I'm not sure of the link on the post though... I didn't see anything at all that jumped out as pertinent to this "Tangled" thing. I get that many posts on HN just aren't meant for me... but this seems to take that to an extreme.

Edit: yes I see the URL is Tangled... But that is a very subtle cue that I didn't notice until the third time I clicked through to see if the landing page really said nothing about Tangled.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48837729

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

> ...(although things like Postgres’ hstore can help)...

Back when this blog post was written, this advice would have been reasonable. Today, I don't know anyone reaching for hstore since the more featureful json support was added.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48709865

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48673704

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

So there are two modes... and have been for as long as I can remember (maybe since automatic spell check was there) and it is just a button press.

Now knowing that it's there... well... how many people review feature documentation these days, especially for something that is "feature rich", like Word?

Quantitatively, I don't know the stats, but qualitatively I can confirm it felt like a lot.

I first learned programming converting these things to run on my VIC-20 (and later C64). That earliest effort was prior to those later editions... and I'm kinda glad... I had to learn what different things actually meant and judge what was important and not.

"NASA picks Eric Schmidt’s rocket company for Mars mission, setting up a race with SpaceX"

That title establishes a context in which looking at their relative goals is completely valid.

Electric motors? I imagine there are differences but the super heavy grid fins are electrically actuated (I have heard these motors were sourced from Tesla, though I don't have a great reference for that on hand). The thrust vectoring is also electrically actuated... again, I imagine there are differences of what's on the rocket and what's in the cars... but there are cross over areas of research and engineering.

Also, in a hand-wavy way, rovers share some traits with electric cars; again electric motors, wheels, steering, etc.

So while I don't believe a traditional car company is exactly trying to build space hardened/ready equipment in the normal course of business... it's not as far fetched as some combinations could be.

This is a pretty poor take. Sure the software that we call "PostgreSQL" started to be developed in the 80's... but they didn't stop there. PostgreSQL has been in continuous development, including improvements, changes, and additions, and by some very smart people at that. It's not static and as long as I've been a professional user of the database, decades, it has continually evolved and in some cases even led the way. If we were to survey the software, wouldn't you at least be interested to know how much of code base actually dates back to those long ago decades and how much is more modern before making such statement?

It would be a mistake to take what PostgreSQL actually offers: an excellent database that has be continuously developed and updated over many years (i.e. "maturity"), for some arbitrary idea and evidently baseless idea that somehow "new" must be better.

If new is better, say why; and do so with more actually true statements than it's not extensible. Want it in rust? Well, OK, sure you can give hand-wavy reasons about security and such for why that might be beneficial; but if you want to be convincing you need to be much more specific about the problem in PostgreSQL and the specific way in which your recommendation actually and convincingly moves the needle. If you can't do that, you're simply giving us an emotional outpouring rather than a rational one.

https://rubbishtalk.com/media-kit/

Whoever put this together couldn't even be bothered to compete the template they were using.

Previously, I posted critically not because they were running businesses without humans, but because their post just described going through the motions without actually discussing if it really was effective or not. Sure the AI got through the day, checked off tasks on the list, but did it actually do that effectively or efficiently in any important way? Who knows... wasn't discussed.

I think where I come down now is that repeats of this same gimmick feel like just that: they're just playing a gimmick for attention. I can't tell that they're really demonstrating any special or significant capability... but man, just the story of trying to run a business without humans will get you that sweet, sweet attention.

Unfortunately, looking at least the first post, I stopped reading their "we let AI run X" posts. I think the only thing I really came away with is how thoughtless and mundane are most aspects of running a small business actually is; something I knew, but it really drove the point home. I didn't learn anything unexpected about AI tools or their products that seemed compelling or unexpected.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48180509

Points: 2

# Comments: 0