> humanity is presently in the process of evolving beyond nation-states
No, it isn't. This is some Curtis Yarvin BS.
> So, any solution that truly addresses the _original_ funding disaster must be future-compatible with an internet in which we've overcome the burden of nation-states.
What does this even mean? How do you envision a "future-compatible" CVE database? And what does it have to do with nation states?
It's insanely naive to have thought a second Trump admin would not be worse in every possible way. Did you pay attention at all to what was going on with SCOTUS? Project 2025?
Saying "there wasn't any evidence" is borderline bot-speak. Anybody who thought Trump 2.0 was going to be like the first round was simply not paying attention at all and anybody telling others it wasn't going to be like the first admin is either a Russian troll, the mainstream media, or just plain irresponsibly ignorant.
"Nobody could have foreseen this" is about the dumbest take I think I've seen so far.
I didn't claim any of those things were specific to Project 2025.
We've known about RFK Jr all along so yes, if somebody is surprised by the secretary of health being anti-vax, that somebody is irresponsibly ignorant. If that somebody also claims that nobody could have foreseen this, or that prior to him being picked they were fond of reassuring people that "there's no way it'll be that bad"... yeah I'd 100% associate that with the type of behavior becoming of a Russian troll.
I find it really weird and cringey that you're bringing up ego. I don't feel like I'm smarter than everybody else, nor am I claiming to be, nor do I see how any of my comments could even be construed as such. To say this is about me thinking I'm smarter than everybody else is to imply that I'm relishing in the fact that I "foresaw what others couldn't", which is just... an insanely idiotic thing to say. I'm not a sociopath. And for what it's worth, I know plenty of people who also saw this coming.
To be clear, it's a tragedy that so many people were ignorant of what a second Trump admin would be capable of, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make; I am specifically taking issue with your insistence that it was somehow impossible for anybody else to foresee this.
> I find it really weird and cringey that you're bringing up ego. I don't feel like I'm smarter than everybody else, nor am I claiming to be, nor do I see how any of my comments could even be construed as such.
Then you should re-read your comment. Calling people "insanely naive"? "Bot-speak"? The "dumbest take"? "Irresponsibly ignorant"?
And you really think you're not trying to portray yourself as smarter than everyone else who didn't see this coming?
Your comments are insulting, provocative, in bad faith, and do not belong on HN.
I was trying to make a reasoned point that no, most reasonable smart people didn't expect the Trump administration to be anything like what it is now. I don't know of anyone who predicted this. Your claims to the contrary are simply rewriting history. You're calling people ignorant, when you seem to be the one with the faulty memory.
I hope you can learn a little humility. Good luck to you.
Just keep in mind there are a thousand people right behind you who would be ecstatic to be able to work on this "nightmare" in order to earn a paycheck.
> edit: I think I read HN comments more than HN articles. Interesting
Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
I always check comments first before clicking the link, unless it's something I'm knowledgeable about and/or interested in and already know I want to read. It saves a lot of time.
Why on Earth not? Maybe a blog about conflict in the middle east isn't the place, but a blog sharing stories about the tech industry? Surely some humorous screenshots will add to the experience.
Obviously just throwing in random images totally unrelated to the subject matter would be a huge turnoff, but I cannot think of any reason why you'd take such an absolute position on something so low-stakes.
I agree with the point and didn't realise it until I read this post. Whenever I see a funny image or comic in a technical post it always feels a bit like it doesn't quite belong there, like someone had a quota for humour. It feels a bit like the author isn't confident with their message and acted like a conference speaker throwing in a bad joke for some easy laughs.
It also breaks the flow. Reading from long form text and then skipping to image and parsing the text breaks the mental flow, for me at least, and there never seems to be a clean place to do it.
You get this jarring tonal whiplash when you add funny images to an otherwise serious text. The images detract from the message you are trying to convey. It also risks triggering a skimming behavior where the reader is just skipping between the images.
It also appears insecure and juvenile, as though you're not fully confident that what you are saying will stand on its own without attempts at comedy, and ironically raises questions about the age and experience of the author.
Of course there are exceptions, but as a rule of thumb, I would strongly avoid this pattern of communication.
It sounds like your problem isn't with funny images, but tonal mismatch. In that sense I agree with you - if the article's tone is lighthearted, use lighthearted images. If not, then don't.
I would expect the "a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem" article to include humorous images. I would expect a serious tutorial about monads to not do so.
You went from "Images should above all never be funny," to "You get this jarring tonal whiplash when you add funny images to an otherwise serious text."
Yeah, if a post's text is 100% serious, then yes it would be jarring to insert funny images. Nobody's suggesting you do that, though.
>It also appears insecure and juvenile, as though you're not fully confident that what you are saying will stand on its own without attempts at comedy, and ironically raises questions about the age and experience of the author.
This comes across to me as strangely judgmental and narrow-minded about what good technical writing is.
Joel Spolsky is, in my opinion, the best software blogger of all time. His posts often integrated humor, and I think it definitely heightened rather than detracted from his writing.
Look at the bloggers who are most popular on HN: Paul Graham, Julia Evans, Simon Willison, Rachel Kroll, Terence Eden. All of them often use a lighthearted style and integrate humor, often with humorous images as well.
Your understanding of the repository pattern is correct. It's the other people in this thread that seem to have misunderstood it and/or implemented it incorrectly. I use the repository pattern in virtually every service (when appropriate) and it's incredibly simple, easy to test and document, and easy to teach to coworkers. Because most of our services use the repository pattern, we can jump into any project we're not familiar with and immediately have the lay of the land, knowing where to go to find business logic or make modifications.
One thing to note -- you stated in another comment that the repository pattern is just for database access, but this isn't really true. You can use the repository pattern for any type of service that requires fetching data from some other location or multiple locations -- whether that's a database, another HTTP API, a plain old file system, a gRPC server, an ftp server, a message queue, an email service... whatever.
This has been hugely helpful for me as one of the things my company does is aggregate data from a lot of other APIs (whois records, stuff of that nature). Multiple times we've had to switch providers due to contract issues or because we found something better/cheaper. Being able to swap out implementations was incredibly helpful because the business logic layer and its unit tests didn't need to be touched at all.
Before I started my current role, we had been using kafka for message queues. There was a huge initiative to switch over to rabbit and it was extremely painful ripping out all the kafka stuff and replacing it with rabbit stuff and it took forever and we still have issues with how the switch was executed to this day, years later. If we'd been using the repository pattern, the switch would've been a piece of cake.
Thanks. I was starting to get pretty insecure about it. I don't actually know why in my brain it was tightly linked to only database access. It makes perfect sense to apply it to other types of data retrieval too. Thanks for the insights!
I can't believe I had to dig this deep to find this comment.
I have yet to see an AI-generated image that was "really cool".
AI images and videos strike me as the coffee pods of the digital world -- we're just absolutely littering the internet with garbage. And as a bonus, it's also environmentally devastating to the real world!
I live nearby a landfill, and go there often to get rid of yard waste, construction materials, etc. The sheer volume of perfectly serviceable stuff people are throwing out in my relatively small city (<200k) is infuriating and depressing. I think if more people visited their local landfills, they might get a better sense for just how much stuff humans consume and dispose. I hope people are noticing just how much more full of trash the internet has become in the last few years. It seems like it, but then I read this thread full of people that are still hyped about it all and I wonder.
This isn't even to mention the generated text... it's all just so inane and I just don't get it. I've tried a few times to ask for relatively simple code and the results have been laughable.
No, it isn't. This is some Curtis Yarvin BS.
> So, any solution that truly addresses the _original_ funding disaster must be future-compatible with an internet in which we've overcome the burden of nation-states.
What does this even mean? How do you envision a "future-compatible" CVE database? And what does it have to do with nation states?
reply