You do that because your goal s “optimized code” not just “code”. Your constraints are a tool that helps you achieve your goal. For most others the constraints are limitations from achieving their goal.
For me wearing a parachute is a constrain and carrying it is an act of will. For a skydiver not so much.
I think you're missing the context of what started this thread:
> I was a kid/teenager with a really slow computer [...] b) I think I was a way better programmer. Constraints make you better, you have to be smarter.
The goal is "write software" not "write optimized software".
When your goal is to write a software that runs on your machine, having the constraint of a slow machine forces you to write optimized code which is a slower, more difficult solution. When you have an unconstrained fast machine you can write boilerplate unoptimized code, which is quick and easy. If you constrain your fast computer you go from "easy solution" to "difficult solution" for the same goal of "write software". No programmer will ever say "making the computer slower really helped a lot to write code".
Your goal is "make a creative song" but you're stuck. You don't introduce constraints because they'll make it harder to get unstuck, you introduce them to make it easier. You literally said "they still help a lot".
> I frequently use this when stuck creatively in music production. [...] Really easy for me to skip these artificial constraints at any time, they still help a lot.
That's what you're missing. For you the real constraint would be to get creatively unstuck without any tricks. You are introducing things to help you reach your goal to get unstuck. You're expecting programmers to introduce things that prevent them from reaching their goal of creating programs that run.
In reality one huge reason software is slow and unoptimized is because programmers have beefy machines and can afford to take the easy road.
I didn't expect this simple concept will need so many explanations.
The people who face them. The constraints are making the goal harder to reach. The goal is on the other side of the constraints and it takes power of will to refuse to remove them and keep pushing. This forces a different, slower, more difficult to reach solution.
> when stuck creatively in music production
So you're not introducing constraints, you're creatively trying out things to fix your problem. They're not a wall preventing you from reaching your goal, they're the bridge. Your constraint is the temporary lack of creativity, and what you introduce is the means to reach the solution faster.
> Really easy for me to skip these artificial constraints at any time, they still help a lot.
When you remove these you're stuck in a creativity block and failed to achieve your goal. When you remove actual constraints you make the goal easier to reach. It's a matter of perspective and what you want to achieve. You wouldn't want a long road through the mountains as your daily commute but it's probably lovely as a hike.
The only way to make the problems comparable is to set a programming goal of "write the most efficient code to do X" but for real work the goal is almost always "do X".
The pages [1] have a mix of "Images/Graphics by", "Compiled/Written/Created/Contributed By", and "(Fractal) Attributed to" going back to 1990. So I think that attribution refers to the content and not just the page itself.
What's easier is removing the constraints you just added artificially. Constraints you can remove with a flick of a finger are not constraints.
> so why don't you add them back
The reason the proverb says "necessity is the mother of invention" is because "desire" is usually not enough to drive it. It's easy to take the hard road when you're forced onto it, but very hard to choose it when there's an easy alternative.
If there's a trend to leave a platform it won't start with the most entrenched users (largest repos).
They acknowledge your concern in the article and their analysis does apply to those few who are leaving. But to be fair the title can be interpreted either way and the most reasonable read for anyone is "some of them are leaving". I'd find it clickbaity if they said "why developers are leaving en-masse" and then point out to the regular turnover. There's clearly a trend, what's not clear is if it gains momentum.
The self hosting will still be there and working as expected no matter what GH does (fails... again, DMCAs the repo, bans the account, etc.). Self hosting isn't only about being the only one with the data, it's also for the independence aspect. GH as a backup doesn't hinder the independence. Network effects are strong and make a lot of developers still have a GH presence as a secondary platform.
The evolution is when one can finally fully disconnect from GH, the main self hosted platform will continue to operate as if nothing happened.
A migration can have a period of parallel running.
> You're on Hacker News and you can't think of silicon fabrication?
Ugh... past performance doesn't predict future performance. Why do you think that SpaceX's or ASML's advantages cannot be overcome by competitors? Some are very motivated and will not hold back from any method to get any industrial secrets from the current leaders. If one person can think of it, so can another, eventually.
> which is not the same thing as “in 10 years they will catch up."
This is reasonable, unless SpaceX is stagnating for a decade there will still be some gap in 10 years too.
> The gap is getting larger year by year, not smaller
This is where the reasoning fails me. Unless you're making an unstated assumption about SpaceX or the competitors, why would the gap grow? As soon as there's a decent competitor, SpaceX's margins will get slashed. Their advancement will have to be supported by margins that can only shrink.
Followers can even have an easier time catching up because they have a working model in front of them. The leader has not only to execute but constantly innovate just to maintain a constant lead. The challengers "just" have to execute well because they can copy the leader's innovation until they catch up. And some of the competitors are more than willing and capable of extreme measures to copy.
Is there any field where over several decades the gap between the leader and the challengers just grew? It's not my industry but I have the personal impression that your "gap growing forever" opinion will age like milk left in the sun. We'll see.
Might cause fewer dollars to enter the country too. Closed doors block both directions. Other countries are watching and responding in kind. Maybe not that much at first out of fear of retaliation but builds up momentum.
That's reductive. It's not your daily comic or meme, it's an interactive game, could be called a physics simulator to a degree. All the submissions get linked together into a giant interconnected board. It's very much like The Incredible Machine at scale.
Is "Doom running on $niche_hardware" more or less interesting? What about the trillionth discussion about "LLM writes code"? Or any of the "$game in a browser" discussions?
I mean it's fine if you think there's nothing to discuss but then there's no point in saying it to begin with.
How far ahead is SpaceX compared to the competition, a decade? More? Less? Is the gap closing or growing?
> Their actual profit margin for launch of F9 is 62% - 80% depending on configuration. That is a margin unheard of in aerospace.
Do you expect they maintain these margins on launch and whatever services they deliver from space as that gap is closing? Is their first mover advantage practically unassailable because it's in space? Tesla built the EV market and are having their lunch eaten by the competition.
The OS already does this for a living. A set of identifiers requested sporadically by an app can’t be what breaks its back. Isn’t iOS already doing something similar?
That connecting "spine" is there to improve the interlocking of the tetrapods. They can "hook" better to each other. That's the theory at least, I don't know the if it's better in practice.
> give people tools that let them achieve an outcome, without necessarily giving them the judgement or expertise to know whether the outcome is any good
This could be fine if all you're looking is to get the quick and dirty result at any cost, or private use, etc. When anything is better than nothing.
The problem starts when this extremely low bar becomes the baseline for anything. When you're willing to attach your name to a stream of absolute slop and you're even proud of it.
> I hope they never get hold of the code of MS Office or almost any other piece of real-world business software.
Except he's not building Office, a software with decades of legacy, used by hundreds of millions of users. He's coding a website, effectively writing bloat with a silver lining of useful features. AI automated and inflated the worst of practices too. Anyone outputting 37K LoC daily is creating bloat and inefficiencies at unprecedented rate.
And enterprise software was already the butt of all jokes in this regard. We found ways to make that worse at scale even for the basic things. It's not a good look when you need to use this "whatabout".
Bullets (Or rockets. Or shells with proximity fuses) go much faster so obviously speed isn't the most important factor.
These are anti-aircraft interceptors, intercepting sound like a critical part of the job.
> drones don't maneuver much, if at all.
Yeah, drones didn't fly at 700km/h much if at all either. So can an interceptor drone traveling at 700km/h reliably maneuver to intercept an enemy drone? How well can it do it when a human is piloting?