It’s pertinent to YC, and topical because if the current US administration.
The guy’s ideas are poison, but also act as a kind of Rosetta Stone for interpreting nonsense conclusions sometimes presented by tech leaders, politicians etc.
Presumably because it's mostly political in nature and people here are generally tired of the whole Curtis Yarvin thing. We've had like an extra ten to fifteen years of hearing about this guy than most people...
I didn't flag it, and clearly I'm here commenting, but I'm also sympathetic to people flagging this.
This article is not based in much real history. If people would like to learn more about how life was for actual average people in Medieval Europe and how they asserted their own power I recommend this episode on Tides of History: Peasants' Rebellions and Resistance
here's the blurb for anyone curious
> The medieval world relied on peasants. They grew the food, maintained the buildings, produced the craft goods, and made up the vast bulk of the population. But they were never particularly happy with their place in society, and rebellions, revolts, and quieter forms of resistance were ubiquitous.
The author makes vague claims and provides no evidence for them. And the sources he does site are questionable at best and purposefully dishonest at worst. No where does the author say what freedoms people actually had or how we know they were followed and enforced. There is no first hand source for ANY of his claims except the Magna Carta, which undercuts his own, that is that the past had some glorious freedoms that were around and freely followed.
From the Magna Carta
> THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
Just from a superficial reading this implies that "Liberties and Customs" were afforded to London but then revoked and now formally reapplied.
The Magna Carta, and other historical documents like the Assize of Clarendon, are important because they formalized unwritten codes into laws, expanded rights, and set up a legal system that allows for non violent means of dealing with conflict. Without them we wouldn't have things like Habeas Corpus and instead be defending against arbitrary decision making by people like kings
It's even worse than this. One of the articles main sources is a Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Economics Professor, not a historian who is at best cherry picking scholarship from 1914. At worst a bigot who has a history of making ignorant racial and homophobic comments and has a dedicated section in wikipedia just to this. Even worse his anti democratic, neo-feudal beliefs were influential to clowns like Curtis Yarvin and Javier Millei
> Hans-Hermann Hoppe (/ˈhɒpə/;[5] German: [ˈhɔpə]; born 2 September 1949) is a German-American academic associated with Austrian School economics, anarcho-capitalism, right-wing libertarianism, and opposition to democracy.[6][7][8][9][10] He is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), senior fellow of the Mises Institute think tank, and the founder and president of the Property and Freedom Society.[11][12]
Experienced backend dev here who also uses Hasura for work at a successful small business. I think it's great at getting a prototype to production and solves real business problems that a solo dev could do by himself. As engineer #2 it's a mess, and it doesn't seem like a viable long term strategy.
I've only worked with Hasura, but I can say it's an insecure nightmare that forces anti-patterns. Your entire schema is exposed. Business logic gets pushed into your front end because where else do you run it unless you make an API wrapper. Likewise you can't easily customize your API without building an API on top of your API. You're doing weird extra network hops if you have other services that need the data but can't safely access it directly. You're pushed into fake open source where you can't always run the software independently. Who knows what will happen when the VC backers demand returns or the company deems the version you're on as not worth it to maintain compared to their radically different but more lucrative next version.
I think the people who write this off as "backend engineers feel threatened" aren't taking the time to understand the arguments they're hearing
"Business logic gets pushed into your front end because where else do you run it unless you make an API wrapper."
Exactly. This is one of the things I never understood about Supabase's messaging: The highly-touted, auto-generated "RESTful API" to your database seems pointless. Why would I hard-code query logic into my client application? If my DB structure changes, I have to force new app versions on every platform because I didn't insulate back-end changes with an API.
> If my DB structure changes, I have to force new app versions on every platform because I didn't insulate back-end changes with an API.
To avoid the above problem, it's a standard practice in PostgREST to only expose a schema consisting of views and functions. That allows you to shield the applications from table changes and achieve "logical data independence".
1. If your function returns a table type, you can reuse all the filters that PostgREST offers on regular tables or views [1].
2. The SQL code will be much more concise (and performant, which leads to less maintenance work) than the code of a backend programming language.
3. The need for migrations is a common complaint, but you can treat SQL as regular code and version control it. Supabase recently released some tooling [2] that helps with this.
Nobody but you is forcing you to put the “business logic” in the frontend.
Both those techs might make this look convenient, but engineering rules must still be followed.
Frontend should do validation and might have some logic that’s duplicate for avoiding round-trips… but anything involving security, or that must be tamper-proof, must stay in the server, or if possible be protected by permissions.
There are whole classes of applications that can be hosted almost entirely by Supabase or Hasura. If yours isn’t, it doesn’t mean you should force it.
Who said anything about forcing? I asked what the value of Supabase's most highly-touted features are, when they CATER TO the movement of such things as query logic to the front end. What else are you doing with an auto-generated RESTful HTTP "API" to the database?
I also didn't mention security, let alone promote moving it to the front end.
PostgREST creates the same type of CRUD endpoint that one would create when writing a traditional backend with an (eg) MVC framework, and it does this without requiring a developer and with complete consistency.
If "letting the client formulate queries" you mean "filter posts by DidYaWipe, sorting by date", this is also what traditional CRUD backends do.
I wouldn't write a back end with an MVC framework, since it's not doing any presentation whatsoever.
If PostgREST auto-generates three-table joins automatically to resolve many-to-many relationships and presents an appropriate endpoint, that's interesting.
As a long-time Hasura stan, I can't agree with this in any way.
> Your entire schema is exposed
In what sense? All queries to the DB go thru Hasura's API, there is no direct DB access. Roles are incredibly easy to set up and limit access on. Auth is easy to configure.
If you're really upset about this direct access, you can just hide the GQL endpoint and put REST endpoints that execute GQL queries in front of Hasura.
> Business logic gets pushed into your front end because where else do you run it unless you make an API wrapper
> Likewise you can't easily customize your API without building an API on top of your API. You're doing weird extra network hops
... How is an API that queries Hasura via GQL any different than an API that queries PG via SQL? Put your business logic in an API. Separating direct data access from API endpoints is a long-since solved problem.
Colocating Hasura and PG or Hasura and your API makes these network hops trivial.
Since Hasura also manages roles and access control, these "extra hops" are big value adds.
> You're pushed into fake open source where you can't always run the software independently
... Are you implying they will scrub the internet of their docker images? I always self-host Hasura. Have for years.
> I think the people who write this off as "backend engineers feel threatened" aren't taking the time to understand the arguments they're hearing
I think your arguments pretty much sum up why people think it's just about backend engineers feeling threatened - your sole point with any merit is that there's one extra network leg, but in a microservices world that's generally completely inconsequential.
Backends are far messier (especially when built over time by a team), more expensive and less flexible than a GraphQL or PostgREST's api.
> I've only worked with Hasura, but I can say it's an insecure nightmare that forces anti-patterns
Writing backend code without knowing what you're doing is also an insecure nightmare that forces anti-patterns. All good engineering practices still need to apply to Hasura.
Nothing says that "everything must go through it". Use it for the parts it fits well, use a normal backend for the non-CRUD parts. This makes securing tables easier for both Hasura and PostgREST.
> Business logic gets pushed into your front end because where else do you run it unless you make an API wrapper. You're doing weird extra network hops if you have other services that need the data but can't safely access it directly
I'm gonna disagree a bit with the sibling post here. If you think that going through Hasura for everything is not working: just don't.
This is 100% a self-imposed limitation. Hasura and PostgREST still allow you to have a separate backend that goes around it. There is nothing forbidding you from accessing the DB directly from another backend. This is not different from accessing the same database from two different classes. Keep the 100% CRUD part on Hasura/PostgREST, keep the fiddly bits in the backend.
The kind of dogma that says that everything must be built with those tools produces worse apps. You're describing it yourself.
> I think the people who write this off as "backend engineers feel threatened" aren't taking the time to understand the arguments they're hearing
I have heard the arguments and all I hear is people complaining about how hard it is to shove round pieces in square holes. These tools can be used correctly, but just like anything else they have a soft spot that you have to learn.
Once again: "use right tool for the job" doesn't mean you can only use a single tool in your project.
I've only played with these kinds of plug and play databases, but mixing and matching seems like the worst of both worlds. The plug and play is gone, because some things might me in API 1, some others in API 2, and maybe worst of all, their domains might overlap. So you need to know that the "boring" changes happen via the postgREST, but the fancier ones via some custom API. The APIs will probably also drift apart in small ways, making everything even more error prone.
What you say is also true for situations where you us an ORM vs queries, or some direct MVC approach vs business service libraries which are common in backend apps. Or even having two different sets of APIs.
What sounds like the worst of both words to me is forcing Supabase/Hasuea to do what it isn’t good at or force a traditional backend to do the same thing those tools can do but taking 10x of the time and cost.
My experience was super positive and saved a lot of coding and testing time. The generated APIs are consistent and performant. When they don’t apply, I was still able to use a separate endpoint successfully.
This is a subject that will likely hinge on politics and commodity markets, but the science is very clear as is occam's razor
1. There is a lot of animal life in the deep ocean where these modules are present and absent where they are not
2. Those organisms depend on oxygen to function
3. Polymetallic nodules taken from the deep ocean have been shown in lab conditions to create enough of an electric charge to split H2O into H2 and O2
4. Areas where polymetallic nodules have been removed decades ago haven't recovered even on a microorganism level
5. These nodules individually take *millions* of years to form
From these conclusions we can safely assume that removing them would decimate these ecosystems on a timescale that's longer than evolution of the genus Homo. Put another way it would be as if we cut down a forest knowing it would take millions of years for individual trees to regrow. It is a crime against the planet to remove these nodules
What is the source of the electricity generation? Presumably, given how slowly the nodules form, they must be acting as a catalyst/not be being consumed, so what energy source are they using?
They believe it's due to the metals that make up the nodules creating differences in electrical charge along their surface and perhaps between nodules. For an in depth explanation see below
So it appears that the authors actually don't know. Specifically they say:
Whereas questions remain concerning this potential mechanism (such as the identity of the energy source(s), longevity of DOP, catalytic stabilities, electrochemical conditions on exposed versus buried nodules surfaces and the influence of different chemistries within the nodule layers
And after reading their explanation for why they discount microbial sourcing of the oxygen, I am inclined to join other commenters in their skepticism. Given no good mechanistic understanding, I think they are being too quick to rule out microbes. That's not to say that they are wrong, just that I think their current evidence isn't strong enough to support the claims they are making (admittedly this is a completely subjective assessment)
I believe electrolysis occurs between any two metals in a fluid conductor (like salt water). This happens in boats, which is why you put a "sacraficial zinc" on the hull so that your prop and prop shaft and through-hulls don't erode. Maybe this could generate small amounts of O2 at depth, but not a chemist so I don't know.
As you point out, that causes corrosion, using up the metals (well, using up their galvanic potential energy anyways). These nodules are A) extremely old and B) extremely slow growing/generating. If that were the source of the electric fields, it couldn't be sustained long enough to be a stable source and it would result in the nodules corroding away (or at least one of the metals corroding until there was no longer electrochemical potential, which would end the effect).
In other words, for that to be the source, then that would imply that something about our understanding of how these nodules form would be off by many orders of magnitude.
They would have to be forming so quickly, that the concerns about using them up would almost go away (assuming that harvesting didn't disrupt the process of formation that is).
Part of the reason why there is concern here is that these nodules (as we currently understand it) form so slowly (literally millions of years), that if we harvest them, then they are, for all intents and purposes, gone forever. So if they do have important ecological functions, then those functions are completely wiped out.
But if they are actually forming on the order years (and I can't imagine that it could possibly be any slower than that for galvanic/corrosive processes to be the answer, and in fact probably faster), then that concern goes away. Harvest one section of a field, go away for a decade, and it's restored.
How do the nodules form? I'm not sure of the mechanism but I can speculate that it may be that they form as a result of biological action of microorganisms which take in seawater and secrete heavy metals. Colonies of these microorganisms could coalesce to the point where their presence is indicated by the presence of these nodules.
Perhaps using thin sections of the nodules will provide a clue about their origin and whether they are a biological type of sedimentary deposit or something that occurs due to chemical or electrochemical diagenesis of existing sediments or alteration of suspended particulates in the water column.
It's interesting that they are only found in areas where the seafloor is oxygenated according to the EOS article linked and quoted below.
>Nodule provinces are not typically found in low-oxygen areas, she said. “However, there could be microenvironments where oxygen is depleted and dark oxygen production enables certain microbes, protozoa, or fauna.”
If it is being produced down there, something is using it. Everything is part of a cycle and works in concert with all the other parts keep the wheels turning. If we remove enough parts the cycle ends.
I think we need to understand the role these nodules play in their environments before commercial interests start crowing the familiar "national security interests" argument to allow them to bypass any scrutiny.
I was thinking if a log burning is a realer of stored energy these modules might demonstrate the same energy harvesting as plants but on a muncher longer time scale.
If you're in international waters, you can destroy whatever you want and even at low marginal return, if you can scale fast enough the total ROI can be good. The solution to pollution is dilution (of regulatory barriers)!
I've been following this for years and am somewhat ambivalent to either outcome.
I feel the need to warn anyone reading that this is an overwrought reaction to an overwrought reaction to a, well, very opinionated take.
There's a reason why there's 5 papers as refutations, and no one will even go on the record, even just for a news article that'll play well to general public grousing, to even devil's advocate for the original paper
I'm glad institutions have and are taking their time with this, to the point we're being steadily brought along, publicly, as we investigate the possibilities and perhaps even discover new things along the way.
Frankly, I don't have a dog in the fight either. I have to wonder if those writing the refutations do.
But frankly, if it is viable, it will be done by one of the majors. Just look at the overfishing problem. Then everyone will just buy from them and ignore the destruction. Like all the other tragedies of the commons, it takes leadership to avoid them (and shame, or at least a desire for truth) that this world does not currently have.
Couldn't we re-seed these areas with artificial nodules? Could we seed areas w/o previous nodules to create new areas for undersea life? Is there a project doing this yet?
...Ag science is a bloody thing, and if you don't think it takes a lick of knowledge to be a farmer, I welcome you to try being one yourself in order to free yourself of this frankly distateful, nay, disgusting hubris.
I acknowledge that industrial farmers go to university, etc, but of the 8 billion people, most of the farmers probably dont really know whats going on. they just know what to sorta do with the plants.
which was true 10,000 years ago before humans even know what cells or photosynthesis was. people had farms then.
so the point is, even without a genuine understanding, if the causal relationship between seeding parts of the ocean and the desired result is achieved, then an understanding wouldnt be necessary.
I haven't used EmberJS in 10 years and was eyeing svelte for some personal projects. Given this article it's made me shy about that. Maybe it's time to look at ember again. I know vanilla JS + htmx is mentioned elsewhere here and worth exploring too. However, as you've said a stable API is very nice these days in the JS world
Ember is working through a migration replacing their build system and bundler with Vite -- all while maintaining backwards compatibility to a version released in 2021. Ember will be fun to watch in the coming year.
Depending on how you count it that could be a version originally released in 2018 i.e. the version they are aiming to support is 3.28 which you should be able to easily update to from 3.0 (which was released in 2018) since it's a minor update with no breaking changes
Well I can answer one question for you. There are studies that show that better insulation only briefly lowers the energy use. Once people adjust to the new insulation they end up heating or cooling their houses more since in their mind it is cheaper, but they end up using the same or more energy.
I would not have guessed that that would be the answer. That's kinda crazy, but it also makes sense, every time I visit someone in a newly built home the temperature is always crazy high.
The point that you're missing is that changes this equation a bit is that burning fossil fuels wastes most of the energy as heat another waste of energy is the amount of FFs we use to ship FFs to other places. So together that means we don't need the same amount of electric power to do the same amount of work. That being said, keeping fossil fuels in the ground will always be better than removing CO2 for the reasons you said. We also seem to be growing energy demands instead of shrinking or stabilizing them which also makes the transition harder.
reply