Embedded DSLs are libraries. They are the epitome of the advice to write a library. It just so happens that the library abstractions could map to a language if you wanted to add parsing and all of the other machinery.
If value can only be delivered by making a group of people miserable then maybe the definition of "value" is fundamentally wrong, like it was/is in the case of slavery.
Even outside the context of capitalism, society only functions when people perform unpleasant tasks which provide value. Nobody has fun collecting garbage, but it has to be done. Nobody finds happiness in digging graves, but it has to be done. Nobody is overjoyed at the prospect of telling a person they have a terminal illness, but it has to be done.
So no, I don't really buy the idea that a team which is "forced" to work on boring, but profitable tasks for a business instead of getting to rewrite core infrastructure in Rust as a fun and interesting intellectual exercise is equivalent to slavery.
> Nobody has fun collecting garbage, but it has to be done. Nobody finds happiness in digging graves, but it has to be done. Nobody is overjoyed at the prospect of telling a person they have a terminal illness, but it has to be done.
but we find ways to make the jobs of people who perform these tasks less horrific.
We makes trucks that reduce the physical toll and increase the cleanliness of garbage pickup, we combine the digging of graves with the maintenance and beautification once they have been buried, sometimes you have to tell someone they have a terminal illness, but the majority of the time you are helping someone get their condition into remission.
I think the critical balance that management has to achieve between "having a happy team" and "having a productive team" is finding ways to keep morale up so that employees don't lose their minds and quit or reduce performance doing the miserable stuff.
I wasn't referring to slavery. There are a number of cases where people are unhappy with their job, but go down the road to a competitor and everyone is happy. The industry/product are essentially the same, yet the happiness level is very different.
So I'm guessing most people are downvoting this as a knee jerk reaction to the comparison with slavery, but I think the core point is quite valid.
At some point, if people are unhappy working towards some goal, you gotta re-evaluate if the goal is worthy. I consistently meet people in other industries who really enjoy their job, whereas in tech, most of the people I know consider their job to be one of the lowlights of their life. And I don't think it's a stretch to say many, many tech jobs are not serving a worthy goal.
So it's disappointing to see people who can't look past "but business value bro", as if we got where we are because capitalism is some holy, inevitable universal law.
> I think it's our only chance at quickly solving huge complex problems like aging, cancer, Alzheimer's.
Machine learning is certainly a extremely handy in tacking these issues, thinking of breakthroughs like AlphaFold and similar. However, I'd like to push against your take:
1. There already are tremendous developments happening in those fronts you mentioned. Praising AI as "our only chance" is quite a stretch and possibly even a harmful statement, considering how severely under-funded these research projects are.
2. It seems to me the poem is more about LLMs/glorified chat bots than general machine learning. In that context, I wouldn't consider them as super useful in Alzheimer's research, certainly not "our only chance".
Comments like above usually serve a couple of sentiments - not just pointing out the Striesand effect but attempting to amplify it. The trend I think got popular with the teenager involved in People v. Turner[1]. At the time there was a fair amount of fear that the case would be entirely buried due to his advantageous position in society (not altogether different than what is being discussed here). He also changed his name. So people would make comments like above on Reddit and other social media platforms as a sort of attempt to ensure that it be extremely difficult to erase attachment of the name from the incident in the future entirely.
You can see this at play still today anytime that teenager's name comes up on Reddit. Very typical example thread here[2]
That thread is pretty exemplary of the trend, someone will say "convicted rapist Brock Turner", and everyone will pile on and also state it, in some sort of attempt to continue to keep the association at the top of the search engine.
That being said, after it's been done once the original purpose is already accomplished and I'd consider it a pretty lowbrow attempt at humor after that. It probably would be considered low effort enough to warrant a downvote here.
This is really cool! The opposition of the AI hype, in this particular market, is something I strongly approve of. I guess most of us on HN have dealt with the unpleasant landscape of IT recruiting at some point, and hearing that such new approaches are being tried is a breath of fresh air.
What is gold for me is the business model that doesn't charge end-users, although I can imagine this might become problematic when the pendulum of the IT field's supply and demand for experience swings back.
I also like that the form doesn't ask for a PDF resume, meaning no more marketing and social engineering work for the ever-decreasing attention span of recruiters and ever-increasing automation in resume screenings. Further kudos for the straightforward interface and main form of the website.
Question though: how do you plan to combat spam applications? It doesn't seem that difficult to be _completely_ dishonest in one's application, which granted, will be detected in later screenings, but will probably shadow honest profiles.
Feature proposal: integration with major competition platforms to import one's stats (think Codeforces, LeetCode, HackTheBox, etc).
Preventing fake profiles is indeed challenging. We manually review every profile to ensure they are legitimate. We also offer everyone who signs up the opportunity to participate in a quick, optional interview (10-15 minutes). This allows us to refine the profile data with the individual and add a summary. We also use this to mark profiles as "verified," which ultimately makes them rank significantly higher. However, that approach is far from perfect. We need to add proper verification, but I’d hate to have something like LinkedIn, scanning your ID and all. Maybe we could integrate with an IdP that performs this check in a privacy-friendly way.
> integration with major competition platforms to import one's stats
That's an awesome idea. The tricky part is making sure candidates truly own these accounts.
> The tricky part is making sure candidates truly own these accounts.
Not sure about LeetCode and HackTheBox, but Codeforces' email account is public if I'm not mistaken. It also has an inbox feature, so you can perform some sort of email-like verification.
Even if lithium-ion battery-powered cars were as safe as gasoline powered ones, I can imagine the significant weight of electric cars is a major issue still.
I can't imagine it makes absolutely any difference to a car ferry. And also it's not like all EVs weigh more than ICE cars - we have an EV that weighs 1200kg and a normal ICE car that weighs 2200kg - why is the first one forbidden but the other one isn't?
Norwegian coastal ferries transport just a few dozen cars, alongside 600+ passengers in coastal mode, with 1100 tonnes DWT. The car weight is not really material. If it was, they'd put a weight limit on the service not a nature limit.
What is wrong with the Red Hat ecosystem, as long as we stick to the open source part of it? Red Hat's ecosystem has got some really neat pieces of software, such as Podman, Cockpit, virt-manager, Ansible, and more.
None of those pieces are tied to the Red Hat distros, and Red Hat being involved seems to me to be the fundamental issue. They're ever altering the deal they have with their community. Why not join a community that's constituted in a way where no single commercial party can effectively control everything?
If you google `PlantUML Gitlab` you should find some blog posts and docs, but if you are don't fancy reading this, try pasting this into a Gitlab Issue body
```plantuml
Alice -> Bob: Authentication Request
Bob --> Alice: Authentication Response
Alice -> Bob: Another authentication Request
Alice <-- Bob: Another authentication Response
```
