Thanks, Twosdai! My initial hesitation about adding a database wasn't really about technical complexity, but more about keeping the product and design simple. A few questions came to mind:
- Do we need accounts? If so, would that add too much friction? If not, could we identify users anonymously through a browser-generated ID?
- As more trees are generated, will the visualization become difficult to manage? Perhaps we only display a subset of them?
- How should we handle inappropriate or offensive inputs? I imagine we could use a moderation library or filter.
My main goal is to keep the experience lightweight and focused on the generation itself. That said, if a database would make participation easier and lead to a better overall experience, I'm definitely open to it.
What's your take? I'd love to hear what's on your mind.
So that's why it tries to log me into Github, to make a PR so I can add my name? Yeah, a simple database would be much better. Loses most users right there
Personally, I think it's good to have at least occasional 1:1s because a lot comes out informally. That said my "weekly" 1:1s with a fairly long-term manager mostly turned into more or less monthlies because we both traveled so much.
Yes, of course, and I do use both. There are underlying assumptions in your suggestion that it’s one or the other, and that async is somehow better. It’s worth considering whether those are always true, and trying to put a finger on the specific tradeoffs, because there are both advantages and disadvantages. I’m a believer in using the right tool for the job (and also understanding clearly what the job really is).
IMO face time is very important and serves more purposes than the explicit information transfer. It’s also a much faster, more efficient, and clearer way to have a conversation, when back-and-forth is needed (which may be more often than you assume.)
In my experience, devs (including younger me) often argue for what’s easiest or most comfortable for themselves, but sometimes they don’t see what’s actually best for themselves, nor what’s most effective for the organization, and they sometimes don’t care what’s best for the manager. (And I’m not suggesting they should have to care what’s best for their manager, just pointing it out.) Nobody likes a budget or oversight. Nobody wants to track time and be watched, and have to explain themselves, and have to compromise in order to finish tasks. Still, having budgets are sometimes good for us and sometimes produce better results, when money is limited and when focus is needed. Budgets also inhibit risk taking, which can be good or bad, sometimes we need risks and exploratory work… so, yeah, the right tool for the job…
Even weirder to me is that in the case of a person doing the computation on a board or paper or whatever medium, its still computation. This time the physical medium doing the work, is the human and their brain.
If consciousness can be proven to emerge from computation alone, then in a way we humans with our brains can simulate a new consciousness.
I think if you make the sharing intentional to specific groups or specific people with high quality work, people will be interested.
So you can biforcate your sharing somewhat. 99% of your content of sharing will not be watched initially, but if you trim it and edit it intentionally well for an audience who care, people will come to see more of what you have.
Many "influencers" share a lot on twitch and then cut up the best part of their stream into a 2 minute video byte for youtube. As an example.
> Oversight Log // PAX-7: We can confirm the crying. Our historical data includes 4.7 billion Slack messages containing the phrase “I can’t do this anymore” followed by a return to the desk within 9 minutes
This was amazing. Thanks for this, got a good laugh.
Found this really well written. I really enjoyed reading it, and found myself agreeing with a lot of it.
I wish the author wrote more about the day 2 problem cases with AI built applications. It somewhat matters what the programming language is, the architecture and design for debugging and reasoning verification when we want to alter the system specification.
Basically as a Dev, or "Owner" of the application, we are responsible for the continuous changes and updates to the system. Which I've found hard to reason about in practice when speaking to other people, if I dont know the code explicitly.
They allude to it, but I think one of the new skills that will be valuable is reasoning about systems where you don't know the code. This is what “owners” and managers who don’t touch code do today.
This isn't really a thing. You can't create an accurate 4K image from a low res JPG. Owners and managers who don't touch code don't know shit and have to go to the developers to learn about important decisions made in the application and how they work in detail.
I also have this feeling. But do you ever doubt it. that when the time comes we will be like the boiled frog? Where its "just so convenient" or that the reality of setting up a local ai is just a worse experience for a large upfront cost?
Why does adding a name require a PR? Could it be handled with a database instead?
reply