joshiefishbein

I can’t help but post this relevant Key & Peele skit:

https://youtu.be/14WE3A0PwVs

I’m starting to realize this could have been why YouTube might have put it in my feed sometime within the last week.

As

Welcome to the Metabzzzz

On-demand ISR of any sort is a big win for me. It seems right now `unstable_revalidate` can only take a single string suggesting one path at a time. I would love for this feature to accept an array of strings – or better yet – maybe a regex so I can rebuild entire branches of a sitemap.

Either way I have been loving Next.js since starting to use it again in version 11 after trying a few other alternatives over the years.

Can someone ELI5 the difference between HBO Now, HBO Go, and now HBO MAX?

Am I the only one that is completely confused by their apps branding?

No it doesn't! In fact it could be as rewarding as seeing those bar graphs that do track my physical activity – only inverted.

I'm not sure if that would be possible on iOS. But they do already report app usage and allow you to set timers on your own usage to make sure you aren't spending more than your allowance. "Screen Time": https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208982

This would be interesting to see on my phone at the end of the day. Even having decreased my social media and news consumption considerably over the last few years, I still catch myself mindlessly scrolling from time to time.

I would love the shameful alert that told me “you’ve scrolled twice as many miles as you’ve walked today” since I know the second set of metrics definitely exists. It may be what I need to quit the habit completely.

Yarn is majorly only a CLI. It still uses NPM as the source for most packages.

The product Github is probably most interested in is NPM as a repository for packages, not its CLI.

Related to this thread from the other day that the OOP/developer also commented on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21943649

> Users have the right to subvert software and platform restrictions that would force them to consume content that they do not wish to see, and to teach other people how to subvert these restrictions. Users have the right to distribute software that circumvent technological restrictions for the purposes of personal content filtering.

How about "Users have the right to not use software that forces [...]"? I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that people agree to a ToS and then have a right to abuse the platform. Seems like that could lead to an inconsiderate/unsafe/unfair place for other people and stakeholders in that platform. I understand that anyone can do whatever they want whenever they wish and that it's up to the platform to battle "subversion" and misuse – but I don't believe it should be an indoctrinated imperative.

This applies to most of what is found in "Right to Modify". I think there's truly a legal nuance to who owns what (especially when a lot of folks are currently renting their phones from their device manufacturers or service providers).

The sentiment seems to elevate the end user and expose the software developers a bit more than I personally care for. There should be more emphasis on the responsibility of users to understand what they are getting themselves into.

EDIT: I drew my guns too quickly and forgot to mention I appreciate most of the other points and its simple presentation. I see the OP in the comments and commend ya for taking the leap.

This is precisely what Clay Shirky was talking about back in 2012 in his talk "How the Internet Will One Day Transform Government":

https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...

Now if we could only move our legislators' legislative processes into git...

In essence, this short video series seems to recap the main ideas in Lanier's book Who Owns the Future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Owns_the_Future%3F

Originally read this headline as "NYFD rescues overnight lending market with $53B" and momentarily thought the calendar photoshoots were more than just a joke.

It has been so far.

And we're hiring: https://www.sanctuary.computer so come see for yourself

I currently work within a profit-share-based flat-org. We have a rule to never exceed 12 people in company size. Sure there might be several of us that are "core" members and others that come and go throughout the years. So in a sense this seniority has translated to hierarchy to some degree.

We're all mostly web developers so the mind-share is important since our technologies move fast. Decision making doesn't cost us a lot of time because there aren't many big decisions to make. Our only producer and founder see client faces the most, but not exclusively. We do good work and rely solely on previous clients and referrals banging our doors down for more work – so we fortunately don't have to worry on that front or "crown someone" with biz dev because it's on autopilot for the most part (definitely over-simplifying the work it takes to get a client in the door but you get the picture).

One would assume that our profits would cap out eventually because we aren't scaling the labor-force, but we just keep getting better paying projects and have a few internal projects that provide some passive revenue – so we've been able to nearly double our revenue year-over-year for the last few years and is now stably seven figures.

Our big decisions come down to whether or not to hire a specialized dev for an upcoming scope or maybe what conference we attend that year. These decisions don't happen often but they happen openly and almost everyone is satisfied with the result almost all of the time. "Almost" is used unapologetically because we all know there's never been a perfect organization and that keeps everyone involved perfectly happy. We can't always be skipping around in the cotton candy fields and enjoying the sugar rain like the unicorns we truly are on the inside – so when we have to go to work we recognize that our pattern is better than the vast majority of agency-models here in NYC and are still delighted by our cumulative work experience day to day.

Flat-org is sometimes tossed around as if it projects itself as a silver bullet to organizational overhead. But anyone that cares to think clearly for a moment can recognize that any org structure has a place and time and that there will never be a one-size-fits-all solution to managing people.

Web components don't take care of the full ecosystem that is the front-end and will prove irrelevant to framework churn.

If anything, web components make framework hopping marginally easier resulting in a more likely (marginally) exodus of a framework when something new and shiny comes by.

Front-end framework churn is ultimately a result of the ever-growing Javascript community and its relatively fast-paced development. Because we now treat the front-end as seriously (and formally) as we treat the back-end and server/service stack, we will see the constant invention/innovation/adoption cycle that we see in these aspects of technology.

Framework churn is here to stay until browsers change the way the front-end works altogether.

Just to be clear, Chrome OS is a Unix-based OS right?

They don't immediately explain that in their docs and, being a web dev, it's hard to tell from the outside.

The constant finger-pointing to the shortcomings of other browsers was getting particularly annoying — especially when IE and Edge are historically the lowest performing, late-to-the-game browsers.

Nice article, but comically ironic.

It's not publicly released yet (so keep this on the DL). invite only atm.

Still public to view! We've got lots of work to do obviously. But we still would love some feedback.