The desk to meeting room use case. Dont know how we survived pre laptop but somehow we did. Meeting room had its own PC I think back then.
Yeah, you'd log on with your credentials and then get the files you needed from the network share.
Readit Newsmattmanser commented on Ask HN: Quality of recent gens of Dell/Lenovo laptops worse than 10 years ago? · Posted by u/ferguess_k
But to be honest, isn't this also true of the basic Hollywood or Netflix fare?.
I've been watching season 5 of Stranger Things. It has a budget of approximately 1 gazillion dollars. The writing is utterly basic predictable, boring, cliché, it's either a marvel-tier quip or a hollywood trope. Most Netflix shovelware isn't better than this.
So I don't think it's unique to video games :)
It's worse than previous series, I've noticed myself zoning out a few times, but the entire Stranger Things schtick is that it's a homage to the 80s. It's story lines are cliched, that's the point. They're predictable because you have seen them before.
They even highlight and play with it themselves in the show, introducing the big bad via the D&D table in the first episode of each season, referencing the films they're doing, sometimes including the same actors from the films they're riffing off (Sean Astin as Bob, Robert Englund as Victor Creel).
Season 1 : Aliens/ET
Season 2 : Goonies, The Exorcist
Season 3 : Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob
Season 4 : Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser
Season 5 : So far we've seen Home Alone, Lost boys, Terminator
Saying it's predictable and cliched is just saying they've done their job well! And missing one of the main points of the TV show. My friend was almost giddy that they'd used Technicolor in the Holly/Max world.
mattmanser commented on Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros about.netflix.com/en/news... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
I don't like this. Netflix rarely creates excellent content; instead, it frequently produces mediocre or worse content. Will the same happen for Warner? Are cinemas now second behind streaming?
Edit: I agree Netflix has good Originals. But most are from the early days when they favored quality over quantity. It is sad to see that they reversed that. They have much funding power and should give it to great art that really sticks, has ambitions and something to tell, and values my time instead of mediocrity.
Seriously?
The Crown, Stranger Things, Unbelievable, Russian Doll (wow, just wow), Orange Is The New Black, Narcos, Narcos: Mexico, GLOW, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Ozark, Nobody Wants This, Altered Carbon, Dirk Gently, Mindhunters, The Queen's Gambit, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head. And that's my taste, there's more not to my taste like Squid Game, Wednesday, Bridgerton, etc. And not including the films, documentaries, shorts, etc. they done like Love, Death and Robots.
ORMs are generally a bad idea, so.. hopefully not?
This isn't the 00s any more.
mattmanser commented on Confessions of a Software Developer: No More Self-Censorship kerrick.blog/articles/202... · Posted by u/Kerrick
I have encountered people who are scared to post in large public channels. Part of growing up in chatrooms was an implicit bravery of saying something out loud in a room full of thousands of people. There seems to have been a shift, somewhat, in the comfort level of different generations about saying things "out loud" in large public rooms.
Chatrooms have evolved in a really interesting way. I think the first generation to have them didn't fully understand how "public" they were. Maybe there are more people in the more recent generations that have a more visceral understanding of online "publicness" as they have grown up with (and perhaps have been burned by) those concepts from the very beginning. Maybe they have a better understanding of the permanence of online utterances and therefore have a more conservative approach to interacting on what feels like the permanent public ledger.
Maybe it's because the concept of pseudonyms has devolved since the early days. Corporate social media has an interest in doxing its users to advertise to and control them but pre-corporate social media was filled with anonymous usernames. Posting in a large group under your permanent forever name is much scarier than posting under an anonymous, temporary identity. One of the things I advocate people do is post online anonymously, instead of with their real name. It alleviates a lot of the fear of speaking your truth, which we need more of!
There is something there. The ability to try on identities in a safe environment before you discover which one you really identify with. It's much harder to do this with your real name. Your past comes with a lot of baggage and people who know you don't want you to change because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
There's always been a silent majority in every platform, IRC/HN/Reddit/Twitter/Facebook/Insta/TikTok. Doesn't matter what platform it is, most people are lurkers, silent consumers, they don't post.
There's nothing new here, there's no problem to solve. Doesn't matter if you're anonymous or publicly identifiable. 90% of people don't contribute, they just consume. 9% contribute occasionally. And 1% are regular contributors.
The 1% or 90-9-1 rule is pretty well known.
Previously you had a few choices, go with:
1. PayPal, who wanted to own the customer relationship
2. A payment processor who all had awful APIs and you had to do lots of setup around having a merchant account. Authorize.net I think was one of these. Recurring payments were often a nightmare to get to work.
3. An intermediary processor, who didn't need you to have a merchant account, nochex, Worldpay, sagepay, etc. who again generally all had awful APIs and hard to embed widgets and complicated setup processes. Again, recurring payments a nightmare.
Stripe solved all these pain points, and the API was great. It wasn't one pain point they solved, it was many.
You controlled the customer relationship, it was easy to embed the stripe widget, it had a great API, you didn't need a merchant account and the setup was quick and easy. Recurring payments were (fairly) easy to set up. Oh, and great documentation! That was another big thing.
And then they brought out a little widget you could attach to your phone/tablet to allow easy in-person card payments!
It probably seems a bit incomprehensible now, but this was a time when everyone did everything slightly awkwardly. Integrating with any third party was a big job. Documentation was terrible. Formats were all over the place. SOAP, XML, JSON was only just emerging as the defacto standard. For example, the APIs. Great APIs were rare, as far as I remember twilio and I think MailChimp really blazed the way there. Companies like Google were putting out absolute dogshit, complicated APIs, often strict REST with weird header requirements, or strange signing with private keys. If you've never dealt with it, strict REST really, really sucks.
mattmanser commented on OpenAI needs to raise at least $207B by 2030 ft.com/content/23e54a28-6... · Posted by u/akira_067
> - Revenue sharing from drug discovery (called out by OpenAI CFO): Why would a pharma company give away the upside to a commoditized intelligence layer? Why would OpenAI have a more compelling story than Google Deep Mind, which has serious accolades in this space?
I am not sure I follow. They "give it away", because they have to. They have to pay any of the model companies. What do DeepMind's accolades matter if it's commoditized, as you propose?
AI resources will remain scarce for the foreseeable future: I have to literally wait multiple Minutes to get an answer for semi-hard coding problems. The current demand is the delta between this, and the few milliseconds that it could take if supply was there. I suspect the tension will grow. Why would there not be multiple companies positioned to capture value? Assuming that any of them can turn demand into profit, that seems to be the most likely story right now.
His point is AI's already getting commodified. So OpenAI won't get a portion of the profits or revenue sharing, it'll be a simple transaction. They simply pay for compute time.
It's like pretending sulphuric acid manufacturers would get the right to demand a portion of drug company profits.
Because it solves all sorts of other problems, like having a well-defined way to specify the schema of queries and results, and lots of tools built around that.
I would be surprised to see many (or any) GQL endpoints in systems with significant complexity and scale that allow completely arbitrary requests.
OpenAPI does the same thing for http requests, with tooling around it.
With typed languages you can auto-generate OpenAPI schemas from your code.
mattmanser commented on AI is a front for consolidation of resources and power chrbutler.com/what-ai-is-... · Posted by u/delaugust
This is far too simplistic a viewpoint. First of all it depends what you're trying to do. Web dev? AI works pretty well. CPU design? Yeah good luck with that.
Secondly it depends what you're using it for within web dev. One shot an entire app? I did that recently for a Chrome extension and while it got many things wrong that I had to learn and fix, it was still waaaaaay faster than doing it myself. Especially for solving stupid JS ecosystem bugs.
Nobody sane is suggesting you just generate code and put it straight into production. It isn't ready for that. It is ready for saving you a ton of time if you use it wisely.
I'd say it was pretty naunced. Use it, but don't vibe code. The crux of the issue is that unless you're still writing the code it's too hard to notice when Claude or Codex makes a mountain out of a mole hill, too easy to miss the subtle bugs, too easy to miss the easy abstractions which would have vastly simplified the code.
And I do web dev, the code is rubbish. It's actually got subtle problems, even though it fails less. It often munges together loads of old APIs or deprecated ways of doing things. God forbid you need to deal with something like react router or MUI as it will combine code from several different versions.
And yes, people are using these tools to directly put code in. I see devs DOING it. The code sucks.
Vibe coded PRs are a huge timesink that OTHER people end up fixing.
One guy let it run and it changed code in an entirely unrelated part of the system and he didn't even notice. Worse, when scanning the PR it looked reasonable, until I went to fix a 350 line service Claude or codex had puked out that could be rewritten in 20 lines, and realized the code files were in an entirely different search system.
They're also generally both terrible at abstracting code. So you end up with tons of code that does sweet FA over and over. And the constant over engineering and exception handling theatre it does makes it look like it's written a lot of code when it's basically turned what should be a 5 liner into an essay.
Ugh. This is like coding in the FactoryFactoryFactory days all over again.
mattmanser commented on AI is a front for consolidation of resources and power chrbutler.com/what-ai-is-... · Posted by u/delaugust
It's time to jump on the train. I'm a cranky, old, embedded SWE and claude 4.5 is changing how I work. Before that I laughed off LLMs. They were trash. Claude still has issues, but damn, I think if I don't integrate it into my workflow I'll be out of work or relegated to work in QA or devops(where I'd likely be forced to use it).
No, it's not going to write all your code for you. Yes your skills are still needed to design, debug, perform teamwork(selling your designs, building consensus, etc), etc.. But it's time to get on the train.
It's just not true, it is not ready.
Especially Claude, where if you check the forums everyone is complaining that it's gone stupid the last few months.
Claude's code is all over the place, and if you can't see that and are putting it's code into production I pity your colleagues.
Try stopping. Honestly, just try. Just use claude as a super search engine. Though right now ChatGPT is better.
You won't see any drop in productivity.