MCP is currently too difficult to setup and too complicated for consumers to understand. Once somebody big enough figures out distribution and integration a la the App Store, and the market starts to understand MCP integrations as extensions your AI client can orchestrate across (do one thing in App A, another in App B, etc all with a single prompt), it’ll be off to the races.
Readit Newsdansiemens commented on MCP is eating the world stainless.com/blog/mcp-is... · Posted by u/emschwartz
dansiemens commented on Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war insideevs.com/features/75... · Posted by u/rntn
Because they are not electronics companies, and further more they are terrible integration companies.
Unless the top of the company comes in and starts chopping every head that gets in the way of the new paradigm then it just ends up in locked up meetings for years of people that don't want to change.
Electronics integration isn't the problem, the people currently there are.
Precisely, such a change represents substantial risk in an incredibly risk-averse industry. People at orgs in such industries are in constant CYA mode, looking to point responsibility (and therefore blame) to anyone else.
The time to go and implement such a change probably pales in comparison to the amount of time spent in meetings getting people to agree to make the change.
dansiemens commented on Ask HN: Former devs who can't get a job, what did you end up doing for work? · Posted by u/throw81398475
I think the issue with Scrum and agile is that it's become mainstream.
Anything that becomes mainstream is likely to get twisted and turned into whatever the "powers that be" want it to be.
So, while using XP or Scrum or Kanban for that matter properly in a sane environment is going to be great, if you work in an un-sane (sic) one, then the powers that be have turned whatever system you're using into theirs. This is how things like SAFe are born, that try to make "agile safe for the corporation" and of course they're nothing more than corporate BS under an agile name and that gives agile a bad name.
Just like Jira is getting a bad name because it's so configurable that corporations are able to use it to do what they do. You can also use it as nothing than an electronic place to house your "post-it notes on a wall". All up to you, your cow-orkers and company. Nobody can blame Atlassian / Jira for taking the money of these corporations. I know I would if I had had the idea of releasing a ticketing system that doesn't even know that you should use surrogate keys for all your entities instead of making an issue key that can change if you move issues between projects your "primary key" that is referenced everywhere and shit breaks :shrug:
> This is how things like SAFe are born, that try to make "agile safe for the corporation" and of course they're nothing more than corporate BS under an agile name
SAFe was truly one of the worst things I encountered with consulting clients. Planning days were an unbelievable exercise in futility. Waterfall masquerading as agile, the absolute worst of both worlds.
I also really don't get the apparent hate for react, usually from people who haven't used it all that much.
I've interacted with a not insignificant number of people who seem to hold this opinion. Usually their arguments boil down to one of:
* Frontend engineering is always chasing the next shiny thing, and react is one of them. There's probably some truth to this historically, but react has been a thing since 2013, and pretty 'mainstream' since 2015 or so.
* Frameworks and libraries add 'complexity'. I almost never hear anything specific when I ask about what complexity they're referring to. IMO if you work on a non trivial application without a framework, you'll just end up inventing your own poorly maintained, poorly tested and poorly documented framework. This might be fine for a weekend project, but rarely something you should do at a company.
* People also often complain about the compilation/bundling step. This might've been harder to manage historically, but now with battle tested frameworks like expo, nextjs, meteor etc, there are very few reasons to write a webpack configuration or build pipeline by hand.
> I also really don't get the apparent hate for react, usually from people who haven't used it all that much
In defence of the haters, I think we’ve all seen our share of horrendously organized React SPAs. Dependency hell, (seemingly) infinite prop drilling, components thousands of lines long, the list goes on.
Some people think they hate React, when in reality they hate a specific implementation of it.
Practically every frontend framework uses components. The problem with React is that so many of its abstractions are leaky and forces a lot of accidental complexity on the developer.
Which abstractions are leaky? State is complex. There’s not really a way to get around that.
I personally would rather create a .drawio file visually and keep that under version control. Sure, the diffs aren’t that meaningful, but that’s what commit messages are for.
dansiemens commented on US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash reuters.com/business/auto... · Posted by u/jjulius
Good. If you write software that people rely on with their lives, and it fails, you should be held liable for that criminally.
Are you suggesting that individuals should carry that liability?
I’ve been idly wondering about something like the Web of Trust. A social network where users vouch for one another's actually-a-real-humanness. There could be setting that let you adjust the size of the network you see (people you’ve actually met? One remove from that?)
What you’re describing is early Facebook. Your feed was only from your 1st degree connections. Content mattered because it was from people you cared about (and inherently knew, because users wouldn’t accept friend requests from people they didn't know). It really was the pinnacle of social media.
dansiemens commented on The AI startup drama that's damaging Y Combinator's reputation indiehackers.com/post/sta... · Posted by u/olalonde
The flags on hn are extremely powerful, so I don't doubt this. Just a few flags obliterate a post with tons of upvotes. It wouldn't take many people to kill it, and it doesn't require a conspiracy
“You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge” - George Carlin
I'm really surprised the iPad Pro isn't the thing people want: a tablet-computer.
Honestly, this is the perfect tool for both many people in tech as well as the average person. I have a macbook air, why not a pro? Because I need a glorified ssh machine that can do word processing, I can carry around light weight, has long battery life, and I can do some basic coding on. Everything else is done upstream on a compute platform. For the average person, they're doing the same non-compute tasks as me: browsing the internet and some word processing or slide making.
So why don't I have a device that I can basically run MacOS on and have a detachable keyboard (yes, I know these are sold). Apple should be able to corner this market, but they continually seem to fall flat on their face. Why did it take so long for the fucking iPad to have a natively supported app to markup PDFs. And why is it still terrible? Isn't that one of the most common use cases? I swear, tablet makers don't seem to actually understand how people use tablets nor laptops and it is really hindering their ability to innovate.
The iPad's greatest weakness is that its developers are trying to stuff a phone into a computer while being neither.
> why don't I have a device that I can basically run MacOS on and have a detachable keyboard
I think the answer is market cannibalization. Apple would much rather sell you both an iPad and a MacBook Pro rather than just an iPad.