isaacaggrey

What would you say is comparable experience wise to 1Password? I’ve found particularly the 1Password Family plan there’s not really a good alternative of rolling with KeepassX, Bitwarden, etc.

The answer could be nothing and I still respect the choice to speak with your wallet.

I wouldn’t delete any items any backlog items. Much better to always close with a reason. You can make this a first class status in whatever platform like a “Closed - Duplicate”, “Closed - Unneeded”, etc.

This helps with searching for rationale in the future, looking back to similar items, etc.

You can’t stop someone from putting it back but you can close it as duplicate and link it as related.

Edit: also if the person putting work in the backlog is not a core contributor or product you should formalize some other intake process that can triage whether it meets the bar to get in

If you bought the device, then you have the right to do what you want with the device (modify, tweak, repair).

I agree but this particular example showed nothing about leveraging skill, experience, or intuition. If anything, this is another straightforward example of a one shot ask.

edit: that said, I understand this particular post is about model capability

Very neat. Thank you for sharing! I assume this was one shot as well -what sort of prompt did you use?

I’m sure folks would be interested even in a blog post comparing just this process with different Anthropic models if that’s something you do and need a content idea. :)

I understood it in the spirit of “code is a liability not an asset.” Code still needs to be maintained, changed, etc whether that is by a human or LLM.

In other words, just because more code can be produced quickly does not mean that it is cheap.

edit: I’m maybe hearing your point is that LLMs may change that POV but I think that is TBD.

It's interesting how this is both a nebulous yet concrete idea and how definitions and implementations vary widely. I was having the _exact_ same questions since I've had to newly lean more into the data engineering space at my current gig, so it's helpful to hear these takeaways from folks experienced in the trenches (not just the newbs).

I agree with your parent post but why would a breakup not equally apply to Apple?

I think other commenters are overstating the change from staggered to columnar. I type just fine (100 WPM+) going between my Moonlander (split keyboard from ZSA) and my Lenovo/Macbook (typical staggered layouts).

In hindsight, the biggest issue I ran into switching keyboards was that I was too ambitious playing around with the key configuration. The configurability is a big draw but I took for granted that I had already built up years of natural tendency for certain things - which thumb I use for space, preferences for Ctrl/Alt/Command/Option, for Shift, etc.

The default for these keyboards probably don't 100% align with what you're used to, so you should directly map what you're doing currently over to the keymap of the keyboard and then you can fiddle with making it yours over time.

I will say that if you're not already a touch typer, then a split keyboard is not going to help and it will be more difficult to get used to.

edit: also, if anything, going columnar helped me actually consistently hit number keys!

Could you elaborate?

Could you elaborate on how code review after merge is fine or better?

Some major downsides to review after merge:

- cost of context switching (author has moved on to something else new, which now remains paused to "go back", so there's no agility benefit to just merging if it works)

- increases risk of unnecessary conflicts (how do you address someone merging something, you have feedback, then someone else merges after on top? A PR helps resolve code that's done vs could be improved because it forces a communication moment between the authors)

- tooling (a PR or diff is well supported. How are you discussing feedback when everyone can just merge on top without review? I am assuming there's no point to a PR if everyone can just merge)

- decreases shared learning and understanding (I might think the code follows our standards but there still may be feedback from my team that could help improve. Why put that in the main branch before such feedback? It seems like it would be hard to keep track.)

I can't imagine my team performing well under those circumstances and I think we have a very healthy code review / quality culture. If I'm not giving or receiving feedback - that sounds more like code slinging than thinking and humility, even for the most experienced architects I've worked with welcome feedback, so it's not a matter of trust.

I appreciate more takes in this space and what elim could be. Best of luck!

That said, I find Fabriq to be more inline with what I (no affiliation) think about an app to help cultivate relationships: https://ourfabriq.com/fabriq

> Our Linux product is currently focused on big budget post facilities which often use Linux.

What's the value prop for a studio to run something on Linux vs Mac / Windows?

This is interesting to me to hear as the trope for Linux is that it's not used for audio/video work (and couldn't find much online about real world professional usage without pulling up reviews of best video editor / etc sort of results).

Also, congratulations on the release - rewrites are a huge undertaking.

Are you just saying that Windows users longer need to use PuTTY or similar?

That sounds convenient but leaves me wondering what particularly about that quality of life improvement changes how you view Windows.

Let's be fair - I don't think we're talking about simply swapping lists when you zoom out. At a minimum, any value prop would have to match the existing major app stores such as verifying binary sources, rejecting malicious apps, and the like.

I think the main question I see is - do multiple stores benefit the user?

I'm not sure of that answer but I think we can agree that multiple stores do NOT help the default app store, which in turn could be beneficial to the consumer (multiple stores that have to compete on pricing w/ deals, self publishers offering a cheaper price directly, etc. - think more like grocery stores selling the same stuff vs farmers market vs direct from farm).

I'm no economist but I think we could also agree that having at least a few options is generally A Good Thing.

edit: regardless, even in a world with multiple stores the point re: attack surface is a good one and one of your other comments regarding what users actually value like safety is an important one, which as a business are the things you need to weigh on to make a profit

I'm biased to appreciate that F-Droid even exists but providing a default list is not cognitive dissonance, and what you've said suggests that you may have missed the author's point.

You can connect whatever "collection of apps" source you desire but you're correct that you do get the "F-Droid List" out of the box.

It may feel odd to show no apps when initially using F-Droid but, in theory, one improvement may be to have the user explicitly choose a source list and maybe the "F-Droid List" is first in the list among others.

Going in that direction would also help expose that particular feature as I wasn't even aware that you could add / change sources for F-Droid, which sounds like if easy enough to add may be an easier avenue to self publish apps than the major app stores.

I agree that censorship is not the best angle the article concludes on but I don't think "user choice, decentralization, and community-controlled curation" are abstract ideas. The article is concrete what this looks like practically speaking:

> This means F-Droid gives you selected apps by default without bans or censorship. When you install the F-Droid app, it automatically connects to the collection on f-droid.org that is maintained by this community. F-Droid also makes it easy for anyone to publish their own repository, with their own curation rules.

i.e., yes, you do get the "F-Droid List" by default, but you are welcome to connect to a different list or publish your own "list" of apps that has its own curation rules.

Imagine if you could view Apple or Google's app store with an "awesome app" list curated by a list of experts you follow without all the junk of suggested apps or ads. That would go in the direction of "meta-curation" akin to what /u/hinkley is referring to in a another comment [1].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33776244

> Nobody seemed interested in making this so I just made it myself and I've been using it for the last 2 years very happily.

Based on your profile, I presume you're talking about https://notado.app/?

I also see an error but instead:

Uncaught TypeError: GLctx is undefined

--

Firefox 105 on Linux 64-bit (ElementaryOS)

> Try the HTML version of Gmail in your browser https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/. Just HTML and CSS. It’s the fastest email client in the world.

I use Fastmail on a regular basis and it's snappier than the HTML version of Gmail.

What web dev tools do you find valuable that Chrome has over Firefox?

If you use the Multi Account Containers extension [1] built by Firefox and use the built-in Firefox account sync, then you'll get that same functionality in Firefox across Windows, Mac, iPhone. That doesn't seem like a whole lot of effort and you get more functionality.

The biggest improvement over the account-based Chrome experience is that you could even have contexts (containers) for several things if you like - a container group for social media, a different container group for banking, work, shopping, etc.

All in different tabs, color-coded / labeled by container group, each with isolated cookies, etc but shared bruiser history in the same window just like in Chrome (I'm assuming) but with better privacy.

[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

Far more arguably useful is the section on code smells, which is unfortunately overshadowed by the design patterns: https://refactoring.guru/refactoring/smells