Head of data, search & AI strategy at a London-based legaltech co. Australian lawyer. Interested in NLP, information retrieval, search and recommendation engines, data orchestration, AI/ML.
Edit (since I can’t seem to reply directly) - to the commenter suggesting LibreOffice below: quite different things. This was a library for implementing reasonably high fidelity docx viewing / editing in the browser.
Oh man, that’s disappointing. We implemented this in a test environment and have been hammering on it. Would love to know what’s going on as it solves a real pain point for us.
Ok, I came into this thread intending to say “I’ve been using stow for years and am perfectly happy with it”, started RTFA and the comments, realised that I was actually not happy with it, started considering chezmoi then remembered that I had had a pretty great experience building a Nix VM recently.
Now I want to use Nix* to manage my multi-machine MacOS and Linux setup (with lots of dotfile config overlap, of course).
That’s the HN experience for you.
Kind souls: what is currently the blessed way to manage MacOS dots with Nix? I recall there is more than one paradigm - what’s the approach that simplest, most robust and can be adopted incrementally?
Edit: Just to say that I think Atuin now also plays in this space. Haven’t checked it out, though.
Installed using the curl-to-bash on Sequoia and I’m getting “error: ReadOnlyFileSystem” on ‘boo new’. Can’t see any open issues on gh and nothing in the readme.
Definitely interested in something like this - love ghostty and I’ve been finding Zellij a bit crashy recently (plus I don’t really need tabs).
That was great, thanks for the write-up. It’s rare to get a peek into Palantir’s ontology-forward approach. I’ve certainly been curious.
> But it would make no sense to have an LLM regurgitate an existing form document token-by-token rather than call a piece of 1994 software like Hotdocs to populate some placeholders.
This is a real “oof”, isn’t it. Very difficult to understand what they were going for here. Perhaps they just assumed no one in the intended audience would pick it up. But it certainly is enough of a red flag that it made me go back to the top of your write-up for a re-read, thinking about their whole pipeline in much more sceptical terms.
Could you say more about signals? Is it are all analogous to, say, game engine signals paradigms (eg Godot) - components at any depth emit signals and any other component can subscribe? Or something totally different?
Those who have moved to Resolve from FCP: would you share a few words about your experience?
I’ve used FCP for a long time but have never loved it. I also have some experience with non-destructive workflows like Blender geonodes and have heard that Resolve adopts a similar paradigm. Definitely curious!
I’m not an FE engineer but have found myself working very closely with the whole stack recently, which includes an SPA. We use html, JavaScript, Alpine for reactivity and Supabase realtime subscriptions.
It seems … okay? I feel like I can reason about it. But I worry I’m missing something that’s going to come back and bite us later because we haven’t adopted a framework.
I’m in favour of projects like these - even on spending taxpayer money on them. I think it’s super cool and I would love to see it. Yeah, I also think it’s extremely unlikely.
However, when you’re doing journalism, you should contextualise for your readers. TFA doesn’t even try to do the bare minimum.
Cool science. But the article fails to take even a cursory stab at contextualising the plan against the economic, environmental and political backdrop - doesn’t even mention that there’s already been one failed supersonic commercial flight programme. This is as pie-in-the-sky as it gets.