No more LLM voice! Every now and then you might get a nonsensical artifact or two, but that's the price you pay for better groceries.

As well, if people were a bit less anti-AI then maybe we can get disclaimers that things are written by AI that don't immediately torpedo any value the writing has.

I think we're quickly getting to a point where AI is going to be able to do a better job teaching things than humans can (especially stuff with heavy associations with paper/screens, like programming and math). AI can augment for personal styles and spin up whole entire educational widgets on demand. Human's can't scale like that.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50258003

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The problems are obvious. The OP is not even toning down the 100 window height's worth of battle tabular data, it's pretty clear that OP just pulled the output from a simple claude code output without any taste or editorialization.

So I think it's pretty constructive. This is a cool map, I thought of doing something similar myself (for Alexander's conquest). It just needs to be de-slopped.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50166918

Points: 11

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50056779

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

We all thought about a future where AI just woke up one day, when realistically, we got philosophical debates over whether the ability to finally order a pizza constitutes true intelligence.

If you look at the code the example shows, the replication is a bunch of HTML and tailwind CSS classes in backbone. So basically if you decide you want to change the input to have a different radius in one place, you need to implicitly know that there's another piece of code patching and replacing that elsewhere, which has duplicated the code.

I'm not one to pray to the alter of DRY like it's the end-all be-all of programming principles, but you take this pattern and repeat it throughout a production codebase and you have a bunch of repetitions that need to happen.

This is the problem with Backbone - it's edits are imperative - meaning, each one is a source of errors. React makes state updates declarative, so you only need write the rules just once. Somebody coming along to edit the code doesn't need to find the implicit relationships in the imperative code that might break or cause inconsistency, because they don't need to exist anymore.

React is safer. It's not even a contest.

This is the beauty of React, it's reactive style, that essentially means your UI is always bound to your state.

In Backbone, you do not get this for free, as the problem is that two-way binding in Backbone requires manual re-renders (via jQuery) which are direct DOM manipulations. This is expensive, meaning, it is not performant as your DOM grows.

React solves the problem via it's virtual DOM, which keeps an optimized DOM engine in memory, batching expensive updates onto the real DOM.

This means you get the convenience of your UI always representing your state, which means your code can become more declarative (what you want), and less imperative (what you need to do in order to get it). The author calls this "magic," but as somebody who was a Backbone main turned React main, I call this "sanity."

The problem isn't a lack of understanding or research for new vaccines, the problem is anti-intellectualism running rampant.

But yeah, keep going with the whole "democrats are just as bad as republicans" thing. Seems to be working.

Likewise, wouldn't you be baffled if you opened up a wikipedia article and found you were automatically editing it, and now you need to worry about making an accident every time you visit the site because you had no intentions of editing content, instead just consuming it.

But that's just because people are using the product in different modalities.

Are you using Notion as more of a live editor, where the documents are often short lived and transactional in nature? Or are you using it as a sort of permanent knowledge base and history?

The reality of the situation is that each modality commands different designs, and Notion generally tries to solve for all of them with single-minded design principles.

I think there's a strange fallacy in our industry of UX design which dictates that your product should resolve to simple design decisions or become convoluted configurable behemoths driven by the unending deluge of ad hoc decisions from customer asks - like there's no middle ground. Some designer is hopping up and down in a fit going, "but the user doesn't understand MY design principles!"

I feel like "tech" has ultimately failed in this regard.

(clearly Notion is too cool for people like us to use...)