lessaligned

...it's useful to (over)generalize sometimes to get more explanatory power for things.

I mean, it probably says nothing useful about programming, but the other way around, thinking of "uncolapsed" wave-functions as lazy-evaluation could be useful. I'm not up-to-date on theoretical physics, but I think there might be something like that in Deutsch's constructor theory.

In programming I'd prefer more a language that makes syntactically/visually obvious what's lazy and what not and allows you to pick (eg. like Rust does with &mut), with some sigil maybe, but that's probably a low-prio for many language designers nowadays...

EDIT+: and you could say you practically get this already in mainstream languages... lazy-vals are just functions and it's probably good enough or better for most programmers to have them distinct/explicit.

There's an even deeper way to thing about it: if you actually want to parallellize the simulation of multiple scenarios, or if you're running smth. that needs to compute smth in >4d, quantum mechanics + parallel universes" might be the computationally optimal way to do it!

...we don't think about it this way often because we'd be thinking about computational problems so huuuuge that we'd be like the quarks inside the atoms inside the transistors inside plannet-sized clusters spanning galaxies to even fathom computing it ...and it's not necesarily a feel-good perspective :)

I mean, even the speed-of-light limit and general relativity seem like optimizations you'd do in order to better parallelize something you need to compute on some unfathomable "hardware" in some baseline-reality that might not have the same constraints...

...and to finish the coffee-high-rant: if you want FTL you probably can't get it "inside" because it would break the simulation, you'd need to "get out" ...or more like "get plucked out" by some-thing/god :P (ergo, when we see alien artifacts UFOs etc. that seemed to have done FTL... we kind of need to start assuming MORE than _their_ existence and just them being 'more advanced' than us)

exactly, the build step is there anyway, so why not get "what you're paying for"

Makes sense, is you're a 5+ years experienced JS dev.

But a more junior dev (or someone often switching languages between eg JS / Python / Go etc. all day who finds it hard to remember language details) would benefit a lot form the IDE suggestions and validations that can be offered with TS, and move faster at coding with all the extra help from autocomplete and stuff.

So your implicit tradeoff is to optimize for more senior developers. That's OK, but I'm not sure you intended that.

Can you explain the choice of JS over TS?

what other good recommendations do you have for auth?

...this could make some people VERY angry :)

"room-temp semiconductors in 2023 were just small blocks of stuff levitating atop magnets without needing to be cooled. XYZ really did manage to produce them into useful shapes that still remain superconductive when you push more than 0.00001 amps through them"

...nothing happened to the markets ~2017 when the transformer architecture (behind the current AI boom) happened. Nor in 2020 when it was pretty obvious shit scales and generalizes well. ONLY when it got built into an actual product (ChatGPT) did the needle start to move.

Same with this, until someone figures out how to make WIRES from LK-99-like-stuff that can be made into useful MAGNETS, it will stay flat.

Markets may be very smart... but they're hyyyyyper-conservative :P (an it makes sense to be so, there's the $$$ powering agriculture and healthcare and pensions floating on the seas of markets nowadays).

I arrived at the same wisdom eg. the "Throw Away then Strategize/Plan" process, but... how the heck to you manage to sell/explain this to people at the same or higher levels?

Imo lots of people are very disgusted by this, mainly because the (a) concervatives/waterfall-heads are horrified by the idea of launching something no thoroughly engineered, while the (b) evolutionary-design folks never want a clean-rewrite from scratch, they'll cling to that "throw-away version" and try to "evolutionarily" refactor it gradually into what they now know it will be needed (and this always fails).

"the fork was very very bad for eating soup - this is a story about how we migrated to a spoon"

...firecracker does fine what it was designed to - short running fast start workloads.

(oh, and the article starts by slightly misusing a bunch of technical terms, firecracker's not technically a hypervisor per se)

what pants it only had a skirt with GDPR branded on it and nothing under...

cool so in cloudland, Azure ca finally face some strong competition as orgs who were only using its crappy stuff solely bc it seemed to be a "safer" bet from a EU regulatory perspective get to do more AWS and GCP now...