HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

andix

4,911 karmajoined hace 6 años

Submissions

Show HN: AI slop: A todo app built in bash with microservices

github.com
4 points·by andix·hace 6 meses·0 comments

comments

andix
·hace 3 días·discuss
I probably didn’t read it. But I also had to read it twice to understand what it meant.

I’m still not sure if this is the mentioned issue or a different one.
andix
·hace 4 días·discuss
Keycloak is awesome, but whenever I used it the documentation gave me too little guidance. On how to use it in the right way, without having to customize it too much.
andix
·hace 4 días·discuss
Is it about the license? I see less and less new projects using GPL, and a lot of MIT(ish) licenses.

Most complex open source projects like Linux for example have a lot of contributions by corporations. The GPL kind of forces them to participate in open source, instead of just creating internal forks.

GPL and even LGPL are tricky for libraries though.
andix
·hace 4 días·discuss
Impressive, but on iOS 27 even one of the examples don't work. Seems like it has an issue with spaces. https://imgur.com/a/tZGqtjR
andix
·hace 8 días·discuss
The message is written to the outbox table in the same transaction as the database changes. Only if the transaction completes, the message is actually created, and other tables are updated.

In a second step the message is taken from the outbox and gets sent to the queue/broker. Only after it was sent out, the message is removed from the outbox. If the sending fails, it stays in the outbox and is retried. If the deletion of the message from the outbox fails after sending, it's getting re-sent later. So you can get a duplicated out-message.

Message brokers usually don't de-duplicate messages, they don't have a database that keeps messages, the receivers need to do that. Either with idempotency, or by tracking message ids. Event sourcing brokers can de-duplicate, because it can stores all messages.

If you never delete messages from the outbox, then they are re-sent all the time. You are going to notice such a bug really quickly.

Inbox pattern works very similarly, but the other way around.
andix
·hace 8 días·discuss
With an inbox/outbox pattern it's possible. The incoming message might be processed more than once, and an outgoing message might be sent more than once. That's the limitation, and the system needs to be able to handle it.

If you can't de-duplicate messages it's not possible, that's true.
andix
·hace 12 días·discuss
I don't drive the best car available on the market. I don't own the fastest and best PC/Laptop/Smartphones available. I don't live in the best house in my city. I made reasonable choices that balance my needs and my available budget.
andix
·hace 16 días·discuss
But it's still a Democrat.

https://trakkr.ai/bias/worldview
andix
·hace 16 días·discuss
I had that idea too. Maybe that's the future of OSS development.
andix
·hace 16 días·discuss
Because that's the only meaningful interpretation of your suggestion.

Big corp accounts are pre-vouched. And it will be mostly their responsibility to vouch for other accounts.
andix
·hace 17 días·discuss
I never ran into that. I always ask the recruiters to include my GitHub account in the summaries they submit to the technical teams reviewing applications. But they never do.
andix
·hace 17 días·discuss
I see one big difference: with email it was always about sender reputation based on email servers (IPs), maybe about domains. But never about individual users. It's the organizations running the email server, who make sure users behave. So they don't get blacklisted and lose sending privileges for hundreds or thousands of users.

For PRs/issues this is not applicable.
andix
·hace 19 días·discuss
I still feel a bit dizzy a minute after closing the page.
andix
·hace 20 días·discuss
Duplication is often less harmful than abstraction.

Duplications can often be cleaned up over time, bad abstractions can quickly become a bottleneck, that severely slow down everyone working on the project.
andix
·hace 20 días·discuss
I always try to design in a way, that using abstractions/shared logic is optional.

I've worked in too many projects, where every new feature needs to be built on top of existing abstractions, that often lead to severe restrictions if something slightly different is required. I always try to create reusable units/components, that can either be used as intended or replaced by something that behaves slightly different if needed.

Components are not necessarily frontend components, this extends also to backend logic.
andix
·hace 21 días·discuss
I guess you can test that on hypotheticals. Ask about things after the knowledge cut off that never happened. Or ask things that are genuinely unsolvable.
andix
·hace 21 días·discuss
Tauri sucks on macOS and especially Linux, because the native browsers are a huge issue. Tauri/Windows uses a recent Chromium engine, which is fine.
andix
·hace 21 días·discuss
I guess it's not just models and textures. Those should be the easiest to dial down, even optionally with a "low" setting. Maybe making high-res assets an optional download, to reduce game size (ssds are also getting expensive)
andix
·hace 21 días·discuss
If that happens, we will see it in triple-A games first. If some new titles have significant lower hardware specs than expected.

If buyers can't afford the hardware anymore, the studios need to adjust. It's definitively possible to scale games down a lot. There are a few AAA games that were "dumbed down" for the Switch 1 (Hogwarts, cyberpunk, ...). And that's a really low-spec device.

There are two factors: existing gamers not able to afford upgrading. But also new gamers, that might only be able to afford much lower spec PCs than people who bought 2 years earlier.

Why games? Because there is a clear point where people stop buying games. Minimum hw specs are known before buying.
andix
·hace 21 días·discuss
Stuff like that happens in every oligarchy.

Either get used to more and more stuff like that, or regulate the sh* out of it. Without stopping stuff like that early on, the concentration of wealth and power only increases.