Super cool, especially that the code is annotated!
In case the author is reading: The decorative feather images are between 2MB to almost 5MB in size. Compression might be in order to save users time and bandwidth, and make the site look less broken while the images are partially loaded :)
And yet other people rely on it doing exactly the opposite. Aside from whether this behavior is useful, it is never warranted to change such an important thing unannounced.
From what I can tell, his argument seems to be that
1. no code was manually copied by a developer, and
2. all software in the same space copies off of each other
But the big giveaway here is the exact same layout/copywriting on both products. Telling an LLM "write this product and build a 1:1 clone" is still copying by all sensible definitions. The fact that he argues nothing was copied is ridiculous.
I can‘t help but wonder what goes on inside of the upper management of these big companies, and why nobody ever stops for a moment to think about whether what they are up to does any good for the end users beyond making more money.
But then again, this is very on brand for Meta/Zuck, so I‘m not surprised.
Not what I'm saying, but this has happened _so many times_ and nothing has come of talking about it so far. I would love to see things change, but in this specific instance I'm not holding my breath
German trains have very much to complain about, but honestly, their customer facing IT is pretty good. I've not had to deal with PDF tickets nor printed tickets in years.
The website and app work well, in my experience. It's all pretty sleek and modern, too. It's the one area they do a good job in, to be honest.
This is super cool, and I wish something like this existed at my place, as it enables information sharing without the need for phones/actual screens that shine in your face when the lights are low or tempt you to doomscroll.
That said, the large primary display this uses is $2000. That's very hard to justify for any "normal" household, and that's without any mounts, backend, services etc.
I appreciate the author being vulnerable like this in a public setting. It's easy to see why it would be scary, especially since admitting being wrong or not knowing something can easily be turned into questioning one's overall competence.
I wish we'd be more open about our flaws and knowledge gaps in general. I think we'd all benefit.
The suggestion to have the server return the table directly starts bringing presentational concerns into the backend, which I am not a big fan of.
Having the server return plain JSON means the APIs can be reused across products effortlessly and also means that all style changes can be done in the same codebase.
I get reminded of how important this is every time I get to work on an old project that has APIs return HTML that is then being inserted into the DOM by something like jQuery. Figuring it out and updating it is typically a huge mess.
If the author can't be bothered to even clean up behind their AI its not worth reading even the first paragraph.