If the gamification is fully disclosed, I don't see the problem. People should be able to agree to game themselves, if it helps them complete a task they otherwise wouldn't finish.
But consent is key. Maybe we need regulation that compels companies to disclose these manipulative techniques in digital services. Give people the chance to opt in or out.
People should be allowed to game themselves. But this isn't language learners setting up little games for themselves to learn more. This is 1 version of gamification pushed on all of it's users, whether or not it would work for them (or at all).
Server-side JS is fine, and actually very nice in some contexts. The language and runtime(s) have come a long way.
But anyone who tries it without really understanding JS is eventually going to have a bad time. It’s important to know how to work with the event loop, how to properly use promises, etc. Server-side JS is a lot more unforgiving than front-end JS when it comes to these concepts.
RISC-V is the ISA, which is a solid first step. What you need is a production-ready fully open source whole device, so that someone who wants to fork it only has to change the parts they need to be different instead of having to also re-engineer the missing components.
"Innovation" in this context does not mean cutting-edge technology. It just means changing processes to deliver better results. The tech is often the easy part, and there's plenty of room for boring software.
The hard part is navigating the bureaucracy and building consensus toward a change. This management-craft is where the clever thinking and emergent solutions are found and deployed.
I would probably spend an hour or two just writing something like that. On the surface, I'd agree.
With that said, in my experience, many stand-up formats devolve into some version of "the two most talkative people have a conversation for 30 minutes while everyone else listens". I'd probably get more value out of doing a write-up than sitting through a meeting like that.
It really depends on the health of the stand-ups on the team.
Yeah, I would also generally agree. But what they are showing is the 'Basecamp workflow', where instead of monopolizing a meeting or posting walls of text on slack or sending an email, you surface the issues on the project management level, where everyone can find it. It's their thing.
This is how I started my collegiate journey. I made enough money at my minimum wage job to pay for my entire community college's quarter's fees up front. It really helped me figure out how and where I wanted to pursue higher education.
Did my first two years there to get an associate's and then transferred to an in-state school where the tuition was a bit more expensive but much less than the average college student's.
I took an intro to philosophy course in community college where the professor was passionate about teaching it, and would happily play with ideas with students. We had 15 students in our course, and he'd sit us down and discuss our papers on the books and readings assigned for the course, and generally loved it. He had to - he wasn't being paid a lot for teaching at the community college, so it had to be a passion.
I had to take another intro to philosophy course at the university. There were 90 people in the course in a small lecture hall. We were assigned many of the same books and readings, but they weren't discussed in any detail or with any insight, our papers weren't carefully marked, and it felt like not even the professor cared as this was a course that checked a humanities requirement everyone had to take. The professor was tenured, and had to teach at least one course in addition to whatever else he did for the school (which wasn't clear to use as students).
I learned more for less at community college, and some of the readings and discussions we had still float into my mind sometimes. The only thing I remember about my university philosophy professor is that he'd sometimes pace at the front of the lecture hall with a baseball bat and when he made a point he thought was good he'd pretend he was hitting a home run with the bat.
It's really clear to me. (And I did account for the subsequent README commits since your comment). But that's probably because I already know Web Components well. I'm in the market.
In the following line...
> Hyphen - A custom element base class for great developer ergonomics.
...I would recommend adding a link on "custom element" that points to a definition somewhere. This might make it easier for skimmers to parse the meaning of this opening line.
Ah yes, let's ask people on spotty connections to download a (likely) megabytes-large JavaScript bundle. What could go wrong?
Most of my users have old phones and bad connections. I've tried this JS-heavy bundle-first approach. It doesn't work.
The solution is way simpler than local-first. Just shrink every page and interaction. Fewer requests, little JavaScript (if any at all), low latency. Use static pages when possible. Even the oldest phones on the most remote connections can usually deal with a sub-50kb page all-in. It feels like people forget how simple web interactions can be.
I'm sure local-first can be great for highly interactive tools like Figma. But the grandparent is right. Most sites don't need anything close to that level of complexity.
I feel like you're conflating a few different things here.
Small pages and interactions are good, sure, but I don't really see a tension between this and local first. My homepage is static HTML (minus google analytics) and it works offline.
The multi-mb JS bundle is also a red herring. The only multi-mb JS bundle I ever worked with did not work offline at all. Feel this is orthogonal.
Also connectivity for people is usually something that changes with time. You have it in the farmhouse, but not out in the field. You have it at the office, but not on the road. So downloading stuff when you have connectivity and still being able to read/write what you don't is the real aim of the game here.
If you're using browser APIs to do lean local interactions, then good for you. Gold star. Fully approved. That's not what I've been seeing recently from the people around me who are most excited about this stuff.
And you're right about how connectivity changes over time. But how many people are on their bikes when applying for unemployment insurance? I just don't think most business apps benefit from this level of offline support. There are of course use cases for this! But it's not the common case.
And you're right, if it's OK to not be able to read or write during a network partition - then you don't need this. But I would encourage everyone out there to figure it out first as bolting it on after the fact is a real challenge.
Yes, but "local-first" and "Big JS" aren't related. Sure you can build any monstrosity and make it local-first. And my local-first software can be a Tauri app, installed-once, or any kind of local software for that matter.
My team manages several static sites. They're each hundreds/thousands of pages in size. Here's why we like faster builds.
* Fast builds are way more pleasant during development. "Incremental" per-article builds help, but not in all scenarios. Nothing kills my motivation faster than having to wait 30 seconds to preview a fix.
* Fast builds help us avoid jams in our automated push-live systems. Sometimes we have many editors updating pages during a big event. You could consider many different trade-offs when deciding how to manage these queues. But a fast build time erases a lot of those conversations.
We use 11ty on most of our sites. We've found 11ty itself to be fairly performant. The slugs tend to be everything related to processing assets: JavaScript bundles, Sass builds, image manipulation, etc. By streamlining those activities, we can usually get a site build down to just a few seconds.
That said, "instant build" is the dream that animates the best conversations on our team, and we've started building our own static site generator. Our SSG can run both on the server and in the browser. We want our editors in our CMS to be able to get instant, true previews of the page they're editing. Then we want to be able to push single-article builds live, instead of always rebuilding the whole site. It's early days yet. Maybe you'll see it on a "Show HN" some day.
But consent is key. Maybe we need regulation that compels companies to disclose these manipulative techniques in digital services. Give people the chance to opt in or out.
reply