I don't think Linux has an equivalent of Apple's vision API, and if it does I guarantee it's not as robust and isn't baked-in to every Linux distro (the way Vision is baked-in to every Mac released after X date).
That alone will likely prevent this from just being a "convert to Linux" vibe session ... which is unfortunate, as I would LOVE to have this on Linux.
That thing hasn't been updated in years, and could really use some love. If they don't want to do it themselves, just open source the sub-site and I'm sure a bunch of tech founders will happily do it for them (if only to be able to say they contributed to YC itself).
It sounds like you've had a lot of bad PMs (or been one yourself).
Almost every PM I've had has been awesome. They understand the product and the customer far better than me, and help communicate exactly what I need to understand about both, so I can do my job (as a coder).
Also they have zero feedback on how long something should take. They are hyper-focused on what the business needs and when, but that doesn't make them pressure engineers to do anything faster unless it's a case of "hey this important thing just popped up; how quickly can we solve it?"
I don't think the Venn diagram of those people and everyone else is as separate as you imagine.
I'm a Literature major and avid reader, but projects like this are still incredibly exciting to me. I salivate at the thought of new kinds of literary analysis that AI is going to open up.
And you don't think that years ago people would have said "of course you'll be able to keep your security cert for more than two months"?
The people who innovate in security are failing to actually create new ways to verify things, so all that everyone else in the security industry can do to make things more secure is shorten the cert expiration. It's only logical that they'll keep doing it.
But will it help her do that, or did she just increase Trump’s self-assuredness while accomplishing absolutely nothing of worth? There was no agreement stipulated that we know of, so why would he do something in return for her now?
I really don't care about any of this but I don't see the need to play ignorant as to why many people might understandably find what she did distasteful.
>> If flattering a superpower by giving them a meaningless statue can help her do that ... why wouldn't she?
> Come on, you know exactly why: integrity.
> I really don't care about any of this but I don't see the need to play ignorant as to why many people might understandably find what she did distasteful.
Please go into more detail what you mean by "integrity." Because, that can mean a lot of different things, and what I think you mean sounds like a priority inversion.
If a Venezuelan giving the stupid hunk of metal away could help Venezuela, who cares about how some Norwegian committee and its fans feel about it? They're comfortable and unimportant.
It's obvious isn't it? An award has an element of consensus, we choose to make the Nobel prizes mean something by agreeing they mean something.
I don't think it's controversial to say that they are considered a highly prestigious award.
I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.
This is like.. the whole point of awards, trophies etc.
I vehemently have no horse in this race, I'm just trying to live my life, but I refuse to believe that someone who browses HN and articulates themselves well doesn't grok the generally well-understood social contract which underpins things like the Nobel prize and how some might see giving one away as undermining not just to the prize but to the many others who have been deemed worth enough to earn said prize.
Integrity is exactly the right word IMO because awards rely on the integrity of the participants to not do exactly what has been done in this instance at the risk of basically throwing the honor they were given back in the faces of the ones who bestowed it.
Honestly I don't care and I wish I hadn't said anything, but surely you're not sat genuinely scratching your head at why some groups find it objectionable
> I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.
My point: what's more important "the whole point of awards, trophies etc," or the well being of your country?
I'd gladly "undermine the whole point of the award" if that act offered some more important benefit to the people I care about. The integrity of the awards process is not a very important thing to me, in comparison. If I took such an action, maybe the award-granters would be mad, but who cares about them? They're comfortably ensconced in some paneled office somewhere. They'll be fine.
It is sophistry. Common problem around here is that a lot of tech people are too busy thinking they're incredibly smart and always need to be playing 5D chess instead of being decent human beings. I hate to blame Paul Graham for that, but holy shit that /r/iamverysmart shit needs to stop.
It's not sophistry, it's just the assertion that there are far more important things than the feelings of the Nobel committee and the "integrity" of their award. If you're ranking the committee's feels over those other things, then you've got your priorities out of whack.
> Common problem around here is that a lot of tech people are too busy thinking they're incredibly smart and always need to be playing 5D chess instead of being decent human beings. I hate to blame Paul Graham for that, but holy shit that /r/iamverysmart shit needs to stop.
I agree with you there. Another problem around here is getting kinda morally unglued, and prioritizing some weird abstract thing over more important and practical considerations.
It is sophistry because that's not the point. Of course there are things that matter more than awards. But pretending like there's some world where we're trading the integrity of awards to solve important problems is a laughable fantasy.
Definitely irrational. There are lots of logical reasons to dislike Next (like the fact that they pile new shiny bit on top of new shiny bit without caring about the regular user experience) ... but being mad that it can't run on Vite is silly.
It's like being mad that Rails can't run on Python, or that React can't run on jQuery. Next already has its own build system, so of course it doesn't work with another build system.
Luckily DX is much better now with Turbopack as a bundler. First they improved the dev server, now with Turbo builds the production builds are faster as well. Still not fully stable in my opinion, but they will get there.
It's also wise to use monorepo orchestration with build caching like Turborepo.
They did well on the turbo stuff, no doubt about it.
The main bottleneck with big projects in my experience is Typescript. Looking forward to the Go rewrite. :)
"Lets make extreme generalizations about tens of thousands of people because of an extremely unique outlier (who doesn't even belong to that group of people)."
reply