It’s not necessarily a substitute for a dedicated back button, but hitting the “Menu” button typically takes you to the previous step (unlike the TV icon, which takes you to the Apple TV watch page)
As someone who recently added a "fremium" / "free for solo developers" tiers to their form service this is fascinating.
We give you unlimited forms but gate on submissions, offering more features / submissions in higher tiers etc.
Reading the blog it doesn't look like there is anything malicious about selling user data or some "you are the product"-type bait and switch, but with one dev and no financial incentive I don't see how he keeps this going (No knock to him, asking unlimited free work is a lot).
Forms seem like sort of a small thing, but you really want them to _work_. Having a whiff on even a contact form can miss a lead and looks bad. And if the service breaks, all of a sudden you have to change a bunch of source code pointing to a defunct service, and hope they have an export function.
(shameless plug for the curious, since some people are suggesting services: https://formcake.com
Shouldn't your tag line be "The Form Backend Built For Developers", with "built" not "build". And a little more unsolicited feedback: the rendering/display of code example under /How It Works/ looks kind of sloppy -- I think it might actually look better when JS is disabled. Similarly, not a big big fan of the fullwidth Codepen embed.
The funny part about this too if you listen to the podcast is that Derrik Reimer is ending statickit because he is having trouble monetizing it / finding product-market fit with static sites.
Interesting, I haven't listened to the latest episodes. Netlify already has forms, as do other vendors, so I don't see too much of a use for StaticKit, unless you host your site on your own servers rather than a CDN.
I write about collecting sci-fi books and pentesting, but I think the real draw is my making-the-sausage articles about my new bootstrapping project - https://formcake.com
I can't tell you how grateful I am. I'm actually a little emotional, thinking of all the people who upvoted this post until it got in front of the people it needed to (and thanks so much Aayush!).
Though some of these are genuinely new to me, the competitors we'd found in this space before like formkeep and getform had unbearably low form limits or expensive price-per-form schemes.
Think of it this way: distance in time is like distance in space. It's just another dimension (with the catch that apparently we can't actually move backward). The dinosaurs are as far from us as Alpha Centauri, maybe further.
This is a reasonable way of looking at time for certain purposes, and the conversion factor is c. So, 65 million years "ago" is also 65 million light-years "away" in the -t direction.
As an addendum, the author, Peter Brannen, published another article with The Atlantic titled "What Made Me Reconsider the Anthropocene" four days ago.
In it, he responds to criticism and ultimately comes to the conclusion that - even if no trace of humanity is left (no civilization, tools, etc) in "deep time" - the biosphere itself has been changed by humanity, and that gives the concept of the Anthroprocene validity.
I think this should be front-and-center rather than an addendum point - Can't help but question the good faith of an author putting this article up while only recently having published one that appears to take an opposite view. Frankly, smells like click bait dressed up as high-brow op-ed.
I was going to post a comment in response to some of the points in the article, but upon seeing that the other article existed... what's the point?
I read both and think that the second supports the point made in the first.
The point of the anthropocene, as presented in the second article, is to acknowledge the effect humans have already had on the earth. The point of the first is to acknowledge how little an effect that is, relative to other events in geologic time. The events described in that article still stand - global temperature differences of 8C over a few tens of thousands of years, sea levels 400 feet lower (and that was a blink of an eye ago in geologic time), a 90M year long ice age.
> The point of the first is to acknowledge how little an effect that is, relative to other events in geologic time.
And speaking only about that geologic time is deceptive, without mentioning context: for the biggest part of the whole geologic time, not even multi-cellular life existed. Half of the whole geologic time, nothing was able to depend on oxygen as the modern life does -- there wasn't much of it in the atmosphere.
The time human civilizations existed is microscopic in comparison to these spans, but that much shorter time is what defines us.
And in that time, the climate was indeed quite stable. Until the last hundred or two years.
And humans did make immense impact on the life forms, and will continue to make.
I thought that was actually the point of the article. The author freely admits that from a human perspective, climate change and habitat destruction and the bleaching of coral reefs are a big deal. The point he's making is that from a planetary perspective, humans are insignificant. Indeed, from a planetary perspective multi-cellular life is insignificant, and life at all is a minority.
The thing is that much of the debate over global warming has been framed in planetary terms. If you frame it in human terms, you already have a good argument: climate change will cause mass migrations, historically mass migrations have caused massive wars and the collapse of civilizations, I don't want to die in a war while my whole civilization collapses, ergo it's probably a good idea to solve or at least adapt to this climate change thing before shit hits the fan. But if you frame it in terms of "climate change will make the earth uninhabitable" or even "climate change will lead to the extinction of humanity", a.) you're probably wrong - our species is remarkably resilient, and we have lived through large planetary-scale shifts in the earth's climate b.) the earth has been made uninhabitable to much of life in the past, and yet we're here and c.) so what, we'll all be dead.
From planetary perspective, multicellular life was and is huge.
Oxygen catastrophe is not called that because it was invisible from space. Nor are ok deposits geologically insignificant.
It is big timeframe though compared to anthropocene.
The warming is indeed planetary, but not the magnitude of the earlier atmospheric changes. The crust changes are more visible for now, especially mining.
The temperature will be pretty important at about +1 C out more globally - not quite yet. At that level moisture circulation would get affected a lot...
It's a little backwards. The top level article is the original. The grandparent linked article is the author's response from last week indicating responses to the top level article made him re-think and feel he was wrong.
I’ve always dreamed of having power lunches at the Headliners club in Austin but alas, I’m just a peasant.