> I've worked with many frontend developers who seemed to believe listing dependencies in package.json in devDependencies instead of 'dependencies' controls what ends up in the production bundle.
If so many believe that it’s how it should work, maybe it just should work that way. Principle of least surprise and all that.
Like say you installed only the production dependencies, then you'd be missing the build tools, bundler, etc.
One idea would be to use hooks of your bundler to enforce that each module resolved during the production build is declared in the regular dependencies.
Use Dockerfiles. You have a build step that installs everything to complete the build and then another step that only installs the production deps you want to deploy.
It's not built in to ESLint, but it's fairly widely used in my experience and helps ensure that you've got a sensible split between production and non-production.
NX Monorepos work that way. Broadly speaking (and with many exceptions) all packages end up in the root. It “builds” release distributions with the correct package.json files and transpiled js.
It helps keep all your related packages on the same dependencies. It’s hell for react native sometimes though.
With nx you define the dependencies between your tasks, so that the packages build in the right order and with caching.
I do not think it changes anything about how packages are installed by the package manager or bundled by the bundler.
You can declare build tools in either the root package.json or packages/a/package.json, and I don't think anything prevents you from bundling something declared in devDependencies.
On second thought, I see now that you probably mean it helps keep shared dependencies at the same version when you declare them in the root package.json.
That's a feature of npm/pnpm/yarn workspaces though, not nx itself. And it only works with bundled dependencies, since they would be undeclared in the package itself and thus couldn't be installed externally. If you need that, I think pnpm catalogs would be the right tool.
This is for a Macbook Neo, your mileage may vary: fn (globe) -> left_command gives you a Windows-like Ctrl key for most of your keyboard shortcuts. This works way better than changing it in the macOS settings.
You can then left_command -> right_option, then use that "right_option" key in Raycast (to get PowerToys Command Palette fonctionality) and in AltTab (Windows-like multitasking).
If you use Raycast, you can easily assign the Windows key+. to emojis and Windows key+V to the clipboard history, like on Windows. If you don't, you can also do it with the system tools in Karabiner.
Moving between words was probably the thing that frustrated me the most, because on Mac it uses Option instead of Command, for some reason. Cmd+Left/Right -> Option+Left/Right gives you Windows-like word jump. Cmd+Backspace -> Option+Backspace allows you to remove a word using the Ctrl+Backspace keys, like on Windows. Same thing with Cmd+DeleteForward -> Option+DeleteForward. Unlike DefaultKeyBinding.dict modifications, which people online tend to suggest, it works in all apps (including Electron ones).
In my Chromium browser (Edge), I like to remap Cmd+H -> Cmd+Y (history), Cmd+J -> Cmd+Option+L (downloads), and Cmd+Tab -> Ctrl+Tab (tab switching). I'm not sure why Chromium uses such vastly different shortcuts on the two platforms.
For the latter, that only apply when your browser is open, I suggest creating the "Complex Modifications" rules using AI, because formatting can be tricky.
Once set up, it's easy to transfer rules between computers by exporting your settings in Karabiner, so you only have to do it once.
I still think that, if you're switching permanently, it would be better to relearn everything, because these patches can make it confusing to learn new shortcuts. But it's been a lifesaver for me, since I switch between Windows and Mac every day.
I’d posit that well over half of tokens spent should go not just to write new code/software alone, but in review, testing, as well as tooling. Every bit of code an agent writes should at the very least have an adversarial review loop.
I just read it as people having different priorities and yes, some of those being online brainrot (that I also partake in), alongside various medical conditions, economic conditions and other outside factors decreasing the ability to get things done.
We've all seen what brilliant people like John Carmack or Linus Torvalds can do, and if we turned this into a measuring game or something then most of us statistically would indeed be "NPCs", but I don't think we need such optics.
Even without that, we can acknowledge that some people will have a really large impact on how the future goes and we can hope/demand that they do their best. I might not be smart/committed/lucky enough to change the world much, but so aren't most folks - I'll do what I can and I hope that the ones that will have larger impact will do good, too.
This is just a more asinine version of Great Man Theory, but in this case the great men are some very confident futurist dudes writing comments on the internet.
> some very confident futurist dudes writing comments on the internet
What an odd take, why would I suggest that? I meant that people who have the means to do meaningful work, especially high impact work, should do so - generally that'd mean research or in the case of IT, writing good software.
> Great Man Theory
You can see the sibling comment, would you not agree that there's some software and research out there that's very useful to humanity as a whole? Where I and the other critical commenter seem to disagree is that I don't expect another Einstein, but still acknowledge that some people will just achieve much more than others due to a variety of factors.
For example, it's hard to take risks when you're struggling to pay bills due to the economy being in a bad state, and it's hard to build great things when you're in a locale where nobody cares for whatever it may be. It's also hard to make much of an impact, where disproportionate amount of time goes fighting against illness that life has inflicted upon you.
It doesn't make everyone else useless (like me paying my taxes and working on relatively boring software is still good, just low impact), just that those who have the means to do more, should!
What a weird perspective. Other people have no particular obligation to spend their lives working on things that align with your narrow and subjective opinion on what benefits humanity.
> Other people have no particular obligation to spend their lives working on things that align with your narrow and subjective opinion on what benefits humanity.
The ones who care about AI research and developing software for that kinda stuff, should do that. The ones who can contribute to medicine, various engineering disciplines, or anything else that benefits humanity should do that too. The ones who'd rather squander their lives away when good things that'd benefit others are within reach (regardless of which discipline that is in, AI being just one of many)... I mean sure they can do that but maybe shouldn't do that.
I don't think the readings of anything I've said here are at all charitable so I'm done engaging in this discussion.
How can someone "statistically be an NPC"??? You mean anyone who is not in the 99th percentile in tech is an NPC? Your take is braindead. Even having infinite intelligence and work ethic wouldn't allow you to accomplish the things that people in the 20th century were able to simply due to the field maturing significantly since then. We can't really ever have another Einstein or Von Neumann for their respective fields, that doesn't make the rest of the people in those fields NPCs.
> How can someone "statistically be an NPC"??? You mean anyone who is not in the 99th percentile in tech is an NPC? Your take is braindead.
I don't care for your outrage because I don't buy into the culture that might be passionate about using the term "NPC" and attaching much additional meaning to it, I'm working with the vocabulary presented. You could substitute that for "normies" if you care for Internet slang, or in other words "average people" - everyone else. In this context, when not talking about some very committed and talented people who, by being in the right place and time, can advance entire areas of research or technology.
> Even having infinite intelligence and work ethic wouldn't allow you to accomplish the things that people in the 20th century were able to simply due to the field maturing significantly since then.
That is also an odd standard to set, just look at how much "Attention Is All You Need" changed things and where we are now. Same with what Carmack did for VR. What about WireGuard, PyTorch, Stable Diffusion, FlashAttention, LoRA? Even within the supposedly mature fields people are still making immensely useful new tech and research that benefits many and that they build upon.
It might not always even be a single individual, but groups of people collaborating and through repeated failures eventually producing something really good!
Again, I see nothing problematic with the original comment's conclusion:
> So if you are able to fly above the AI-generated addictions and have the privilege of time to do it, see what you can do.
I read the rest as commentary on how many won't really have the means/circumstances/capabilities to do so, but the ones that do, should.
I don't get what other words you're trying to put in my mouth, I might not be a fan of the original phrasing, but the point itself isn't bad.
> Generally speaking, it's much better to use alerts instead of hard limit.
Probably for companies and opportunistic individuals with a high risk tolerance. As for me, just give me hard budget caps. It shouldn't be a choice between supporting one of the approaches, when you could let each client pick what they want.
The thing I see is folk putting a limit when given the choice. Later the situation changes, they want mega scale. Then don't fiddle the settings. I think it's a documentation & process problem.
1000 years ago, before CI/CD took over folk would have launch/go-live events, where teams would do a good checklist. There were pre-launch meetings to review, which included load checking.
I completely agree with you. If I'm running a big VM for model training, I want to be absolutely sure that I can't accidentally leave it on over the weekend. If I'm a fast growing startup, maybe I'll prefer alerts so I can optimize a slow piece of my stack before getting a surprise bill.
There's also sometimes options that try to have a tighter integration with a single harness, which honestly seems to be better cause ACP is fairly bare:
Personally, I found Paseo to be very pleasant, except sometimes I had sub-agents kinda hang.
Kepler had a really nice issue tracking integration (GitLab/GitHub Issues, Trello, Linear, Jira) but their UI felt like vibe coded slop, like the core experience doesn't feel very good, but they keep adding shit that nobody needs like a graph visualization of what the agents are doing, instead of letting me drag the tasks around the Kanban board myself or tell the agents how to do that and how to transition the issue statuses. Hopefully it's gonna get better within a few years, still early on in development. Still, the idea of an issue tracker integration is brilliant and all harnesses should consider supporting that, e.g. pick which tickets you want to work on, they automatically create worktrees and agents do the planning/research step, presenting you with plans like /grill-me so you can decide what to work on, alongside having a step for merging all of those worktrees whenever you want when a wave of work is done.
I haven't tried most of them tbh cause my OS install doesn't need to be even more of a dumpster, but I'm surprised at how none of these really seem all that... rock solid?
Like if I open a JetBrains IDE like IntelliJ IDEA / Rider I know that despite the crappy resource usage and whatnot, they have the needs of writing, refactoring, debugging and building code covered. Most of the current harnesses seem to get some baseline of telling agents what to do, but still somehow end up being buggy (e.g. can't peek into OpenCode sub-agents and give THEM instructions last I checked, or pause or alter the prompt, despite Claude Code allowing message exchanges with sub-agents and such), and many others are just clones of what already exists.
At the same time the desktop / web apps shipped with harnesses like OpenCode (if there's one at all) are very clearly insufficient and a step below Claude Code Desktop and Codex (ChatGPT app) in usability (like that move to horizontal tabs like browsers have, come on how am I supposed to navigate when there's like 30 of those? or what about an auto mode switch within the UI), so obviously we do need something as an ADE.
Personally I wonder if half of these projects will die off in like 5 years, or whether they'll get more polish or differentiate themselves more, and which will try to push more for cloud-only stuff, like how RooCode essentially dumped their VSC plugins and went all in on the cloud.
My macOS is a dumpster, so I can tell you that all these products do slightly different things. It’s apples and oranges across the board.
Except instead of just apples and oranges, there are several dozen fruits involved, and it takes a month to fully taste and digest any of them enough to decide whether they’re worth eating. And by then, there might be an improved cultivar of one of the fruits you tried before but decided wasn’t good enough.
On one hand, death is the single most terrifying concept imaginable. In lieu of faith that explains it away, consider being conscious one moment, having been conscious most of your waking like and then it just ending. It being categorically different to the time before you existed, because you now exist. After passing away, never perceiving time, never having a thought, never experiencing anything, not even being aware of that and just being... gone. Forever.
It doesn't sound peaceful to me, or like sleeping, or resting in any way. Instead, that's insanely fucked up, it being common or "inevitable" doesn't make it any less so.
Like when my dad passed away, obviously I was sad about it happening and grieved it, at the same time I can acknwoledge that it was a small mercy that he wouldn't end up bedridden or trapped in a decaying body, and he didn't seem to fear it as much after having lived a long and fulfilling life and being religion-adjacent, but at the same time I very clearly don't like the idea of dying myself some day.
So as far as I know, the only reasons for people to accept the concept of death and permanent nothingness is somewhere between either believing an "after" (and rejecting the possibility of it being a permanent end), being ignorant or indifferent about what it means (the non-solution of "Oh I'll just live on in the memories of other people" which completely doesn't concern your actual consciousness), or simply being more busy with their present lives and such, since it's generally far away.
It rubs me the wrong way, that alongside with research towards more graceful aging (if not to say reversing it, curing cancer etc.) should be way more of a priority for all of humanity, instead of the current realpolitik bullshit. I don't lose much sleep over it, but a feeling of dread, it does evoke. Maybe I'll become even more ignorant with age, but I don't think that'd exactly be a conscious choice.
I think what you're saying is you need purpose? So even with your dad not really fearing (or expressing his fear about) death you still feel that the benefits were him not having to suffer etc. etc.
I think that's what religion gives, and it doesn't have to be organized religion. I'm not proselytizing, I'm just pointing out why across so many human cultures people always come up with stories and thoughts about the afterlife. The cold unknown means basically nothing and the fear I think comes from the nothingness -- imagine a life full of the sorrow and joys, and then it just vanishes. And worse of all, if nobody even remembers much it of it, it literally vanishes. For example if a war veteran never tells his experiences to anyone, he basically just vanished from earth and one can ask so did the things he went through happen? If a tree falls and nobody hears it and all that.
I'm probably expressing it poorly but I've been thinking about it too after experiencing some loss too. In my case the person just graduated college. I think the dead have it easy, the suffering lies with the living…
> it won't matter if VW and Mercedes are going to improve their EV lineup in the next 5, 10, 20 years time
I mean, given the fuel prices it would be very nice, alongside more charging infrastructure in the EU. :(
Not to detract from the overall point, though to be honest, it's probably worthwhile to do improvements and refinements with the current technology, even if the future holds something vastly different. Both cause of gaining expertise and also maybe an improvement or two along the way, that might carry forward.
Like I haven't seen many steam locomotives around and for me the difference between saturated steam engines and superheated ones isn't very material in regards to transportation, but the latter is used in modern turbines.
There are many "steam" locomotives around in China and India, but you just don't see them.
Coal is burned and converted to electricity in coal power plants and the electricity is used to move the electric locomotives around.
Even with distribution losses, the thermal efficiency of coal power plant -> electric network -> electric train is much higher then the old steam locomotives (Only about 5% of the potential energy produced by a steam locomotive’s boiler is translated to the wheels in the form of actual driving power.)
> The quality of Mattermost and Zulip was NOT exactly as polished as Slack.
Mattermost isn't actually all that bad and its mental model is pretty close to Slack, at least compared to Zulip. I actually prefer Mattermost to Teams, and would view it in the same ballpark as Slack.
> Deployment of such stacks was a problem. A complicate operational overhead.
I'd say that in Mattermost's case the group calling functionality was locked behind a subscription as well as some other stuff last I checked, which makes it dead on arrival for many. It was quite nice software though, even before being able to vibe code your own (though tackling videos sharing and RTMP will be anything but trivial).
> Make pixel perfect clone of Slack or Jira with SQLite or ejabberd behind.
There's A LOT of functionality and features in Jira, the only thing that saves claims like that is that you probably don't use 80% and can just build what your company needs. I more or less did that for the hell of it (MariaDB + Garage + Dropwizard/Java + Angular/Spartan) and there was still so much supervision an changes that were needed - after pulling the Jira DB scheme and throwing about 60% of it in the trash (didn't need the automation), there was still A LOT of stuff to do and even the plans eat up a whole bunch of the context of the coding tools you intend to use, no matter how many checks and scripts you write to automate guardrails for when the models simply don't recall everything that is relevant.
For people who want to self-host something basic, there's already the excellent https://kanboard.org/ (very very fast)
For those that want something similarly depressingly slow to Jira while still locking some stuff behind a subscription (at least in the versions I tried) there's the passable https://www.openproject.org/
If those don't fit and you don't see anything exactly like what you need, you might try to build your own. But yeah, not a weekend project.
> Trump seeks to bring down record US diesel prices
If only he could have avoided causing the high prices in the first place so he wouldn't have to try to strongarm his "allies" now. I hate this timeline.
> I've worked with many frontend developers who seemed to believe listing dependencies in package.json in devDependencies instead of 'dependencies' controls what ends up in the production bundle.
If so many believe that it’s how it should work, maybe it just should work that way. Principle of least surprise and all that.
reply