Looked at the homepage. Looked at the docs (only way to find out more about WTF I'm looking at, without signing up?).
Doesn't... look meaningfully different from AWS lambdas or CF workers or other things along those lines. Just with way fewer features. What am I missing?
The main difference is that Onu generates a frontend UI for your scripts! This means that the non-technical folks on your team have access to the scripts that typically only engineers can run. In our experience, non-technical teams typically don't know how to use AWS lambdas or CF works
There are similar tools to this but this is nothing like Lambda or CF Workers. Lambda doesn't do anything remotely close to generating frontend UX for a script.
Ah. I wasn't able to figure that out from the homepage, the first docs page, or the "getting started" link in the docs. Homepage has nothing, and the first two docs pages I looked at made it seem like some MVP lambda-alike.
Thanks for this feedback! We know our website is pretty barebones right now, but working on putting more info there. We'll also work on making this clearer on our docs!
Looks like you define a form declaratively, and write the handler function, and the platform generates a UI from your form description and calls your handler when the user submits the form. Super similar to how airplane.dev got started.
Exam's used in American English, plenty. It tends to connote something a bit more serious or formal than a test, but I don't think you'd get much of a difference in reaction just using the two interchangeably, in most contexts. At worst, you'd come off a bit pretentious, using "exam" to describe lesser tests.
"Test" dominates in primary and secondary school, "exam" becoming more common in post-secondary education and for professional certifications et c., but both occur in both contexts.
The average "technology professional" in the US made about $104,566 in 2021. Certainly not bad, but not "save half your money" good, if you have... like, a life, and a family. Maybe if you're single and don't do much, and live in a low COL area.
People in the SV/fintech sphere tend to have a really skewed idea of what typical salaries are for people "working in tech". What they really mean is "FAANG(-alike) and fintech", not "tech". They're in the third hump of the trimodal distribution of developer salaries, and may have some inaccurate ideas about the rest of the market, as a result.
(BLS gives me a median of ~$97k in 2021, if you're wondering if there's a big difference between the average and the median)
Hooks are half of an object/class system (implemented on top of a language that already had a whole one—arguably, two, from a DX perspective, though they're one under-the-hood) with non-standard and hard-to-read declaration syntax and bizarre behavior (FIFO-by-declaration-order property access and method invocation). It's not your fault you're having trouble with them, they're a weird boondoggle.
No. Lawyers sometimes call out that they are not offering legal advice and/or that the reader is not to consider themselves the lawyer's client, out of what is, in most contexts (I'm pretty sure) excessive caution to prevent liability and stay within ethical bounds (but then, IANAL). But AFAIK (IANAL!) there's no remotely-realistic risk to someone who's not a lawyer, and has not represented themselves as a lawyer, posting opinions about the law in a context in which nobody with two brain cells to rub together might for some reason believe they're a lawyer without their saying so (i.e. this isn't LawyerNewsOnlyForLawyersAllOurUsersAreLawyers.com), without such a disclaimer.
As far as I can tell, this is the result of people reading lawyers announcing that they are lawyers and posting such a disclaimer, and other posters specifying "I am not a lawyer" purely out of consideration for the reader, not out of legal obligation, and getting the two all mixed up together, while deciding that both are necessary (I'm quite sure one is not, and I'm pretty sure the other one isn't exactly necessary, either).
Consider how many published pieces and TV news programs feature people who are and are not lawyers, providing opinions about the law, typically with none of these disclaimers. It's evidently not a problem. I think lawyers only bother to do it in forums because there's some remote chance that someone might be able to argue they were mislead by the conversational and two-sided nature of the medium into thinking the lawyer had taken them as a client or was offering advice in an official capacity (I'm skeptical such a case would get very far, in any event, though).
There are specific issues around giving legal advice as a non-lawyer which could come up. There are also areas (securities law) where something could be construed as investment advice and even a non professional giving that advice is exposed to Consequences for doing so.
(Also it is fun to add “for external use only” etc disclaimers.)
If it were happening a bunch, there might be a good case to be made for changing permission-granting UI. Maybe not kernel-level, but OS-level, at least.
In fact, lots of distros now warn when a user attempts certain sudo actions, for similar reasons—mistakes were being made, and adding a little or the right kind of friction could prevent them.
I've seen $15k up to ~$50k /yr (non-boarding—I've seen boarding as high as $70k)
The ~$15k ones tend to be Catholic or otherwise religious, and quality varies from "worse than the local public schools, actually" up to "notably better than the local public schools, though not as good as a really good private school".
Some cheap secular schools are only a little more expensive than the bottom end of the religious ones, but they don't tend to be much better than average public-school quality (nb. that may still be a lot better than some particular public school district)
Always take the opportunity to note that public schools cannot refuse anyone. Private schools can kick out low performers if it could help raise the average student performance on standardized tests.
Yes, of course, they benefit hugely from the ability to select students. They're also less answerable to parents or the public than public schools, in many way, which can free them up to ignore stupid demands from parents (they select families, as much as they select students)—or free them up to maintain stupid policies or approaches that could never fly in public schools, which is sometimes exactly what their customers want (as in the case of e.g. fundamentalist religious schools). They're more answerable to the set of expectations they've created for their families, than to the particular whims or desires of any given family, or any constituency present in the broader public.
... which doesn't necessarily mean preferring a better school that's only better due to selection bias (and knock-on effects from being able to remove very-disruptive or low performing students) is a bad way to go, at the individual level, if one has that option. The observation's more relevant to policy-making, than to the relative merits of those options to any given family.
They also don't have to cater to special education students (although some private non-profit schools do, for sure), and they don't have to subsidize special education funding with normal student funding.
One of the consequences of our state (Washington) going to a state-wide student funding model is that public schools really don't want to lose their non-special education students, because they get a fixed amount of money per student and if they lose too many of the students to private that don't need (and don't get) extra resources, they don't have enough funding to provide programs to the rest.
> They also don't have to cater to special education students (although some private non-profit schools do, for sure), and they don't have to subsidize special education funding with normal student funding.
Yep, absolutely, and that part of their ability to select their students is a major factor in the "look, private schools can educate kids for less than public schools spend, with similar or better outcomes!" sort of stats that get passed around.
React development has had multiple major changes over that time span, as far as what's culturally allowed & encountered in the wild (if not what's technically possible). Just-functions, classes-and-functions mixed as appropriate, redux becoming a nigh-standard, the HOF invasion, hooks, and classes becoming deprecated.
I dunno... when you're building a hierarchical tree of nameable components and several, ahem, instances of each nameable component might exist, and these need to respond to signals, that seems like a case when it's non-crazy to use classes.
Doesn't... look meaningfully different from AWS lambdas or CF workers or other things along those lines. Just with way fewer features. What am I missing?