7 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Jul 2022
    1. we quickly found it to be the wrong match for our content-heavy documentation experience. Gatsby inherits many dependency chains to provide its featureset, but running the dependency-heavy toolchain locally on contributors’ machines proved to be an incredibly difficult and slow task for many of our documentation contributors

      This wouldn't be so annoying to read if it weren't the case that this was solved like 15+ years ago by the right tool for the job: wikis.

      I see the "neo-OSS era" or "New Social era" of today to stand in sharp contrast with what I've previously referred to as the Shirky era. In the world of software development, the regressions from the transition from the Shirky era to the present, monumental though those regressions are, have been quietly underreported (seemingly hardly even perceived). We've seen the rise and consolidation of open source project management around a centralized (and perversely, closed source) service provider that's more of a social network and valued for that reason than it is a decent bugtracker or wiki. It calls things wikis that aren't, not just diluting the word but instead transforming it into something that is by now effectively meaningless—along with encouraging awful mixing of support requests and freeform discussion with bugtracking (but that's beside the point).

      The big hallmark of this era: obtuse publishing pipelines that seek to replicate the compiler-input →compiler → compiler-output workflow, pushed heavily by new programmers who first encountered compilers during this era and encouraged by others who bafflingly insist on applying this poorly chosen hammer to the non-nail-shaped problem. Why? What I can make out:

      1. the omnipresent and inescapable influence of Ra

      2. a desperation for legitimacy at a time when low-level system programming has been in decline

      3. people just genuinely unable to perceive the effects of complexification, like the way some people cannot enjoy cilantro, or the way others cannot accurately track the passage of time without external help

      It'd be nice if we could get back to a place where we understood that the point of all this stuff is to make things easier—particularly in the here and now, and not in some mythical, never-reached promised land where travelers are perpetually kept away by the YAGNI demons.

  3. Jun 2022
  4. May 2022
    1. To be on time you must be early; it’s nearly impossible to be precisely on time – time is moving too fast. For instance, if a meeting starts at 1:00 you can’t walk in 1:00 – that occurs in a milli-second and then becomes the past. You must arrive before 1:00.

      This is a fine perspective as long as you're not penalizing people who arrive at 12:59:59 — "If you are on time, you are late" is a stupid mantra that, while my sample size is low, I've only heard from people who were themselves egregious time wasters and made the remarks as a way of honoring Ra.

      (I'd argue further that anyone who arrives at any time between [13:00:00, 13:01:00) are doing okay, so long as they're wiling to accept that no one is obligated to wait for them. I.e. what "the meeting is at 1:00 PM" means is that everyone has permission to start the meeting at 13:00:00, whether you're there or not.)

    1. the reviewer wanted _more_ academese. It was the last paper of my grad school career and I was sick of academese. In so many words, I told them to pound sand. That was my only paper to never get published.
  5. Dec 2021