HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

brennen

no profile record

comments

brennen
·2 jaar geleden·discuss
The "perceived benefits" of being able to see more things at once might really be an illusion if they're just a firehose of distractions.

Less so when the things in question are "an error log next to the bug I'm filing about it", or "program output and the program I'm iterating on" or "the total state of production while I'm deploying code" or "chat with team members while I'm reacting to an incident and don't have the mental bandwidth for extra context switching". A really powerful tiling WM with desktops that can be independently switched between a couple of monitors is pretty much a superpower in these situations.

TFA seems overconfident and mistaken in its assumptions.
brennen
·4 jaar geleden·discuss
VisiData: https://www.visidata.org/

WeeChat: https://weechat.org/

fzf: https://github.com/junegunn/fzf
brennen
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
The reMarkable is a very impressive piece of hardware with unfortunately bad software and a business model that looks to be deteriorating (see recent moves to subscription services, etc.).

In physical/tactile terms, it's a really impressive writing experience, but I've found the utility of that so constrained by the absence of indexing and navigation features that I don't use it for much besides occasional drawings. It turns out that navigating a physical notebook works in ways that flipping through electronic pages can't keep up with without a lot of work on the interface.

As an e-reader, recent updates to the rendering have made it usable, though there are still sometimes hassles with display and getting documents onto the device. It's theoretically great to be able to annotate PDFs, but in practice not being able to easily navigate the annotations later makes it substantially worse than writing notes in the margins of a paper book.

I'm sure a lot of this can be improved with 3rd-party hacks, but it isn't designed as a platform and it feels only grudgingly open to modification, which seems like a huge missed opportunity. (Not to mention being yet another product built on open code that doesn't return the favor.) Being able to SSH to the device and poke around the filesystem is cool, but it mostly feels like a glimpse into how much more utility the whole thing could offer.

I'll use mine as long as it works, but I'm unlikely to buy another one and I can't in good faith recommend it for most users. I do know several folks who are happy with the narrow range of things it's good at, which is why I bought it in the first place. Personally, I'm placing my hopes for a more useful-to-me e-ink future on devices like the PineNote.
brennen
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes
brennen
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
The single most reliable way to come to a loathing of the software development process is to engage in it for a living.
brennen
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
The thing is, I don't want these experiences. Am I allowed to stop having them now? Turns out: Not if I want to keep doing my job.

Burn Slack to the ground is my considered stance at this point.
brennen
·5 jaar geleden·discuss
> I also noticed that while they do appear to use pylint to enforce good standards, almost all source files have at least one check disabled...

I haven't touched any of the CircuitPython hardware libraries in... Well, something close to two years by now, I think. A lot has probably changed. Still, when I was last involved, placating pylint was consistently a hassle.

As I recall it squawks about things like identifiers that don't conform to snake_case. All well and good as a general stylistic suggestion, but not especially helpful when that's what the thing is called.

There may be some bad ideas lurking in places where those checks are disabled, but in general I blame no one for disabling one or more of its checks in service of greater readability or better code layout.
brennen
·6 jaar geleden·discuss
> In one of this paper's experiments, for instance, a computer split a pot of money between itself and a human participant; this person was led to believe the computer was also a human participant. Sometimes the pot was split unevenly, and the human participant was given a chance to take vengeance by reducing the computer's pot without enriching his own. Researchers discovered that participants classified as having higher TIV scores were "strongly associated with behavioral revenge" in this scenario.

In retrospect, dictator game allocation scenarios presented to a pile of undergraduates by way of a screen were probably nonsensical back when I was helping my social science grad student friends implement them as crappy Perl CGI in like 2003. I'm disinclined to expect much better from this one.