devwrite

2.4K posts

devwrite

devwrite

@devwrite_

Towards a better web

Katılım Kasım 2022
185 Takip Edilen31 Takipçiler
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@houlihan_rick @MbarkCherguia You have a serious misunderstanding of wealth. Does the US have more or less material wealth now compared to then?
English
0
0
0
7
Rick Houlihan
Rick Houlihan@houlihan_rick·
@MbarkCherguia Wealth was more evenly distributed and the billionaires did not like that so they took it all.
English
3
0
6
732
Liberta Cherguia 🇪🇺
Liberta Cherguia 🇪🇺@MbarkCherguia·
What was so wrong with THIS that it needed to be completely destroyed and turned into the mess we live in today?
Liberta Cherguia 🇪🇺 tweet media
English
5.1K
5.5K
38.9K
2.9M
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@IroncladDev That's really all you need, so not a bad tradeoff to make
English
0
0
0
1.5K
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@brycemalcom @kylegawley I'd say that it's proof that AI itself isn't productive, but it's only productive with humans, otherwise all humans would've been laid off
English
1
0
3
148
Bryce
Bryce@brycemalcom·
@devwrite_ @kylegawley I bet if you think real real hard you can figure that out. Also this is only wave one. You think it’s all done improving? You think this is peak lol. Ask better questions.
English
1
0
0
471
Kyle Gawley
Kyle Gawley@kylegawley·
If AI really made their employees more productive It would make zero sense to downsize a team generating increased growth for the same cost base "We're twice as productive with AI, so we'll cut that output by 50%" x.com/jack/status/20…
jack@jack

we're making @blocks smaller today. here's my note to the company. #### today we're making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we're reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. that means over 4,000 of you are being asked to leave or entering into consultation. i'll be straight about what's happening, why, and what it means for everyone. first off, if you're one of the people affected, you'll receive your salary for 20 weeks + 1 week per year of tenure, equity vested through the end of may, 6 months of health care, your corporate devices, and $5,000 to put toward whatever you need to help you in this transition (if you’re outside the U.S. you’ll receive similar support but exact details are going to vary based on local requirements). i want you to know that before anything else. everyone will be notified today, whether you're being asked to leave, entering consultation, or asked to stay. we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly. i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. a smaller company also gives us the space to grow our business the right way, on our own terms, instead of constantly reacting to market pressures. a decision at this scale carries risk. but so does standing still. we've done a full review to determine the roles and people we require to reliably grow the business from here, and we've pressure-tested those decisions from multiple angles. i accept that we may have gotten some of them wrong, and we've built in flexibility to account for that, and do the right thing for our customers. we're not going to just disappear people from slack and email and pretend they were never here. communication channels will stay open through thursday evening (pacific) so everyone can say goodbye properly, and share whatever you wish. i'll also be hosting a live video session to thank everyone at 3:35pm pacific. i know doing it this way might feel awkward. i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold. to those of you leaving…i’m grateful for you, and i’m sorry to put you through this. you built what this company is today. that's a fact that i'll honor forever. this decision is not a reflection of what you contributed. you will be a great contributor to any organization going forward. to those staying…i made this decision, and i'll own it. what i'm asking of you is to build with me. we're going to build this company with intelligence at the core of everything we do. how we work, how we create, how we serve our customers. our customers will feel this shift too, and we're going to help them navigate it: towards a future where they can build their own features directly, composed of our capabilities and served through our interfaces. that's what i'm focused on now. expect a note from me tomorrow. jack

English
129
70
1.2K
111.1K
Austin
Austin@SPQR_Austin·
@devwrite_ @kniborg @growing_daniel Two tier society where 99% is subsistence farming and 1% CEOs living in a domed city served by robots doesn’t seem like a happy future
English
1
0
0
32
Daniel
Daniel@growing_daniel·
It is kinda amazing how early Andrew yang was
English
124
138
4.9K
322.8K
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@SPQR_Austin @kniborg @growing_daniel To further elaborate, just because AI can make food/housing much cheaper than humans, doesn't mean that's the only way to produce those goods. We've been producing those for centuries without the help of AI
English
0
0
0
22
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@SPQR_Austin @kniborg @growing_daniel I don't think it's much a paradox really. If all of our material needs are met, then we don't need to be economically useful to one another. We "work" on our own accord, for ourselves
English
1
0
0
18
Austin
Austin@SPQR_Austin·
@devwrite_ @kniborg @growing_daniel Yes that’s the big question after the singularity, no one is employable, only a few companies control the resources, yet billions of economically “useless” exist Maybe this is our Fermi Paradox
English
1
0
1
71
Austin
Austin@SPQR_Austin·
@kniborg @growing_daniel Once AI makes most unemployable, how do people afford homes and food and stuff?
English
2
0
1
84
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@pbwinston @kylegawley Agreed, time will tell if it's the right move or not. I could certainly see a scenario where they have to hire them all back to be able to compete in new lines of business only made possible by the increased productivity gains of AI
English
0
0
0
76
Philip Winston
Philip Winston@pbwinston·
@devwrite_ @kylegawley Yes, but think of it in reverse, if they had 4,000 less people would you argue they should hire 4,000 more people? They are saying the amount of people they had was not optimal; for an outsider to claim number of employees they had was optimal is silly.
English
1
0
1
193
Bryce
Bryce@brycemalcom·
@kylegawley You’re misunderstanding. The AI is productive. Not the people. So they got rid of the people. Kept the ai. I know it’s hard to follow.
English
14
0
27
4.8K
Philip Winston
Philip Winston@pbwinston·
@kylegawley It can make sense to downsize if your employees are accomplishing more, if they feel they’re just isn’t more tasks to put the additional people on. It’s like if the robots on your car assembly line got twice as productive, you might not want to build twice as many cars.
English
4
0
4
3.5K
Timothy B. Lee
Timothy B. Lee@binarybits·
Sometimes it's necessary to lay people off because your company isn't making money, or because you are canceling a specific product. But I'm sorry just laying thousands of people off because you think you can probably get by without them is sociopathic.
jack@jack

we're making @blocks smaller today. here's my note to the company. #### today we're making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we're reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. that means over 4,000 of you are being asked to leave or entering into consultation. i'll be straight about what's happening, why, and what it means for everyone. first off, if you're one of the people affected, you'll receive your salary for 20 weeks + 1 week per year of tenure, equity vested through the end of may, 6 months of health care, your corporate devices, and $5,000 to put toward whatever you need to help you in this transition (if you’re outside the U.S. you’ll receive similar support but exact details are going to vary based on local requirements). i want you to know that before anything else. everyone will be notified today, whether you're being asked to leave, entering consultation, or asked to stay. we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly. i had two options: cut gradually over months or years as this shift plays out, or be honest about where we are and act on it now. i chose the latter. repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead. i'd rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome. a smaller company also gives us the space to grow our business the right way, on our own terms, instead of constantly reacting to market pressures. a decision at this scale carries risk. but so does standing still. we've done a full review to determine the roles and people we require to reliably grow the business from here, and we've pressure-tested those decisions from multiple angles. i accept that we may have gotten some of them wrong, and we've built in flexibility to account for that, and do the right thing for our customers. we're not going to just disappear people from slack and email and pretend they were never here. communication channels will stay open through thursday evening (pacific) so everyone can say goodbye properly, and share whatever you wish. i'll also be hosting a live video session to thank everyone at 3:35pm pacific. i know doing it this way might feel awkward. i'd rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold. to those of you leaving…i’m grateful for you, and i’m sorry to put you through this. you built what this company is today. that's a fact that i'll honor forever. this decision is not a reflection of what you contributed. you will be a great contributor to any organization going forward. to those staying…i made this decision, and i'll own it. what i'm asking of you is to build with me. we're going to build this company with intelligence at the core of everything we do. how we work, how we create, how we serve our customers. our customers will feel this shift too, and we're going to help them navigate it: towards a future where they can build their own features directly, composed of our capabilities and served through our interfaces. that's what i'm focused on now. expect a note from me tomorrow. jack

English
31
8
122
31.8K
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@binarybits @aquinasofaquino They're fine, for now, but don't you ever think it's prudent to stash away some savings for a rainy day? Do you spend all of your income or do you save as well? Under your argument, your savings should be given to someone else because you don't need them
English
1
0
0
30
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@diegohaz @kodemdev I agree with Tomasz here, I also see this argument from Tailwind users that assume those that don't use it are lacking knowledge. Tailwind throws away the namesake feature of CSS—the cascade. That's not progress
English
0
0
1
23
Haz
Haz@diegohaz·
If you keep seeing that argument, have you considered it might be because you’re showing a lack of knowledge? Honestly, your previous reply did come across that way. I can’t teach you Tailwind on Twitter, but you can check the docs or ask an AI. If you show me a design system you’ve built along with the source code, I can learn it, critique it, and point out where Tailwind could help improve it.
English
2
0
0
50
Haz
Haz@diegohaz·
I've come to the sad conclusion that @⁠apply in Tailwind is a big anti-pattern. With enough complex utilities, your CSS can balloon to hundreds of kB, bloating the CSSOM and hurting runtime rendering performance, not just network. It’s a bummer because I was really excited to use the new @⁠utility feature to build framework-agnostic components, but it doesn’t scale well. Best approach is inline utilities as usual, plus a CVA-like library when you need reuse. I’m working on something to make that easier.
English
5
7
24
22.6K
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@diegohaz @kodemdev Embracing the cascade and specificity by using combinators and more than just the class selector. Semantic HTML/CSS scales incredibly well, especially with modern CSS
English
0
0
1
36
Haz
Haz@diegohaz·
@kodemdev I'm talking about performance. Since atomic CSS, when used well, can drastically speed up your site (for example, Facebook reportedly went from hundreds of MB to a few hundred kB after switching from native CSS), what alternative do you suggest?
English
3
0
2
230
Michael Arnaldi
Michael Arnaldi@MichaelArnaldi·
@frederic_ooo It turns into writing go in ts also there is a difference between exceptions and business errors, you handle the latter you bubble up the former. A result type also fails to represent how to handle errors, basically it would only lead to a more verbose code without doing enough
English
1
2
17
1.4K
Michael Arnaldi
Michael Arnaldi@MichaelArnaldi·
Hot take: errors as values doesn't belong to TypeScript. > But you made Effect! > Yes, exactly. Effect isn't errors as values, it's programs as values.
English
6
11
174
13.5K
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@WhiteWhaleCap @cafreiman So socialists would rather have a lower aggregate standard of living? Because that's what it means if goods and services are provided less efficiently in society
English
0
0
0
4
White Whale Capital
White Whale Capital@WhiteWhaleCap·
@cafreiman A socialist wouldn't claim the government would provide these more efficiently. They'd be content with some inefficiency that benefit the whole of society.
English
2
0
2
107
Chris Freiman
Chris Freiman@cafreiman·
What’s the best argument for the socialist claim that government actors will provide private goods like groceries more efficiently than market actors that doesn’t assume that government actors are more altruistic or rational than market actors?
English
42
5
90
5.1K
devwrite
devwrite@devwrite_·
@royalicing @ThePrimeagen @SystemSculpt I don't think this is necessarily the case. Shouldn't it be possible to achieve 100% coverage without mirroring the implementation (i.e. black box test)?
English
0
0
0
8