emblaegh

The point the article is trying to make is that Labubus were an abnormally short lived fad, and that’s their attempt at an explanation.

I don’t know if that exactly explains the short life of the Labubu fad, but I find the disappearance of shared culture quite evident these days.

My life hack for this kind of situation is to say “hello” back. Works every time.

It’s pronounced peeps by the way.

It’s hard to overstate the pervasiveness of WhatsApp in some some countries. Where I’m from work, service hiring, costumer service, etc are all conducted through (and specially for small businesses only though) WhatsApp.

I think it’s more like people want to enjoy the view without having to learn how to climb, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want, even if it cheapens the experience somewhat.

It’s not really on my radar, but I’d be curious to know what other pieces of software get similar respect from their communities.

I’ve seen fishy looking engagement in hn before, but I’m inclined to think uv’s praise is genuine. It reflects the collective relief of seeing an extremely long and painful journey finally come to an end (hopefully).

Man, I’m so jealous of insane praise that uv (and most other astral tools) gets. I don’t think ever seen anything so unanimously lauded around here.

Redesigns are cool exercises and what you’ve done looks good mostly. It only shows top level comments though, and the text colour is unreadable in dark mode.

You say you’re trying to improve the original design, but it’s not clear to me how what you’ve done is an improvement.

If you really want to learn another language specifically instead of something else, then getting well acquainted with bash and awk wouldn’t be wasted effort.

When I migrated years ago (mostly to get access to some plugins), nvim gladly swallowed my old configuration with no changes. Then I could change to lua and other modern features at my own pace.

I’ve been using it for around the same time, and never cared much about formatters. Linting is useful but wouldn’t call it essential. But type checking is a non negotiable on any project I lead. It’s not perfect by any means, but beats having to crawl my way through a call stack trying to figure out what the hell a function is expected to take and why it’s getting a None instead.

I have yet to find a single drawback of adopting mypy (or similars) that isn’t completely eclipsed by the benefits.

Funny how the use of the acute accent instead of the macron for long vowels completely changes the “feel” of the written language to me. Makes it look less classy.

I’m not a qft-ist, but from the top my head the Higgs field wouldn’t explain the (likely positive) mass of neutrinos. So there could potentially be another mass creation mechanism. But someone else more informed could clarify.

Beware when mixing quantum field theory (Higgs) with gravity (attraction). We don’t have any idea how these two relate to each other.

Python people should think twice before implementing a `__call__` method if they want to improve greppability.

I however creates another, arguably bigger problem, it fragments the ecosystem.

That I meant to express yes. That those non-GIL-related optimizations would soften the blow of any slowdown from the GIL removal project.

> If I attach something to my car it doesn’t affect your car.

Yes, that was my point.

> For the majority who use Python for single threaded code, no-GIL will make their code slower because a thread-safe interpreter is always going to be slower than one that can assume ST operation.

I'm almost sure the python developers said that they will compensate the slow down with other optimizations, so that you'd never have single-threaded performance degradation version-to-version.

> So no-GIL will only be faster for a minority of a minority who want parallelism but can’t use OS processes or subinterpreters.

One would hope to 1. open new use cases for python thus attracting developers that would have otherwise not given the language consideration and 2. other users could benefit from new optimizations that could be implemented further down the dependency stack.

Of course there's no guarantee that that will materialize, but the idea the adding support to an established, lightweight and well-supported concurrency primitive is so obviously a "stupid idea" shows to me that your (rudely expressed) opinion is entirely self-centered and nearsighted.

I might add that the move from python 2 to 3 was incredibly painful, but I assume most agree (with the benefit of hindsight) that it was entirely correct.

That's such a strangely distorted world view. If a car company releases a, idk, trunk-extension in response to customer feedback would you go "How is this Ford's problem? If you didn't think about the trunk size eat the loss and buy a new car" ? Python developers want python to remain useful to the developers who want to keep using the language. It's not an incomprehensible motivation.

Thanks, but I really don’t think this is my case. I have no such strong trauma that I can think of.

Thanks for the thorough response. It seems like you have it way worse than I do, sorry about that.

> Now you seem to be describing your focus in the terms of willpower

I'm not entirely sure what's the role of willpower in all of this. Maybe I just have very little of it?

> So why do you consume YouTube 2x speed only and always?

I get exceedingly impatient when watching videos at slower speeds, specially in these days where most youtube content is 20min+.

> How do you work from home? If you can't do work from home... How do you manage it when you tried? Do you dedicate a space that is only for working at home? Do you only use a work provided computer that is separate from everything else? Did you make sure to wake up in the morning take a shower put on some nice clothes and then "go to work" by going into that room that is dedicated for work at home and has your work computer?

All of that is correct, yes. Still while I hear many people complain about strugling with work/life balance when working from home, I'm like that meme "wait you guys are doing actual work?".

> Getting an ADHD diagnosis is not an excuse for a lack of knowing how to do things.

That is definitely true. But i'm gonna be honest here. I seek a diagnosis with the intent of trying drugs or ADHD psychotherapy, and see how I fare with these. I am however way more hesitant about trying drugs without medical approval, so I'm not considering this route anymore.

> But guess what you could still do all of the therapy stuff without an ADHD

Yeah, that's a possible venue. Though my psychiatrist mentioned that therapy would help as long as my inattention is a product of some other mental illness that's not ADHD. I'm not convinced that's the case for me, as I consider myself quite stable mentally, but I might give it a go if I don't see any other easier alternative.

He was a psychiatrist. And the only advice he gave me is that some people look for coaching to help in this regard. I am a bit suspicious about coaching, as this industry sounds super scammy to me, but I'd like to hear if anyone has found success with tit.

Fortunately, I am 100% not depressed.

Wanna elaborate, friend?

The advanced lectures were the ones that finally clicked monads to me.

As someone who lives on the lizzy line, it's definitely far from perfect. It is improving however, and I cannot overstate the blessing that it has been on my life.

Is this a common opinion? After watching the video I couldn't imagine why anyone would be so bothered by the keyboard sounds in it, which is maybe just a little bit too loud? And way less distracting than the bad sound quality of the microphone used (which again, is pretty easy to get over).

Yeah but this is only possible if the sets in question are uncountably infinite.

You first split the sphere into an uncountable number of subsets, then group these into a finite number of subsets, whose measure sum to twice the measure of the original set.

(Un)countability is at the core of most of the counterintuitive results of measure theory, exactly because of the the third property of measure.