for my team and for me in my own projects to stick with it.
I don't know enough about Angular 2 to know exactly how much of a bad choice that was, but my experience in React has always been "they should have used something else". I vaguely recall our lead backend being unhappy with his decision to do the original admin panel in Angular, but I chalked that up to him not being a frontender.
For context: I begrudgingly adopted Vue a while ago after finding React to be too unwieldy, and part of that opinion is definitely related to a poorly written Redux implementation.
It's really a bummer that Dart gets a bad rap, because of its early versions. The recent versions of Dart are a lovely language to work with. Pub is the only package manager I've used that approaches Cargo in quality.
All TypeScript competitors got out-engineered by Microsoft. It’s a triumph of experience over new ideas.
How well designed the initial versions of TypeScript were can be seen by how smoothly later versions were able to build on them, and even after so many major improvements the language has barely a wart (enums probably being the only one).
namespaces are the other one, and that's a fun legacy because Typescript had to implement a half dozen module systems in the early days: no modules (jQuery-era globalThis pollution), AMD, UMD, CommonJS, SystemJS, Typescript's own which was proto-ESM inspired but not ESM, then Typescript's realignment with ESM.
Something of its own sign of Microsoft out-engineering some of the hiccups of the ecosystem as a whole. (I started using Typescript < 1 simply because it was the safest and easiest way to write AMD modules also with an eye to UMD or SystemJS output with just a compiler flag change if you needed to ship something compatible outside the house.)
My dart story. While in college for computer programming our professor telling us if we wanted to get ahead of the curve start learning dart. It was the future
Sounds like the most green and easily manipulated by hype professor ever!
If he had some experience he'd seen dozens of technologies that were "the future" being thrown away to the dustbin, not even getting any real adoption.
> He was so angry I didn't pick Dart. Good choice by me in retrospect (though picking Angular 2 over React not so much).
1/3rd of apps on the iOS and Android app store use flutter and that percentage is growing over time. Whereas people are moving away from JS/TS frameworks like React Native.
I wonder if TS could evolve into a compiler whose output would use either Deno, Bun or Node? When the exe is compiled it no longer matters what libraries it uses underneath?
I'm sure he was thinking about the divisiveness of the term 'AI' and not the millions of dollars AI companies have given him or the massive amounts of money he and his family hold in investments in AI data centers.
"Can we find an even-more Matrix/Terminator-sounding name??"
I wouldn't be surprised if it was industry-pushed to try to get people used to the idea of "don't question the machine, let us replace you." Are you "super", after all?
For those who don't know Mike Tomlin is the former head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the second longest tenured coach in the league, and never had a losing season before resigning his job last year.
The idea of any NFL head coach having time to do this, especially a winning one, is absurd.
It's absurd, but he partly reflects on that himself: "But more than anything, it was therapeutic for me. Some mindless entertainment. I'm not a big TV watcher. It allowed me to detach from the realities and the pressures of life."
... and life moved a bit further in those months. Experiences that could be had, meeting people that could have happened.
If its really relaxing to you, I rest my case. It wouldn't be to me, in same way no computer game or general computer activity ever could. Physical movement, ideally in the nature, the wilder the better. If you live too far reconsider permanently improving QoL by moving closer. Recharges batteries like nothing else.
There is still tomorrow to be more active, right, to catch up. But not with the same mindset that wasted today or yesterday.
I'm a somewhat ambitious climber (mostly indoor, however) and am in general very active. Factorio is an effective way to keep my brain busy as sometimes I get overwhelmed with my thoughts. But of course it is not the only thing that I enjoy and the remark about autumn was an exaggeration. I'm also very much against considering days "wasted". Sometimes I just need to take a day off and spend it at home, as long as there is a balance.
Beautifully put, better than I could have, why I don't touch games in general. They're amazing, but they make you feel like you're advancing, achieving, experiencing, when really you're not, you're barely doing anything than jumping into the future. But, as I understand you to mean as well, not everyone is like that, for some it feels to bring balance. In particular, if you're a coach, surely you have no shortage of human interaction, or being outside, doing sports, and networking. But it's not for me for sure.
I'm not sure if you do yourself a favour with that ambition. If you enjoy games from time to time, you're not "wasting" your life. You are doing something that fills you with joy. Striking a balance is of course important, but allowing yourself to relax from time to time and just have a little fun is too.
For sure. Just like movies. Everything in moderation. But I won't buy 60 bucks AAA games, they're either a time sink, or a waste of money. Indie is enough. I uninstalled Factorio after having spent 90% of my free time on it for a few days.
Actually, one of the biggest criticisms of him is that he overperformed with bad teams.
The NFL has a draft system where the worst team in the league gets the best pick in the next year's draft.
Tomlin dragging teams that should have won 2 or 3 games into the playoffs each year just to lose immediately meant that the Steelers never got any good draft picks and thus never improved the team year of year.
I don’t think this criticism matches reality though. The Packers did not bottom out to get Aaron Rodgers; the Patriots did not bottom out to get Tom Brady. The Browns did bottom out to get Baker Mayfield; how’d that go?
In fact there are way more examples of bad teams crashing into high picks, and then continuing to crash, than dramatic turn-arounds into Super Bowl victories shortly thereafter.
Good teams and coaches go for the Super Bowl every year because it is impossible to predict when you’ll get there and win. That includes when you have (or don’t have) a great quarterback. You just have to try your hardest every year and hope.
And excellence is a habit, not a dial you can quickly turn from one side to the other over the summer. Most players have short careers and so a team needs them to get better every year in order to hope to peak as a team.
It seems to me like a lot of sports criticism is based in regretful retrospection. “Oh, if only they’d done this or that, they would have won.” But it’s impossible to know what would have happened. Injuries alone are unpredictable and hugely impactful from year to year.
It’s a natural thought, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good way to actually manage a team.
> The Browns did bottom out to get Baker Mayfield; how’d that go?
Browns fan in. Baker had them legit good the COVID year - beat the Steelers in the playoffs, then lost to the Chiefs in large part to a hugely controversial call. Then Baker hurt his non-throwing shoulder trying to tackle someone on and interception that happened because the sprinter masquerading as a wide receiver (Anthony Schwartz) stopped his route. Then Jimmy Haslam, already famous for being a criminal and drafting Johnny Eightball when told to do so by a houseless person in downtown Cleveland told him to, made one of the worst trades in NFL history. Andrew Berry has had really good drafts the last two years which underscores your point.
Funny that Aaron Rodgers thought he would go #1 to his hometown 49ers who instead took Alex Smith. And that SF is killing it this year with Mr. Irrelevant Brock Purdy (further demonstrating your point).
I was also in Boston when Tom Brady happened; earlier that year I nearly physically ran into Drew Bledsoe. Just to keep things nerdy on HN, later that year I brought down the uni's network but it was not Harvard. Maybe I shouldn't have paid attention to sports so much
QBs are important in the NFL, but so are the other 21 starters, not to mention the reserve players. Consistently going 8-8 or better every year means that a team doesn't have access to high quality talent at a price discount. This is a problem for ultimately winning a championship in any sport with a salary cap.
Tomlin is a poster child of how hard it is to drop early impressions of someone. He came in as a hot shot, but after last season he was going on 8 years since a single playoff victory.
He did the best with what he had, as all coaches in the NFL are bound to do. He dealt with a Big Ben playing well into his decline, then a bunch of 2nd and 3rd string QBs, and then the prima donna/flake Aaron Rodgers, which was likely the deciding point for his retirement. He could have had his pick of coaching jobs if he wanted, and the steelers record over his tenure was something most teams would dream of.
He stayed at the Steelers too long. He should have gone somewhere with a better QB, the Steelers should have bottomed out enough to be able to draft a good QB.
Andy Reid is retiring when he gets his 303rd regular season win. At nearly the same time, Tomlin is going to find he once again has the zest for coaching.
The idea that successful people need to be obsessively dedicated that that one thing exclusive to everything else is unhealthy and I think a hustle culture trope.
If anything, I think successful people tend to have a range of pastimes and balanced activities in order to maintain perspective and not burnout.
I think both perspectives are right. Successful people tend to have a range of pastimes but there are episodes in their career lasting 1-2 years where they are maniacally focused on one thing.
Being an NFL head coach is easily a 60+ hour a week job, especially if you want your team to be good (and the Steelers were consistently at least above average his entire tenure)
The misinformation about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is one of the most depressing things imaginable.
The historical record is completely clear and we have first hand accounts, primary sources, from the people present. It's all readily available and anyone interest can easily verify it.
And yet, even in the comments responding to yours, people confidently state just blatantly untrue things.
The post I'm replying to is correct: Spanish technology (steel, gunpowder) had very little to do with Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs.
The idea that the Aztecs took the Spanish for gods and specifically that Moctezuma mistook Cortez's for the returning god Quetzalcoatl is fiction. We actually know the exact book that it came from.
Smallpox did play a role but it was brought by the slaves of Europeans sent to _stop_ Cortez nearly two years after he started fighting the Aztecs. By the time smallpox killed Moctezuma's successor, Cortez's victory was already assured. The disease was not the key to his victory; it was more that it prevented insurgency after the conquest.
Also worth noting that if your theory was that Cortez won because of the gun powder or steel that is hard to square because by the time the two forces clashed the Aztecs had more of it then he did given the rival European forces trying to stop him.
Cortez won primarily because he had an army with a nucleus of veterans from the Italian wars that applied the lessons of the Reconquista.
The technology that let him win was European tactics and political manuevering not anything physical they brought with them.
- Gunpowder and steel had essentially nothing to do with Cortez's victory.
- The Aztecs did not see the Spaniards as Gods
- Smallpox played a role at the very end but had little to do with Cortez's victory.
- They leave out the primary reason Cortez won (his ability to build a coalition of native people who hated the Aztecs).
- They leave out the secondary reason Cortez won (superior European battle tactics).
- They ignore the fact that there were Europeans fighting on both sides (a delegation was sent from Cuba to stop Cortez; they were the ones that actually brought the smallpox not Cortez).
These things are all bets on the future -- and with the World Labs and Taalas acquisitions, in particular, the bet they're making is that conventional LLM development will plateau or become utterly commodified.
It's also a hedged bet against Nvidia's interest in fullstack robotics. AMD missed the datacenter train, but it's not too late to start building out an edge robotics hardware stack, maybe derived from CDNA.
Apples have some of wildest biology that I've seen as a non-professional biologist. At many genes, they carry two different alleles instead of two matching ones. They're almost all self-incompatible. A Honeycrisp flower cannot pollinate a Honeycrisp flower.
This means that you can't breed them in the traditional sense that we do with other plants. Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Heterozygosity and self-incompatibility are common to fruit trees in general, not specific to apples.
I think ancestral citruses (not the crosses) are the primary exception, as well as a few citrus hybrids which create clone seeds asexually.
> Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Honeycrisp is a chance seedling, though it stems from a horticultural crossbreeding effort it was grown from seed. And commercially useful sport mutations tend to come from popular chance seedlings to start with, since it is necessarily a more limited evolution of the basal cultivar, which needs to exist and in sufficient quantity that you’ll roll out useful mutations eventually (also useful is in the eye of the beholder as we can see with the red so-called delicious).
The coolest thing about some apple cultivars is how their story is "someone found an apple tree at the side of a road with tasty apples", and people kept grafting them to this day. Boskoop, for example.
> Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Not sure where you're located, but this isn't true in the US. The vast majority of apples available here are seedlings of crosses by two other varieties. Examples:
Golden Delicious, one parent is Grimes Golden, the other unknown.
Fuji, Red Delicious × Ralls Janet
Gala, Kidd's Orange Red × Golden Delicious
There are certainly some sports (the technical term for for the spontaneous mutations) like you mention. Royal Gala, available in NZ, is a sport of Gala. But most are not.
An enormous amount of industry effort goes into crossing known varieties, growing the seedlings, and looking for the apples with the best traits. Cosmic Crisp is a great example of a recent one.
Oh wow you may have just answered a question I been having. I planted some apple trees in my backyard. The AI helping me suggested 3 trees, one of which was a crab-apple tree that it said will be used to pollinate the other two. Maybe it lied to me. But i did follow its instructions. I was wondering why the other two (Honeycrisp and another delicious variety) could not just pollinate each other.
Professional advice is the way to go. Much better than AI. Two trees of exactly the same apple cultivar will perform wildly different depending on were you buy it.
Crab-apples are good for pollination IF they overlap flowering. Not so much otherwise. If you have an early flowering variety and a late flowering crab-apple forget it. You don't need them as a third apple may work perfectly.
In any case they are beautiful trees and excellent for wildlife. You will not be disappointed with the excellent spring and fall displays, but if the space is limited I would go for a different tree or a third real apple choosing carefully the rootstock. If you want a crab-apple put it at the background. (Optical effect. It makes the garden appear bigger). If you like to watch birds while sipping your coffee in the front.
Crab-apples would be the kings of garden if they didn't suffered from so many diseases.
The GP comment is overstating the genetic differences and pollination difficulties. Most apples are not self-fertile. Pairing pollinators together has more to do with bloom times; some trees bloom earlier/later than others and trees need to have flowers out simultaneously.
reply