- a space large enough to comfortably work remotely (or the money to afford a bigger space)
- a partner, kids, or both, which makes extended social isolation more livable
- a rich network for career growth and opportunities
God forbid some people want to live in big cities and don't make their choices solely based on reducing costs and bottom line expenses (ironic since every other day people here rail against big corporation bean counters). Example: Facebook's latest internal polling - the majority of people want to be in the office sometimes.
People suddenly waking up and realizing the office is a huge scam is the current du jour opinion here. But time and time again the HN demographic only speaks to itself.
And of course people will reply with that it expands choice, but that doesn't stop those from cheering that companies going full remote like its a universal good thing for everyone.
And on top of that, my observations are anecdotal. No need to point that out.
edit: Going full remote is a huge cost savings to companies. A cost that is now hoisted onto employees. So unless employees are receiving some equivalent compensation for blowing out my utility bills and refitting my office, be careful who you're cheering with.
Interesting venue to post this on. But as it's the afternoon in the US workday, it's a fair chance that many responses will come from US tech workers who are slacking off or taking a break from their job and were enticed in by the headline.
Given the culture of HN comments I reckon you'll get grooming tips and pointless anecdotes, condescending advice, or unhelpful peptalks.
What I'll say is that you probably are disillusioned with it because you saw how illusory most of it is. The best stuff is always produced by very small, tightly-knit teams, in an environment where creativity is allowed to flourish. In a monoculture like tech giant / unicorn startup, you're living in the Silicon Valley series bro and that's all there is to it.
There are lots of engineers out here on the internet doing fun things. We just don't spam github shit or write fancy landing pages to shamelessly promote ourselves. Join us.
(Opinionated post ahead...) React is, imo, garbage, but alas it's here to stay -- you know, kind of like Spring or Swing. In 10 years we're going to be wondering how the hell we ever used React 8 hours a day way back then. These kinds of markup frameworks/libraries were touted as jQuery's successor, but, from an architectural point of view, jQuery is by far their superior.
"Everything an HTML tag" is an insane mantra to have. As author points out, what in the world does a <Query> tag even do? It might make sense to us because we're used to it now, but the semantics of a tag is completely lost in this "new way" of using them (don't call it declarative because that's not what it technically is; it's markup). These days I'm creating HOCs on top of HOCs to support different behavior (from redux stores, to authentication HOCs, to "don't render this thing on the server" async components). It's, simply put, a terrible idea. And everyone just bought into it because the guys at Facebook must be really smart.
The lifecycle hooks are just confusing and unnecessary. They are side-effects of over-engineering. And to add insult to injury, they change every few versions (so old code will inevitably break on new React versions).
SSR. I've brought this point up on HN before, but doing server-side rendering in React is absolutely ridiculous. Every time I need to implement it, I'm constantly battling async stuff, state management, webpack/babel, hot module reloading issues, shimming `window` or `document` on the server side, etc. Boy do I miss the days when I was building stuff in PHP and HTML was simply rendered when I ran the damn thing.
It's crazy to me that it's normal now to have like 3-4 compilation/transpilation steps when working on a simple JS-based app.
React have sold very well the "it's a library" mantra. I find this, at least, bends the difference to build a marketing point around it.
The point they make, and the one everyone writing about React simply repeats, is that "it doesn't give you everything" so you can use it with any other library/framework without trouble. While this claim may be indeed correct, it doesn't mean it's a library. React is a UI framework. It's not a complete Application Framework, sure, and you may mix it with other stuff. In fact, you will generally mix it with other stuff. But I don't think that the difference library vs framework lies in providing for all of the aspects of the application or just for some parts of it.
In this particular case, the author seems to have overstepped that somewhat, saying "With a framework, you’re essentially given all the materials to build that house, and it’s up to you in what arrangement you put them in."
And in there lies the problem. That is not a framework. That's Home Depot. A framework does indeed tell you in what arrangement you're supposed to put the materials. It's in fact this that makes it a framework. It gives you structure. Or at least, the basis for the structure. You put your materials into the arrangement the framework suggests.
React is only concerned with UI, sure. But then again it does give you quite a bit of structure. It does tell you how you're supposed to arrange and build your UI. You extend this class with these methods, or you create this kind of function using these functions in this way. You put your rendering here, and return it in this way... and then the framework will run it.
What is correct is that React is for UI. So, sure, it will not tell you how you should do your API calls. But not because it's not a framework, but because API calls are not a UI concern.
Uber is a net destructive play. Yes, taxi was a broken model but what uber did is suck social capital out of taxi, put driver against driver, rent seeking and import money to America from the world.
A plague on uber and Airbnb. May they both rot.
Btw this is not just troll bait this is my honest opinion. I talk to taxi drivers and use taxi and these people got predated on for a thin profit outcome.
Serious question: are we not? People are sequencing these things like crazy (c.f. the nextstrain.org data). Epidemiologists are working like mad to come up with data on severity in regions all over the globe. Virologists everywhere are dropping what they're doing otherwise to work on covid.
It sorta strains reason to argue that none of these people thought of looking for an attenuated strain.
Isn't the simpler truth just that finding one takes a lot of ground work that's already being done, but hasn't born fruit yet?
Split the search from Adsense. Allow the search company to only sell ads on its own properties so they can’t reestablish ad-hegemony. For good measure, ban them from making their own browser.
- long commutes
- crappy coworkers or offices
- a space large enough to comfortably work remotely (or the money to afford a bigger space)
- a partner, kids, or both, which makes extended social isolation more livable
- a rich network for career growth and opportunities
God forbid some people want to live in big cities and don't make their choices solely based on reducing costs and bottom line expenses (ironic since every other day people here rail against big corporation bean counters). Example: Facebook's latest internal polling - the majority of people want to be in the office sometimes.
People suddenly waking up and realizing the office is a huge scam is the current du jour opinion here. But time and time again the HN demographic only speaks to itself.
And of course people will reply with that it expands choice, but that doesn't stop those from cheering that companies going full remote like its a universal good thing for everyone.
And on top of that, my observations are anecdotal. No need to point that out.
edit: Going full remote is a huge cost savings to companies. A cost that is now hoisted onto employees. So unless employees are receiving some equivalent compensation for blowing out my utility bills and refitting my office, be careful who you're cheering with.