i am not advocating for a pure "open source will save the world" there are just a few points i'd like you to consider, and hopefully give me insights i can learn from

* other than code, open source has also given us governance "experiments" capable of running critical systems. As another poster was mentioning, the risk is to fallback on "big corps", usually run by "big man", and we are back to zero. The hope? expectations? is that the open source governance ecosystem has tackled this space in enough dimensions to be able to build something over this. I am looking specifically at the area around licenses (mariadb, redis, ...) and just overall governance frameworks, as in "deteach business ownership from ethical frameworks"

* in order to build anything this big/reliable, without megacorp budgets, you can just ... pay FLOSS? They are one of the 2 majorly screwed groups by the current SV setup (with PLENTY of cavaets,amongst them that SV is a huge open soure contributor) The other one being content creators. Slogan? "For this to succeed, you need the best coders and the best marketing departments in the world" Looks to me like incentives are aligned towards them being available. Talking broadly on a systemic level: details need refinement, and space beyond this single message.

* EU (the political instituion) desperately needs this. An innovative tech ecosystem (not startup, not product) driven by "european values" that puts them on the spot. Start with redefining it: there are no users, but citizens. Something effectively out-innovating SV, not just trying to get on par. The risk of "being bought out/copied" doesn't really apply, since (as I said in my original comment) the discriminator is existential: US companies cannot be trusted because they built the existing system. Any attempt to block this (stop users from getting their data back) is going to be challenged by the EU (GDPR violations cannot be brought to court by citizens, only by nation's data authorities, which means a citizen gets big guns and doesn't ned to pay). Also, go on and explain that to all you other (US and not) users.

* A EU cloud provider doesn't have to provide the same services an US provides. That would hardly be innovative. You also don't need to focus on corporations. Provide data storage for citizens, that will be the basis to build a privacy focus cloud, and then business might want that. There is a possible continuation into "advantages of storage&privacy based vs compute", that i skip.

But essentially, to me it seems that an open source, true, "give me back my data" business driven initiative has never been as actionable as now. I short, such a project can make 2 bold statements "We are more innovative than SV" "We have better freedoms than the US"

> But then it's not so much that data ends up in "the EU" as that it's on your own device and then backed up or distributed as encrypted chunks in a distributed network which isn't tied to any specific jurisdiction.

100% i launched into a long trajectory from the comment i was originally answering to, and stopped short

i think-of? dream-of? try-to-build? what you just said

my "in the EU" claim is mostly around legislation (EU art 8 vs US CLOUDS act vs vs China approach to citizen's data)

the legislation is there, since GDPR it's a matter of tools

since corps built tools, they "forgot" to add the third button on cookie banners: "give me back my data" ... (and fourth: "delete it") but the legal framework is there, as well as most of the tooling (google takeout, and so on from all other major players)

it's not that pipelines for moving data from US corps to inidividual do not exists, it's more that, up to now, whenever i was talking about "data rights" to people, even in tech, i got yawns back

now we have a "perfect storm": distrust towards US (administration, collpasing onto US businesses) + global uncertainty towards AI (where lots of people just perceive something happening but lack any tool that gives them control over it)

this is what i perceive as a tectonic shift that can be used innovatively, by EU businesses, hopefully leveraging open

for completeness, i have indeed wrapped "EU" as the spearhead for this, given the incentives to build it, but yes, central authority over this should live inside of each citizen nation framework (see, Japan and South Korea, both providing legal frameworks for data protection)

Also, that same lifestyle is based on ignoring externalities applied to commons and/or events happening “somewhere else”, even when factually proven. Little wonder and tiny bit ironic that the same principle has embedded itself so deeply, that it holds true even when the damage is inward, just a few indirections away.

On your side, yes, I think that “people in Europe” intuitively understand that, it just needs time to blossom. The reputation/trust damage self inflicted by the current US administration is triggering a pushback that will expand into the future. As a point in case, it will lead to reconsidering assumptions on habits that many generations of US businesses and diplomats have built.

Many in this thread point at difference instances of services that should be decoupled. Connecting the dots, the larger picture looks painfully obvious to me: Silicon Valley never was a partner to be trusted, and certainly not after they built or bent every business to rely on an ad ecosystem that exploits users.

That original sin, on which a huge portion of Wall Street rests, is now at the center of discussions. Hence, the EU will build tools to address this because it has to, but consumers will flock to them especially from the US, since at this point no one can trust SV companies on data privacy (since Snowdens at least), no one can trust the US administration to protect citizens (since Trump at least), and about half of the US is scared about what’s going on deeply enough (the emotional push needed to break the habit). They will move their data it the EU (where else? China?).

This will be compounded by the fact that everyone tries to build better LLMs and to get AGI, while forgetting that LLMs work on data pipelines.

Put that in a SaaS for an office and the outcome is the true representation of work being done in that office, plus clear signals about edge cases (aka “the user is not using his custom built flow, why?)

In a sense, related to https://danieldelaney.net/normal/

Stability etc can be handled post-hoc: once a customized ui proves some benefits (via user adoption, or whatever you think efficiently measures productivity gains), it can be formalized by a human coder, who gets the full picture and has all the domain knowledge baked in, as long as you don’t capture UIs only but also the reasoning that built it.

Back to article: smart to think this in terms of browser, since that crosses the boundary between SaaS

in a similar vein, i match github project issues to md files committed to repo

essentially, the github issue content is just a link to the md file in the repo also, epics are folders with links (+ a readme that gets updated after each task)

i am very happy about it too

it's also very fast and handy to reference either from claude using @ .ie: did you consider what has been done @

other major improvements that worked for me were - DOC_INDEX.md build around the concept of "read this if you are working on X (infra, db, frontend, domain, ....)" - COMMON_TASKS.md (if you need to do X read Y, if you need to add a new frontend component read HOW_TO_ADD_A_COMPONENT.md )

common tasks tend to be increase quality when they are epxpressed in a checklist format

initially, being in the loop is necessary, once you find yourself "just approving" you can be relaxed and think back or, more likely, initially you need fine-grained tasks; as reliability grows, tasks can become more complex

"parallelizing" allows single (sub)agents with ad-hoc responsibilities to rely on separate "institutionalized" context/rules, .ie: architecture-agent and coder-agent can talk to each others and solve a decision-conflict based on wether one is making the decision based on concrete rules you have added, or hallucinating decisions

i have seen a friend build a rule based system and have been impressed at how well LLM work within that context

My gut feeling from past experiences is that we have git, but now git-flow, yet: a standardized approach that is simple to learn and implement across teams.

Once (if?) someone will just "get it right", and has a reliable way to break this down do the point that engineer(s) can efficiently review specs and code against expectations, it'll be the moment where being a coder will have a different meaning, at large.

So far, all projects i've seen end up building "frameworks" to match each person internal workflow. That's great and can be very effective for the single person (it is for me), but unless that can be shared across teams, throughput will still be limited (when compared that of a team of engs, with the same tools).

Also, refactoring a project to fully leverage AI workflows might be inefficient, if compared to a rebuild from scratch to implement that from zero, since building docs for context in pair with development cannot be backported: it's likely already lost in time, and accrued as technical debt.

in memoriam: https://web.archive.org/web/20250723165415/https://spacecraf...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45194414

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

divs.forEach(div => { div.click(); // Trigger a click on the div });

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies:

Languages: Python, Go, Javascript, Typescript, Lua, PHP, Java

Backend Frameworks: NestJS, Flask, FastAPI, Django, nodeJS, Codeigniter, Laravel, Express.js

Frontend: React, Vue, Angular, Redux

DevOps: Linux, Docker, AWS, Google Cloud, Terraform, Jenkins, Github Actions

Databases: PostgreSQL, MariaDB, MongoDB, MS SQLServer, SQLite, Oracle DB, Redis

Other: Jaeger, GraphQL, BDD, DDD, TDD, Agile methodologies

Resume/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15tsofcKyMy99KVYHBGdc-f6_ivZ...

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/francesco-ruffato-3a699919/

Github: https://github.com/rufasterisco/

Email: rufasterisco@gmail.com

The reasons for this have evolved over time. It began to protect waterways that enabled local commerce, and expanded alongside Venice's dominance across the Mediterranean Sea. This led to the identity of a city that celebrated its "Wedding of the Sea" every year [2].

As a modern-day example of this, UNESCO has enlisted `Venice and its Lagoon` in its World Heritage list [3], stating:

``` Criterion (v): In the Mediterranean area, the lagoon of Venice represents an outstanding example of a semi-lacustral habitat which has become vulnerable as a result of irreversible natural and climate changes. In this coherent ecosystem where the muddy shelves (alternately above and below water level) are as important as the islands, pile-dwellings, fishing villages and rice-fields need to be protected no less than the palazzi and churches. ```

In the present day, when Venice is mainly seen as a tourist attraction, it's easy to underestimate this. However, locals still draw a firm line between those who live in the city and the "campagnoli" (people from the countryside). Any plan to sever this historical link between Venice and the sea would be a tough sell, regardless of its economic or technical feasibility.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrato_alle_acque [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_the_Sea_ceremony [3] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/394/

Actually, lots of extremely local communities gather around social hubs, typically squares featuring bars where people routinely visit for breakfast, brunch, and aperitifs. It doesn't take long to gain recognition and differentiate yourself from a tourist; alcohol often facilitates conversation, too :).

If you want to see this in action, there are a fair number of sagre (these are summer festivals typical of small towns and villages throughout Italy, but not so much in the cities) that unfold right in the heart of Venice each year! (Try searching for Festa de san piero de casteo or Sagra di san giacomo dall'orio and look at some pictures)

Moreover, as Venice doesn't have cars (and boats just work in a different way), you're likely to follow the same few paths to and from work. This familiarity aids in establishing recognition on the street.

Being young can be beneficial when integrating with locals, thanks to the significant student population residing in the city (relative to the number of permanent residents). However, it's hardly an impediment; it's common to see people of all ages enjoying drinks during aperitivo. YMMV depending on your level of introversion or extroversion.

Nightlife after midnight is concentrated in a few places, and again it won't take long to recognize the same faces, nor to be recognized too.

Overall, as a single data-point, during my seven years there, I found Venice's social dynamics to touch a sweet spot in its unique blending of small-town camaraderie and large-scale artistic events.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/09/05/t...

https://web.archive.org/web/20220909015725/https://www.econo...

then (or instead) we might do the opposite: I should have a project on github (or similar) that you can look at beforehand, let you pick an issue, etc etc

if the issues are 6 hours issues, the commitment is on both sides: the company has a team member spending those 6 hours too

The forces in place here seems to be:

- distributed ledgers allow a different (decentralized) paradigm for identity management, where users own their identities and service providers authorize and authenticate them through verifiable credentials

- years of blockchains and even more years of web certificates have created processes to handle cryptographic material, that service providers supposedly find more secure than "username and password" to manage the identities issuing the verifiable credentials

- in realpolitik, Microsoft (Azure) is expanding in the cloud market by trying to establish a presence in niches (ie: Intel SGX, DIDs) [1]

I understand the overall skepticism about blockchain related technologies, but the intrinsic advantages that I see in them are:

- (for a service provider) having a tamper-proof log of all the auth changes for an identity

- (for a service provider/user) relying on cryptographic signatures allows for a private validation of an identity/claim

- (for a user) provided this is not EEE allover again, a greater degree of choices on how to manage your identity

I do not have as much experience as you do, so maybe there is some wheel-reinventing that I am not aware of :)

0. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/veri...

1. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/identity-standards-bl...

it can be browser-based but there are many integrations, for example it's trivial to have it rendered as image in markdown files