Just installed it and started using.
It is timely as I have to fill a number of forms today on government sites so looking forward to using it.
What are some best practices you have come up with for reducing the cognitive load for the trigger lifecycle - that is detect the need, come up with one that fits an easy to retrieve mental model? Namespacing obviously comes to mind, and some trigger design should be as conflict free as possible, yet brief:
:i.a - address
:i.n - name
:i.p - phone
Debating if I should feed my zsh history to chatgpt and as it to come up with some.
Any other advice from the power users?
Came here to see if it was the same person, though I felt very sure with the throwback web design - back when each page had its character, and you had to save the page for offline reading so that Dad wasn't pissed at the phone bill!
And when the code worked - it was validation against all the previous failures (and rejections) in life! Oh the joy of sending message from one computer to the other!
I have been searching for the same answer myself. Blogs, or long form narrative consumption have morphed into newsletters and substack is the king there solving the problem for both consumer and publisher.
Note Scott Hanselman, Bryan Cantrill, Adam Leventhal, Cal Newport, Derek Sievers, Tim Ferris etc. - a lot of the OGs still maintain their own real estate on the internet. These are outside the walled garden pruned by algorithms of megalomaniacs. Whatever format you are producing content, there is an essay at the core of it. Personal blog could serve as an archive for that.
Recently Oxide and friends did an episode to address this topic - I'd highly recommend that episode and the podcast itself. This was in context of the book launch https://www.manning.com/books/writing-for-developers. I've just made through a few chapters of the book, it will give you a lot of good reasons and framework on how you should do it.
If your aim is building a readership, consider the following questions:
- Why do you want to grow an audience?
- What do you have to offer to that audience so that they'll come back?
- Is long format prose their preferred medium for consuming the message?
I love to see investment in tools like these, so thank you so much for working on it and packaging it.
Another useful tool that I don’t see cheered enough for is vars(). When integrating new api-s, you’d often find yourself at pdb(or ipdb) prompt pretty printing(pp) loaded variables and attributes calls - pp(vars(foo)) has been a great friend reducing the burden of dot walking.
One thing I have longed for, but never took the time to research though, is pagination - your debugger window is often fighting for screen real estate, so data rich API calls becomes a little jarring.
Hook. And imagine the targeted ad revenue - where else do you have people with different spending powers strapped to a seat with nowhere to go? You have already given the flight operator your verified identification. Amazing new opportunity for data resellers.
My nephews on both side of the pond (one in London and one in North Carolina) have received smart watches for their 10th birthday. Mom can call you, you can call mom. Find My for easy tracking by parents.
Curious to learn what other strategies people have developed for hackathons, specially in a post Copilot era, how do hackathon participants perceive the landscape has changed?
This takes me to my childhood. My dad was an electrical engineer in India and worked at a ship repair dockyard. He once came back with a few shelves and cabinets for our kitchen. These were taken out of ships that were getting cut up in their dockyard. They were complete mismatches in aesthetics but it did not matter to his "why waste such functional ..." attitude. He was excited about what his "workers" could salvage from the ship. Mom didn't care as this was an old house where we have been living for generations and functionality trumped aesthetics.
The most intriguing part to me was the wooden cabinet was painted white with something stencil printed in green. My best guess was that was a Cyrillic script, and about twenty five years back, it wasn't easy to decipher what they meant.
Those cabinets are still hanging in our old house. Next time I'm there, all I need to do is pull up my phone and translate that text and get a kick out of what the original intention was for the sailors and what my mom is storing in it!
"Paying well" is relative. There are lots of industries that are rightly considered exploitative from the western eye, but people who are working these jobs would otherwise be starving or relying on meager government handouts if they went away.
This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do."
I have no idea what the case was in this specific industry in India. But in many developing countries, first world companies collaborate with government and pay off private muscle to make it impossible for workers to organize and earn anything in that middle ground.
(I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)
> (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)
> “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
> “Easy, chief,” I said. “-Any- rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
> He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
> This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do."
That's what labour market competition between employers (or employment opportunities, because people can strike out on their own) is for.
More and stiffer competition is better.
> (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)
I don't know what definition of 'fair' you want to use here. It's taken voluntarily in some sense. But so is the choice between starving vs cannibalism, if you have no other options. So that's not a very useful distinction.
If you want to help people, you not to improve their options, make sure that better options can be provided. That's very different from outlawing bad options, and just the opposite. (Ie giving the would-be cannibal access to some bread is actually helpful. Just banning cannibalism on the lifeboat only leads to starvation, if there are no other options.)
Conditions in the ship breaking industry will improve as other industries compete for workers with them.
For comparison, have a look at the working conditions of eg nannies in England today vs 800 years ago. They do essentially the same job, but get paid so much more in real terms. And not out of any generosity by their employers.
What were the people of Alang doing before shipbreaking? Were they starving?
We know from the history of enclosure that the starvation was an intentional strategy to compel people into wage work. There were guides to how to do enclosure that advised lords against planting fruit trees, because the peasants would eat the fruit from the trees and therefore not want to engage in work.
I don’t think you understand what that word means. Extortion isn’t simply any negative consequence.
A dentist requiring payment before preforming surgery didn’t cause your tooth decay and they have no obligation to help you. Same deal here, someone offering a job is offering the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship, but that’s as far as it goes.
By that logic it's up to you to die or not from being shot in the face. That's like 18th-19th century or earlier model of world.
> A dentist ... have no obligation to help you.
btw, this is region dependent. Medical services are just businesses in the US, but doctors are obligated to provide emergency cares by law in many regions.
> By that logic it's up to you to die or not from being shot in the face.
No that’s an issue directly caused by a 3rd party. Hunger is imposed not by an individual but by biology.
> doctors are obligated to provide emergency cares by law in many regions.
There’s some confusion around what is the responsibility of an emergency room and individuals, but UK, USA, Canada, Singapore, etc don’t require doctors to act in an emergency. The US requires emergency rooms to protect treatment in an actual emergency but not everything qualifies. https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtal....
Every country is different but few require doctors to act in an Emergency and non for general care, it’s basically a handful of European countries and Australia. Even then it’s a minimal level of treatment.
What about when someone invents the concept of private property ownership, claims all the food as his own, hires a bunch of people by paying them with the food he has declared he owns to guard that food, and then demands payment for you to eat that food to survive?
Maybe extortion isn't the right word, but it's certainly not voluntary exchange either.
In nature help isn’t freely available. Private property is the default, a crow picks up a stick and it’s theirs. Ants defend their nests etc. Plants will break out chemical warfare to defend themselves. Walk into a lion’s den asking for help and your going to get eaten.
So what food do you expect to be freely available?
Anyway a voluntary exchange doesn’t mean equal leverage for all parties. I’m not going to negotiate a windows license with Microsoft it’s take it or leave it. Which is the hart of a voluntary exchange, either party can walk away without one party forcing their will on the other.
you throw so much of the real world out, in this simplistic rationalization. Economic niches could be related to ecological niches. Many ordinary animals have more than enough to eat for at least a season and a half, in so many places. What is the limitation? competition with your own burgeoning species for the physical space to occupy and, predation. Not everything is on the brink of starvation.
Predators evolve to exploit and kill those with abundance, and humans are expert predators. A vast portion of the civilized world it seems, was built directly from slavery and warfare. Slavery is very profitable, and wage slavery is alive today.
The simplistic example of food-scarcity is Reductio ad absurdum, to use the language of a top-line predator tribe from long ago.
First humans aren’t predators we’re omnivores which explains our teeth, intestines, etc. Most animals even things like horses will chow down on other animals given the opportunity, but plants don’t run away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP6dvgo25Z8
Nature is brutal. Starvation is one of the most common ways for animals to die, though still behind being eaten. Humanity has largely improved upon this natural state as even being enslaved beats being consumed alive.
Is there a word for this specific kind of ambivalence where you label a pitiable, miserable set of circumstances "strange"? As if it's on the same level as the strong nuclear force? Maybe "motivated ambivalence".
There's nothing strange about it just as there's nothing strange about cobalt mining conditions in Democratic Republic of Congo: exploitative trade agreements, political corruption, and apathy.
Just because you don't think its strange doesn't mean others don't. Strange is subjective. If he feels its odd we willfully ignore it, then its strange.
Using "strange" instead of "bad" to me indicates someone has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature, which is gnarly and creates bad things like humans setting up incentives without having to necessarily classify humans or the universe as bad.
Is it bad when a lion kills another animal? In a way yes, it's extra death that could be preventable, in another way it's what it is. Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average? What about if a human is born more narcissistic than average and does bad things?
It leaves open the possibility of you the writer also being wrong, so it comes across as humbly sharing an opinion.
I literally didnt define it as good. Maybe read again. I said it isnt good or bad, its nature, its what it is. Ironic that while explaining why using "bad" to qualify nature is not appropriate you think im saying its good.
i'm sorry that you don't have the patience to read a wikipedia article
> Some people use the phrase, naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature, in a different sense, to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"
Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment. I give up, you just want me to be wrong. It's just frustrating you don't recognize that was the argument I was making.
basically. To manipulating the reader into thinking that workers being paid well or according to their "benefit" is the natural, logistical, or otherwise expected outcome.
It is an attempt to switch the roles between what the conventional, familiar, and safe what is unconventional, weird, and strange.
Paying workers according to "benefit" is not tried and true. It has real challenges and problems.
I don't think it's wrong to pay workers according to the value they provide. It's just not normal (again, not necessarily a good thing), so use of the word "strange" is inaccurate - in addition to being a manipulative use of the word (it's pretty clear that the writer doesn't actually think it's strange, and is using the word to tug on heart strings).
Your are out to lunch. I'm not sure what you think I'm advocating for or what I'm trying to be manipulative based on my short comment but you need to take a minute and think about how other people come to the conversation and that they don't come with some embedded agenda.
> Those industries don't pay well to anyone involved but are a global benefit. Such a strange world we live in.
It's pretty clear that are are trying to manipulate readers through your suggestive use of "strange". You're not actually confused by it - you're trying to suggest something about labor laws or pay or something without actually making a point, through the use of suggestive language. People do not talk like that unless they're adding a subtext.
Its pretty clear to you because you seem to think the world is black and white and you are very self assured. However I can tell you, whether you believe me or not, that was most certainly not intended or implied (either knowingly or unknowingly). Any way please continue to speak my intentions with your self proclaimed authority.
Not trying to defend this kind of practices, it just reminds me of something I watched recently about the working conditions in the Victorian era in a UK cotton mill… Atrocious and exploitative by all current standards, and yet people chose this over more traditional agricultural occupations because it paid better, weekly, and there was no uncertainty that you’ll lose an entire season of wages because the harvest was bad. And yet they were working 72h a week, had indentured child labour, average life expectancy was something like 40 years old, injuries and loss of fingers or limbs were regularly occurring.
