Just FYI I clicked on you and there is no email. You probably put it in the box visible to only you and HN for account recovery purposes. It’s the about box you need it in if you want to share. Do yourself a favor and make it hard to scrape if that’s even still possible in 2021.
I remember DivJoy 1.0 and wow you have come a long way! Looking forward to seeing where this project ends up in a few years. A couple of questions/comments:
1) postgres is critical but I saw in another comment you were already on that
2) where are the big boys under hosting? I had an imposter syndrome moment when I clicked on that drop down because I didn’t recognize a single name on it...I’ve been at this for almost 20 years now. AWS, Azure, DigitalOcean, and Heroku were some of the things I would have expected.
3) anyway to see a sample code base without paying? I’m not sure how that would work as I don’t know how you can do it without also enabling people to take your work without paying but it’s a non starter for me. I’m probably not your target audience though so take this request with a grain of salt.
Congrats on shipping and best of luck with the product!
Edit:
I went back and noticed to hosting options are all serverless so not surprising a crusty old Rails guys wouldn’t recognize them.
Hosting: Yeah I really need to expand those hosting options. It was one of those things I expected to do much sooner, but didn't end up getting as many requests for hosts as I expected (at least compared to other features). That's changing a bit now now that Divjoy gives you something a bit more advanced. That attracts customers with more complex needs and, it would seem, more opinions around hosting. Firebase Hosting and Heroku are up next. Probably AWS after that.
Previewing code: Happy to send over an example codebase if you shoot an email to hello@divjoy.com :) I'm going to be rolling out a code preview so customers can explore what their code will look like when exported. Plan is to let non-customers browse at least some it it.. or maybe just view half of each file.. or maybe I'm overthinking it and I should just let everyone see the code and emphasize they aren't legally licensed to use it. Anyway, definitely something I've been thinking about.
Why use classes instead of functions. Isn’t the React ecosystem moving away from classes entirely? I remember hearing somewhere that a core maintainer of React stated we should be using function components everywhere now.
OP didn't want to use hooks, so I showed an example that doesn't require hooks.
I'm aware some of the React community use hooks, some of us still use classes. Classes provide a better interface when dealing with state that is shared between parent and child. This is a write up much better than I can explain: https://react-redux.js.org/api/hooks#stale-props-and-zombie-...
A good read if you are interested in the topic. I do take exception with the constant tonal use of absolutes which seem to be trying to lead the reader to a false conclusion based on that false fear.
If the president (Biden or Trump) ordered a first strike nuke against Toronto or London there is a 0% chance it would happen. I personally doubt that an order against Moscow or Pyongyang would be followed either, but I wouldn’t argue with someone who wanted to take a position that those first strike orders would be followed.
My point is just that there is obvious a lot more...”human nuance” in the situation that the author is describing.
Yes. This is not an automated process, the president can't just hit a button to launch. While the generals have to obey the rules - they still can just say "no" if there is no logical explanation for the strike.
Adding more safeguards could slow down the response in case of an actual attack and could do more harm than good.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714
> Adding more safeguards could slow down the response in case of an actual attack and could do more harm than good.
Retaliating doesn't actually do any good. It increases the body count on the other side, but does nothing to help those in the US about to be atomized. It's not like the missiles will collide in mid-air.
What matters is the believed threat of retaliation because that may prevent an attack in the first place. The optimal system in terms of human life and safety is:
1. All foreign governments 100% believe that the US has complete capability to retaliate with devastating force at a moment's notice and will do so with zero hesitation.
2. But the US actually has no such capability so that an accidental first strike on a false alarm is impossible.
The tension between those two is the hard part. :)
International law is one consideration but under US law, the generals are not allowed to refuse a launch order. Possibly they would anyway, but it's a poorly designed system that in some circumstances relies on people stepping outside the system in order to prevent WWIII.
Retaliation is another matter, but we at least need more safeguards against a president launching first. A good argument can be made that we shouldn't allow first strikes at all.
> International law is one consideration but under US law, the generals are not allowed to refuse a launch order.
That is not my understanding from talking with people in the army. What I understand is that anyone in the armed forced is not only allowed, but required, to refuse a unlawful order given by anyone, even the president. Executing on a unlawful order is a crime and you can end up court marshalled or even executed if the outcome is bad enough. The Nuremberg defense ("I was just following orders") does not fly in the US military.
I wonder how someone who receives an order is expected to determine if it's lawful or not, especially within 60 seconds? Doesn't that require a court of law to decide?
I asked a similar question, my understanding is it's a matter of degrees. If you follow a unlawful order and say file paperwork the wrong way that probably won't result in a court marshal, if you burn down a village in a friendly country you most certainly would.
That said Congress is supposed to declare war so most of the wars we have been fighting for the past two decades are likely unlawful. I doubt you would be successful refusing to execute a drone strike on that basis. However if the president called up drunk one night and ordered your to bomb London, I suspect you'd be safe in that refusal.
For a use of nuclear force to be legal, it must satisfy customary requirements of necessity, distinction, proportionality, and avoidance of unnecessary suffering.
I presume that was sarcasm, but it has some truth to it. Yes, the military trains for obedience. It also trains for independent thought. Your comms can be compromised, meaning you could be receiving information and orders from a hostile party. Or they could be completely cut off, and you could be receiving no orders, meaning you have to figure out what to do on your own. Or you could have a window of opportunity that lies outside the scope of your orders, and it could be gone by the time you get permission or approval. Or...
So, yes, the military does train for a degree of independent, critical thinking.
The people receiving the orders are trained to understand that they do not/will not have full situational awareness. The president issues the orders and they carry them out.
The presidential football is basically a menu of strike options that are ready to execute. To launch a strike all the president needs to do is call the number in the book, authenticate himself using the a two letter challenge code, and tell them which strike from the menu to order. Targeting is preprogrammed and designed to eliminate any delay or nuance in the process.
The US has spent billions (trillions?) of dollars on its nuclear strike capabilities and the systems that order its use. To presume that these systems will fail precisely when they are called upon seems short sighted.
Speaking to people who have worked in Titan II silos (admittedly, long ago in the 70s), the opposite is true. They were conditioned to believe if they received a launch order, the US was already a cinder. The person I spoke to said he would "absolutely" fire if he had received an order.
Why fire? If America is already gone, why retaliate? Revenge? What is there to gain? Retaliation would just make things that much more difficult for the rest of humanity, assuming the first strike didn't already make the earth uninhabitable...
The purpose of a retaliatory posture is the foundation of MAD. If the posture, instead, is: We'll just rollover and die, then (the theory goes) there's reduced reason for others to avoid a first strike.
Yeah, I understand the reasoning of MAD, but on like a thinking individual level... when you get the order and are under the impression that this is a second strike, why hit the button? MAD clearly didn't work at that point, so why fire? On the off chance that it was a small first strike and this is a limited second strike? I, at least, would rather run the risk of upsetting the doctrine than run the risk of destroying all of humanity.
Perhaps there are 2 kinds of people: those who think the way you're describing, and those who would hit the button to retaliate. I wonder if the people who end up sitting in the missile silo are selected for the job by asking them how they would respond.
Did you by any chance read the _Three Body Problem_ novels? It is partly about this problem, but I won't describe the details because of spoilers. Highly recommended.
Contrary to popular belief, in the event of nuclear war we wouldn't all suddenly be vaporized. Especially today when the number of nuclear weapons is severely limited and there are credible missile defenses, in a first strike only a few major cities and military installations are going to be targeted. It's more important to hit DC 10 times to make sure some of them actually get through than it is to destroy, for example, Albuquerque. While you might seriously be looking at casualty numbers comparable to the whole of WW2 in a matter of hours, the vast majority of both populations would still be alive and relatively unscathed. If the other side still has their military capabilities while we do not, those survivors would be at their mercy. This is to say nothing of allied nations which may not have been targeted in the nuclear exchange but rely on our military for protection. Nuclear exchange is unfortunately merely the first part of WW3.
If someone in Russia has decided my family can be incinerated, I don't see why the favor can't be returned. I mean, if we had a mindset of "one human family", nuclear weapons wouldn't even exist.
But even a full Russian strike probably wouldn't 100% destroy the United States (and a full Chinese strike probably wouldn't even kill half of us unless society totally collapsed afterwards).
> I do take exception with the constant tonal use of absolutes which seem to be trying to lead the reader to a false conclusion based on that false fear.
I don’t think that’s the purpose. It’s describing features of the protocol, which are the defined rules. Yes, humans deciding not to follow the rules can result in different results, but when we are discussing what the rules for use of nuclear weapons use ought to be, you probably don’t want to avoid considering improvements on the basis that that status quo is acceptable because, in the event that the rules currently in place would result in an outcome viewed as undesirable by certain key actors, there are points in the process where they would be able and likely to execute an unconstitutional coup d’état.
The entire system is designed to eliminate human nuance once the order is given. Exactly how successful it is is impossible to say, but it's designed to make carrying out the order both fast and straightforward.
The only tricky bit is if the President wanted to execute a nuclear plan that hadn't been devised yet. But if there's an existing one (attacking NK, Russia, Iran) then ordering a first strike is really straightforward with an absolute minimum of people in a position to refuse.
This article doesn't address important differences in the scenario in which a launch order is given out-of-the-blue, and when a launch order is issued following certain events.
I wouldn't count on military commanders employing "human nuance" within 30 seconds of receiving a direct presidential order. On the contrary, it's pretty amazing that with 2, 3, 4 or more nations on a nuclear hair trigger for multiple decades that the systems of deterrence and avoidance have so far been successful.
The military drills into its officers and enlisted personnel the fact that they not only can disobey an unlawful order, it's their duty. A direct presidential order is not inherently lawful, and I'd expect most commanders (especially, in contrast to lower ranking enlisted or officers) to be able to respond appropriately.
Even granting your position for the sake of argument, while the set of “orders to use nuclear weapons that the public would, in retrospect, consider catastrophically undesirable” and that of “orders to use nuclear weapons that would be clearly illegal” might overlap, the former is clearly not fully contained in the latter.
But I’m not sure we can take your position as true, anyway:
First, the historic lack of accountability for illegal Presidential orders or obedience to them both reduces the clarity (through absence of case examples) of the legality of such orders and reduces, due to incentive structures, the probability of any person choosing to be the one that takes a stand on the perceived illegality of such an order even were the legality relatively clear.
Also, given the War Powers Act, its not clear how any order to employ the military by the President (except domestically in a manner violating the Posse Comitatus Act) would be illegal under domestic law initially (which, for a nuclear attack, is all that is going to matter.) It might violate norms of international law like waging a war of aggression, but I think recent history shows that even if maybe you can trust the US military to resist some set of illegal orders, “orders to wage of war of aggression that is, nonetheless, authorized by US domestic law” is pretty clearly not within the scope of “illegal orders” for which that is true.
An order is presumed to be lawful under military law. The burden of proving it unlawful rests on the person receiving the order. The default is to execute the orders given.
In the absence of some direct reason that it would be unlawful, a military person must carry out the order they are given.
Now of course, as you say, it is the duty of the one ordered to do something that is unlawful to refuse to carry out that order.
Even granting your position, but while the set of “orders to use nuclear weapons that the public would, in retrospect, consider catastrophically undesirable” and that of “orders to use nuclear weapons that would be clearly illegal” do overlap, the former is not at all fully contained in the latter.
Word has it (supposedly sources inside the white house) due to Trump's habit of making impulsive statements / demands that sound like orders, the folks at the Pentagon put in place the expectation that orders went through some white house staff / filters / had to include written orders before they did anything extraordinary.
Even more so as you must guess at the motivation for doing so. Is it a reminder and warning of what could happen? Or is it a subtle call for violence trying to incite people to repeat it?
Turns out recent precedent says I can read it whichever is those two ways I want. Maybe it’s time to remove HN from the play/Apple stores for allowing this content to remain unmoderated? /s I flagged it.
Like every market it relies on three large groups existing. One large holding the asset with no intent to sell over the next “horizon” whatever that’s defined at. One group holding the asset and needing to sell it soon. And finally one group holding USD (or your local context equivalent) looking to buy into the asset. The winners and losers as far as appreciation of the asset (I made money holding it!) or depreciation of the asset (I recovered 70% of my value) are determined by how large each of those groups is.
The stock market has been great because the population has been booming. The holders looking to sell have no trouble finding buyers looking to buy so they lock in their appreciation. The real estate holders in Detroit and now maybe SV (recent buyers) didn’t do great because demand for their asset cratered.
It’s anyone’s guess what will happen to Bitcoin. Will it go mainstream causing the buyer class to massively outstrip the seller class and lock in huge gains for the current holders (to the moon!) or will it become as illegal as heroin in the major markets causing all legit holders to exit and the price to tumble to next to nothing?
Only one thing is certain, in this time of uncertainty, you will certainly have no trouble finding lots of people willing to tell you which one it’s going to be with absolute certainty in their conviction.
My first inclination was just to move on but you didn’t post on a throwaway so I will take the bait.
Why do you think the toilet issue you described is a problem that needs to be fixed? My experience in every corner of life in America to date has been separated bathrooms by sex and the men’s restroom containing far fewer sitting toilets. We all know this is because women sit for both natural duties and men, generally in the US at least, only sit for one. This is so basic I assume it’s not what you are talking about but please correct me if not so we can engage on that front.
What I assume you mean is Google is 90% male and 10% female (no idea what it really is) and yet the bathrooms are 50% male and 50% female. You specifically mention sitting toilets which is what I am having trouble understanding the relevance of.
Are men regularly forced to stand in line instead of being able to walk right in and go? If so that sounds like a facilities growth issue and not a sex imbalance issue. You could propose turning some female restrooms into male but generally restrooms are placed far enough apart from one another that there would have to be 0 females in the area serviced by those restrooms for that to work. The presence of even one would require facilities assigned to females or mixed gender restrooms (a different argument I fully support).
That leaves your only other option as I see it for the female restrooms to be smaller than the male restrooms which is just ridiculous. No one would build the building with that hopefully temporary imbalance in mind and you can’t just repurpose half a bathroom as long as the sexes are being separated.
> Why do you think the toilet issue you described is a problem that needs to be fixed?
Because this way Google was effectively paying me loads of money to just go through 7 floors of bathrooms to find an empty one when I needed to use it. It's a waste of corporate resources to use a human resource's time like this. At the end the solution for me was just using the disabled toilet, as we didn't have disabled people on the floor at all.
One solution would be to just build more sitting toilets instead of the standing ones, as those ones weren't used as much. But on 1 floor there were 2 bathrooms for women and 2 for men, so yes, repurposing some would have helped.
Of course it’s a growth issue, Google can’t easily afford the prime real estate with the current housing prices. Load balancing is just a temporary measure that can be done.
Google tear down meeting rooms to have more space for cranking more people in the same office.
Luckily I was working there in the good old days mostly.
Are you seriously arguing that one of the largest and most profitable megacorps in the world can't afford enough toilets, so we'ce gotta take a toilet away from female employees?
Profits aside, we do not consider stopping cramming people in an office, or hiring in a more agfordable location? What happened to common sence and self respect?
This the literally shittiest, most submissive argument I've come across. If it weren't a civilised forum, i would've colled it bootlicking
It‘s mind boggling that one needs to explain this (especially in a community like hn).
Seems like literacy in basic economic principles was replaced by feelings in many people
I’m in favor of a more modern arrangement, where all restrooms are for a single person and can be used by anybody. It works well no matter what the gender ratio of the workforce is. Eventually we will all wonder why the heck we did it the old way.
Some floors of certain buildings have that arrangement, but because single occupancy restrooms take up more floor space, there tend to be fewer of those, so the capacity might not work out as well as imagined.
Personally I find it more helpful to adjust my biological clock to avoid doing my business at the same time as everyone else.
Steak houses in the US (not places like Texas Roadhouse) like Bern's in Tampa (most famous East Coast example I know of - don't spend much time in DC or NYC) or Marks Prime for a more mass produced McDonalds approach at the same concept generally cost around $100 per head for the full experience. This includes a steak, a sauce for the steak, a side, a soup, and some fancy types of bread. The whole place will usually be done up like you are dining in a side hall of the Vatican and of course you can go up to $1,000 a head easily if you start looking at their wine bottles.
Its a staple experience of the meat eating upper middle class here in the US.
>generally cost around $100 per head for the full experience (...) The whole place will usually be done up like you are dining in a side hall of the Vatican
That's not "steak houses in the US", that's a specific type of steak house for the upper middle class. I've had excellent steaks in places like the Cattlemen's Steakhouse, OK, and they were nothing like $100 per head.
So, it's not like this was the parent's only option for steak outside the house. They could have a $30-$50 fine steak experience in tons of places.
Not sure what your point is considering that I expressly noted the existence of fast food steak houses like your example in my parent comment. I mentioned the existence of places like Longhorn Steakhouse and Outback Steakhouse which are places where you can get a $20 steak. Cattleman’s is a two dollar sign on Google indicating it’s a typical fast food steakhouse restaurant like those examples above.
Most people would draw a clear line between a hamburger and fries from McDonalds for $5 and a hamburger and fries from an upscale burger place for $20. Those steakhouses you are referencing are McDonalds equivalent and every city in America has them in additional to upscale steakhouses that are 4 dollar signs on Google. It looks like Mahogony Prime Steakhouse would an example in OK. The comment I was responding to expressed disbelief at $100 steak which is a staple of the American experience (meat eaters obviously) and not at all “just for upper middle class” Americans. Giving out a steakhouse gift card for birthdays and graduations was pretty common amongst lower class families when I was growing up. Buying a $100 steak twice a month might be upper middle class behavior but buying it once or twice per year is well within all but the lowest classes ability to purchase when desired.
>considering that I expressly noted the existence of fast food steak houses like your example in my parent comment
My point was to highlight that these are high-end places that go for the $100/head, not the common steakhouse experience, and hardly required to get a decent steak, as the parent makes it appear:
"If you're going out, a decent steak would cost you over $100"
Well, no, a fancy high-end steakhouse will cost you that. You can have a decent steak for much less.
>Those steakhouses you are referencing are McDonalds equivalent
No except in the eyes of golf & country club types, $200K/year FAANG engineers, or Paris Hilton-caricatures saying you can only get a "decent froyo" at some $50/cup high end place.
I wouldn't consider Outback, or Longhorn for that matter, or places like McCormick & Schmicks or Cheesecake Factory as "fast food". They're just chain restaurants that also serve steaks.
They're not McDonalds, however, nor some kind of "McDonalds of steaks", to be considered "fast food" (a place like Sizzler buffet might be that). And there are tons of non-chain restaurants serving steaks with similar prices.
I've eaten at lots of Michelin-star restaurants in Europe and around the globe, and had $300/head bills a few times, but I don't consider restaurants with $30/$40 steaks or places like Outlook beneath me or "fast food".
It's just the rampant US-version of classism (if one think it's bad in the UK, have them wait till they talk to some upper-middle class US people).
> Well, no, a fancy high-end steakhouse will cost you that. You can have a decent steak for much less.
It depends on what you call "decent" and what's the general quality of produce in your country. There are cheaper steaks here too, but they it's just pieces of charred mediocre meat, which you wouldn't risk to order done medium rare anyway.
> It's just the rampant US-version of classism (if one think it's bad in the UK, have them wait till they talk to some upper-middle class US people).
Not that there's anything wrong with classism, but classism itself is your attitude towards people, not things. Taste in food is not and cannot be classism by definition.
>Not that there's anything wrong with classism, but classism itself is your attitude towards people, not things. Taste in food is not and cannot be classism by definition.
Of course it can. You use food and restaurant choices to signal your class. You're not an "Olive Garden peasant" for example...
Some people probably could use it for this purpose, I imagine. However, I and people I know use them to enjoy ourselves.
Besides, how exactly would you signal it and to whom? Since transition to WFH, I haven't met a single colleague of mine offline. I eat out completely alone 90% of the time, and just with my girlfriend 9% — whom are we showing off to? Each other?
>Besides, how exactly would you signal it and to whom? Since transition to WFH, I haven't met a single colleague of mine offline.
That would be a good counter-argument if I said people are doing this food signalling thing just or particularly or generally these last months.
But humanity and restaurants existed before covid/wfh, and would (I bet) exist after it. I was referring to something people do in general (and have done for centuries), not to what temporary situation they are forced because of WFH to do.
That said, even with WFH one can (and many do) flaunt their food buying habbits online, with pictures of the high class foods they stocked their fridge, their expensive deliveries, their subtle knowledge and enjoyment of expensive coffee beans for their espresso habbit, and so on...
the accusation of classism is sort of a harsh take here. I would never buy a steak from outback for the simple reason that I can buy a nicer cut from my butcher for <$20 and probably do a better job cooking it on my cheap cast iron skillet. on the rare occasion that I go out for steak, I spend as much as it costs to buy something I couldn't reasonably do at home. with steak, that's a lot of money.
I can't say it with 100% certainty, because I'm from Ireland, not the US, but I'm 90% sure you're out of touch here.
Here, you can get a good steak in a proper, table service, not fast food, not chain restaurant for the equivalent of $30-$35. $100 would be stupidly expensive, you would only pay that in the most expensive restaurants in the country.
Maybe it's a regional thing, but high end steakhouses in Texas sell their steaks at around $30-$60. You can of course find a $200 gold dusted wagyu, but those are outliers not the norm.
Sorry citizen, Game of Thrones has reached its download limit. May we suggest The Wheel of Time of Sword of Truth instead? Quite the dystopia you paint.
More importantly I wanted to watch Walking Dead and Game of Thrones not on their own merit but preciously because they entered some kind of cultural flashpoint where all the people I cared about were watching these things. It was more important to me to be able to talk to them about the show we were watching than it was for me to enjoy the content. It’s the same for the music I chose when I was young (in my old age music had become background noise, something 15 year old me never would have believed). I am willing to bet this phenomenon both already has a name and is majorly responsible for the power laws we see in content creation domains.
There is a massive pushback against taking the vaccine going on right now. People coming up with a litany of different reasons not to take it. One of those reasons is a lack of trust in the government. If that smiling 34 year old has a lot of constituents telling him they are scared to take it because it might not be safe it becomes his duty to stand up and take it as early as possible with a smile on his face.
What ever happened to starting out with assuming good intentions?
There's been plenty of healthcare workers splashed all over the news taking it already. More importantly, we're a long long way away from the general public even getting to decide to take it or not. If hesitation is still a concern in March/April, then congress could have done the PR stunt at that point.
Right now there's a huge shortage of vaccines compared to the number of people who are both eligible and willing. No need to worry about the unwilling at this point since there's not enough to go around anyway.
Congress took it because they think they're more important than the rest of us, and apparently they think they're even more important than the frontline workers who are still waiting.
