Addictive, fun, quick, yet interesting and subtle if you're into strategy games. I think you have a potential winner on your hands. Some polish and tweak may be needed based on feedback here, but a mobile app could make a killing
Readit Newsdonmatito commented on Show HN: Influence, a Go-inspired 1-minute board game cintrest.com/influence/... · Posted by u/jawslouis
> I don't use Ruby but I faced similar issues with Rust's clippy and rustfmt. But I still think it's better than the alternative.
I also use Go, and haven't had issues with the autoformatter there, but I believe that's mostly because there is little to no room for ambiguity around intent. You tell the compiler you want to return a Bool, and if you don't it's a compile time error. There's no "I dunno, maybe nil was an intended return value".
> Every time I'm tempted to override one of these links/formats because I feel like my way is better I like to remind myself that it's going to set a precedent for the other devs on the project
I think this misses the point somewhat. This isn't about changing the defaults of Rubocop, it's about not having some of those defaults in the first place for the places in Ruby where it's possible to express intent in a way that it's not possible to check with a linter.
> That's the thing though: consistency is somewhat objective (and enforceable), readability and maintainability not so much.
I'm still not saying that people should not use linters, just because you can lint something doesn't mean you have to lint everything.
> TFA is a good example of this: they argue that explicitly returning "nil" is more readable and better communicates intent but I suspect (once again, not being a Ruby coder myself) that other experienced Rubyists could respond that everybody knows that a method finishing without an explicit value ends up returning nil, and that adding explicit code to do is is just clutter and distracts from the important things.
Oh, absolutely, most Ruby programmers do know this, but it's not really about the code specifically I think, it's about the contract. Take this code:
def foo
@some_instance_var = 123
end
> a = foo
=> 123
> a
=> 123
def foo
@some_instance_var = 123
@some_other_instance_var = 456
end
We could fix this with (amongst other things):
def foo
return @some_instance_var = 123
end
1. If we are changing this method we need to respect the return
2. If we are consuming this method we know the return is deliberate
This unfortunately violates Rubocop's redundant return detection and will be rejected (as will other forms).
I fully agree with your example. I have disabled the return rule, and I am enforcing that we add an explicit return in our codebase.
Ruby is a tool that I use the way I want, not the other way round
donmatito commented on Creality Developing Belt-Driven Desktop 3D Printer fabbaloo.com/blog/2020/8/... · Posted by u/mrfusion
The Creality Ender 30 is based on the opensource White Knight 3D [0] printer by NAK3DDesigns [1] though so why would you give her most of the credit?
perhaps because he gives himself credit[0] ?
Or do you think industrializing a design is not valuable ?
[0] https://twitter.com/NAK3DDesigns/status/1303470020450750472
donmatito commented on Creality Developing Belt-Driven Desktop 3D Printer fabbaloo.com/blog/2020/8/... · Posted by u/mrfusion
No mention of involvment of realsexycyborg here? i'm not 100% sure of the story but she's quite involved in the new design
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/130099753348578508...
donmatito commented on I got my first $50/mo customer alexwest.co/posts/129... · Posted by u/Malfunction92
At one point, I was helping a great speaker build her first conference, which was a smashing success. When we turned on the ticketing platform on, orders started pouring in
In parallel, I was building my first side project, or more precisely I was starting to add pricing for the first time to a side project
As a result I had, at the same time, a stream of several thousands of euros, and MY FIRST 19€ from something I BUILT MYSELF
I was incredibly more proud of the latter. There is a sense of pride, of accomplishment, in thinking that you've built something useful enough for someone to open their wallet for you
Good job on your part and keep sailing!
donmatito commented on Hell is Other People: an experiment in anti-social media hell.j38.net/... · Posted by u/donohoe
A much more correct translation of the Sartre quote would be, "Hell is the Other", where "the Other" is a term of art in philosophy with a great deal of nuance, but it's funnier to translate it as "Hell is other people", so we do.
"L'enfer, c'est les autres". I don't know what "the Other" you're referring to, "the other people" seems correct to me in meaning. IANAPhilosopher tho
donmatito commented on How to sell to 20M software devs with amazing onboarding blog.garrytan.com/masterc... · Posted by u/garry
This has always been a major deterrent to me wanting to use Algolia. It's basically impossible for me to know whether for x number of users doing y number of searches Algolia will cost $100/month or $1,000/month or $10,000/month. It amazes me that anyone commits to investing development effort in using Algolia (with lock-in, to boot) when you have no idea whether it's something you can even afford.
As with all usage-based product, when you start it is cheap (much cheaper than building on your own), then as you grow your resources will hopefully scale with the number of users.
If your resources don't scale with usage, yes, you have a problem, but I'd say not limited to algolia
donmatito commented on How to sell to 20M software devs with amazing onboarding blog.garrytan.com/masterc... · Posted by u/garry
I tend to feel a little intimidated by companies that offer fantastic experiences like this, but then I keep trying to remember this:
Algolia looked like shit when it started. There was none of this shine and polish. IIRC it was some text styled with Bootstrap 2. Or might have been 1.
Stripe also looked like shit when it started. No shine or polish, no developer website based developer experience to speak of, no world leading 60fps animations, no fantastically versioned docs, nothing.
Build something people want / something that solves a hard problem and makes people powerful and more enabled. Companies that do this can afford to build fantastic developer experiences after 10 years of doing it, but companies that try hard to build excellent developer experiences will not necessarily be successful.
It was absolutely magical even at the start
I was a very inexperienced developer with tutorial-level experience of Rails, and I learned javascript from Algolia client tutorial. I have a 50-emails support thread with their CEO and CTO when they were doing YC.
This level of patience and care at onboarding a new dev was incredible and I always rooted for them. I came to know them better a few years later (small world) and they are absolutely adorable, very down to earth and modest despite their tremendous growth
But one thing has not changed : when you implement Algolia in a project, it feels like magic. The speed + convenience combo is unbeatable
But the answer to that shouldn't be "here's an example of a large one" but "why do you care so much for growth, it's fine to be small".
No it shouldn't (even if I agree with your sentiment about company, growth and probably life in general). People interested in coop model have a legitimate interest in proving that it can work for various business size
So what is the difference between these three chart patterns then? [0] [1] [2]
[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/iron-titanium-token/
[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/defi100/
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dogelon/