I've personally witnessed this:

1. My own manager now gives "expert advice and suggestions" using Claude based on his/her incomplete understanding of the domain.

2. Multiple non-technical people within the company are developing internal software tools to be deployed org wide. Hoping such demos will get them their recognition and incentives that they deserve. Management as expected are impressed and approving such POCs.

3. Hyperactive colleagues showcasing expert looking demos that leadership buys. All the while has zero understanding of what's happening underneath.

I didn't know how to articulate this problem well, but this article does a great job!

Same, the other day my manager sent a python script to create a jira ticket from some data to a team slack channel... as if no one else could figure that out or ask some LLM (sorry, I needed to vent)

Not sure if anybody mentioned Zoho Writer (https://writer.zoho.com)

I find it has more formatting features than Google Docs. Best of all: no Ads and document reading bullshit.

Thanks for sharing!

That's a lot of good news. Yet, I find it unsettling, that there's always going to be a minimal(after compressing/gzipping) amount of repeating code for every component.

>The self-contained nature of Svelte components makes it easier to treat them as atomic downloads and use them as needed. For example, you could get to a working UI extremely fast, and then download more components for below-the-fold or other pages in the background. This could work well with HTTP/2.

This is a huge win though - if I can load the first component extremely fast with no extra code.

Agreed. Generally, at any point of time I have two types of side projects going on:

#1. One that I am very clear about how to implement. One that I want build, ship and grab users as fast as I can. The real goal of the project is to get it out their in the market and make a tiny dent in the universe ;)

#2. One that I am not very clear about what it's gonna become. This one I want to take it slow. Experiment. Play with tech that I haven't had a chance to flirt with. The goal is to enhance my toolbelt and learn new concepts/tech.

Clearly keeping these projects separate helps me keep things clear. I quickly take decisions and move fast with one. I play and experiment a lot, no matter what the outcome is, with the other one.

Exactly. Side projects are often the best time to try out new tech. It's low risk.

My Show HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13857137) HexoPress earned 200 signups in a span of couple of days.

The traffic spike, remained a spike and didn't continue long. But it gained a few regular users. I run my own blog with HexoPress (http://hexopress.com).

http://hasjob.co - Used widely by startups in India. I find it clean and simple to use.

And the code is open-source!

Interesting, had just seen hasjob recently. It's by the hasgeek group, who also organize some conferences in India.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

What simple service would you pay $10/month for? #JustCurious

I prefer using `self` rather than `that`, for caching `this`.

Must be because I have a strong python background, but generally I find "self" makes more sense than a wild "that"!

I prefer to use a variable name that describes the type of the object in short.

So if my "this" object is actually an AwesomeTableWidget instance, I might do:

  var table = this;

I like the bit of extra documentation it provides... Or maybe this is just a remnant of all the C code I've written over the years, where it's common to have an object pointer as the first argument to a function and it's usually named like this.

negative votes here are totally unfair. I was pointing it out that the 'this' keyword is dangerous.

Why is it dangerous?

By using `self` you shadow a global variable which is a reference to the current context (window object) in which the code is executed.

Which should be accessed by window.self anyway so it doesn't really matter? There are so many poorly named global variables (top etc) that worrying about shadowing them seems meaningless.

It matters when you are running in workers in which case the window object does not exists

I always found context, i.e. let context = this, to be far more descriptive.

I use me. or if its a jquery object its $me. Probably because of my VB6 background. :-)

> history is really hard to move around

Is it? I think there's a way to get around that, if the protocol defines standards for verbs.

Of course, it's difficult and can grow wild, yet very much possible.

Yes, very soon. Will be working on it, right away.