As someone who spent the last year messing around with web components, I think there’s some cool stuff there but I have a new level of appreciation for actual components APIs from actual frameworks.
It’s more a custom element API than a component API, I mean that line in the sand is pretty subjective, but I just can’t see this API being a part of any major web framework, I can see that with shadow dom, I can’t see that with the whole customElement.register and garbage you have to do in the constructor.
Also the goals of this API are just not aligned with the purpose of a framework/component system. I do encourage people to play around with them but it’s really annoying to hear how they’re being promoted they’re are a lot less exciting than the platform advocates are willing to admit but that doesn’t mean they are useless but we need up stop pretending they’re the future of web applications.
Frameworks are often designed with the goal of managing application complexity without being overwhelmed by the shortcomings of the platforms. Web Components have done little to reduce the need for such a thing.
I would love the option for pay for usage for many products I am forced into paying a subscription for.
I think one legitimate difficulty with micropayments for a news site (that has a few options to solve) is the reservation price of most readers for a single article might be lower than the cost of handling the transaction. The best option I can think of is the user needs to add credit their account or a credit card or something, which isn’t uncommon but I think some people might see it as a grift where they pay for more than they’re initially getting.
I think one benefit of it or shortcomings is it’ll probably kill off portions with smaller readership, but if that’s not you -you’re no longer paying for something you weren’t reading.
I do sympathise as someone who has to scrape content from time to time, but that doesn't sound like a problem for the author of the content or something that impacts their intended user.
tailwind is very much not a problem for accessibility? if your content is semantic and you add the appropriate aria tags, whether or not you have 300 classes or 1 will make no difference for screen readers
Auto video playback in Twitter/X isn’t much better especially on the mobile app. I realised this can be remedied by switching to the webapp. It’s a subpar user experience due to constraints of mobile web (and lack of investment by X) but it’s also likely why auto video playback rarely works, so it evens out.
Is frustrating I have no control over it s as a paying user, same with hiding the blue checkmark
They’ve been rolling out a bunch of stuff like this in Australia and the UK. As an Australian I’m fairly certain I was made to do some sort of facial recognition some time ago.
I kind of hate it, but honestly it’s had minimal impact on me and my usage of these services if I’m being real.
In macroeconomic, you have an aggregate production functions that represents output for a country or something. In many of these function you'll have a parameter for technology, it acts as a multiplier over inputs, so the greater the measure of technology the greater the output. Quite a few of these also exhibt a characteristic where output drops if technology increases too fast. To illustrate this, imagine a scenario in real life that kind of looks like a rapid evolution of some kind of technology of home phones, to cell phones, to smart phones at a rate faster than people know how to make use of them, while also spending money adoption making the intermediary adoptions quite wasteful.
I think we see an aspect of this here, a lot of things we took for granted are changing, shared assumptions are being challenged and it's a period we're all relearning new things. To some extent spending too much time diving on the current iteration of AI tooling might be for nothing if gets invalidated by another sudden jump.
With all these new tools people are building, I can't help but feel they are building foundations on moving soil.
The argument here is founded on motivated reasoning.
Copyright was founded on similar principles to property rights, it encourages desirable economic by ensuring investment in RnD doesn’t have a free-rider disincentive. Whether it’s the right tool for the job and how enforcement carries out its a another matter. While these laws for property and IP aren’t without issues they do address actual problems.
Personally I would be more open to the idea of open AI flouting copy rights if they weren’t planning on taking a portion of the claim of other peoples creations used via the product while failing to properly compensate the sources of its training data.
I take it because copyright was used to hurt independent and smaller harmless creators, they’re dislike of AI is entirely consistent with that given smaller creatives are being harmed in a sense with their work mimicked and work deprived of them.
Personally I think creatives have an edge as I personally don’t think AI is great at exercising discretion in creativity or design. Which you can see in coding agents their discretion in design is often arbitrary and poor. So I think at least for now that’s still where humans tend to out perform AI
Yeah, there’s something convenient about a dedicated device when you’re using a notebook and pen and your only other screen is your phone. It’s also nice not having to dedicate screen space to a calculator too.
If I have something more complicated with more moving pieces and data points I will just write a python script.
I like the CASIO fx-CG50, is good but there are more feature rich calculators out there, it’s just less finicky than my more powerful TI-nspire CX II one. I also just kind of dig the aesthetic of the UI reminds me of my old Nintendo DS.
My TI one is good for verifying algebraic substitutions as it’s a proper CAS one.
ATM I feel like LLM writing tests can be a bit dangerous at times, there are cases where it's fine there are cases where it's not. I don't really think I could articulate a systemised basis for identifying either case, but I know it when I see it I guess.
Like the the other day, I gave it a bunch of use cases to write tests for, the use cases were correct the code was not, it saw one of the tests broken so it sought to rewrite the test. You risking suboptimal results when an agent is dictating its own success criteria.
At one point I did try and use seperate Claude instances to write tests, then I'd get the other instance to write the implementation unaware of the tests. But it's a bit to much setup.
I work with individuals who attempt to use LLMs to write tests. More than once, it's added nonsensical, useless test cases. Admittedly, humans do this, too, to a lesser extent.
Additionally, if their code has broken existing tests, it "fixes" them by not fixing the code under test, but changing the tests... (assert status == 200 becomes 500 and deleting code.)
Tests "pass." PR is opened. Reviewers wade through slop...
The most annoying thing is that even after cleaning up all the nonsense, the tests still contain all sort of fanfare and it’s essentially impossible to get the submitter to trim them because it’s death by a thousand cuts (and you better not say "do it as if you didn’t use AI" in the current climate..)
That’s also another thing. Sometimes the output is just junk, like there wasn’t really any intention behind the test to prevent a certain likely scenario arising
Sometimes it just add tests that lock in specific quirks of the code that weren’t necessarily intentional
Yep. We've had to throw PRs away and ask them to start over with a smaller set of changes since it became impossible to manage. Reviews went on for weeks. The individual couldn't justify why things were done (and apparently their AI couldn't, either!)
Luckily those I work with are smart enough that I've not seen a PR thrown away yet, but sometimes I'm approving with more "meh, it's fine I guess" than "yeah, that makes sense".
It’s more a custom element API than a component API, I mean that line in the sand is pretty subjective, but I just can’t see this API being a part of any major web framework, I can see that with shadow dom, I can’t see that with the whole customElement.register and garbage you have to do in the constructor.
Also the goals of this API are just not aligned with the purpose of a framework/component system. I do encourage people to play around with them but it’s really annoying to hear how they’re being promoted they’re are a lot less exciting than the platform advocates are willing to admit but that doesn’t mean they are useless but we need up stop pretending they’re the future of web applications.
Frameworks are often designed with the goal of managing application complexity without being overwhelmed by the shortcomings of the platforms. Web Components have done little to reduce the need for such a thing.