I did love React for freeing me from AngularJS and I fully bought in its idiosyncrasies.
But now I just use it to get paid cause it's the standard and I know it well. In my experience keeping a large React codebase simple requires some skills that are clearly not universal.
If I have the choice I use Svelte because reactivity is much easier with it and it includes most of what I need to focus on building things.
> You could fix it by eg. `$state(undefined as unknown as HTMLElement)` but that's dumb
I think the generic is what you are looking for
class Wrapper {
dom = $state<HTMLElement>();
constructor(el: HTMLElement) {
this.dom = el;
}
}
the dom property will still be HTMLElement | undefined, if the 'undefined' bothers you have to add an exclamation mark and write "$state<HTMLElement>()!"
That's still a manual type assertion though, and if a regular usage pattern demands one, then the library is doing it wrong. Regardless of how you annotate it, every manual override reduces the effectiveness of the type system.
I am not a physicist but as I understand it everything inside the event horizon goes towards the singularity. No light can come from it for you to see the singularity
There's different answers here for different types of black holes. Effectively, significant enough charge or rotational speeds can create a second horizon where inside the black hole, allowing for stable orbits inside the event horizon. The issue is there's no real explanation we have that would explain why a black hole would have accumulated enough charge to create a large enough second horizon for there to be stable orbit for us to sit around in and look at stuff.
It's more complicated with rotating black holes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.6140 and some other papers contend it's potentially possible, but I'm not sure if black holes large enough to support this sort of thing can rotate fast enough.
Neither would let you see the singularity, though, because the singularity isn't really a physical thing, and even if it were, there's not really any reason to believe it would emit or reflect light.
But all of this is likely nonsense when it comes to practical reality, though - the very fact the math leads us to a singularity means we're almost certainly missing something, and spacetime is really weird past Cauchy horizons - trying to extend the math to figure out what is going on behind them is probably futile.
I would guess in the real world there's not really anything "interesting" here from a 'seeing stuff while alive in the black hole' perspective, but in theory there are some solutions where you could see whatever else is inside the black hole with you.
Most the time the only thing devs are allowed to interact with on the business side is a product/feature proposal with all assumptions already made.
If devs do not know the customers/users nor interact with them then they can't really argue about the proposal's assumptions, it defacto becomes a demand.
With experience devs see such proposals with skepticism. A significant amount of our output ends up being useless, no matter how fast or well it was built.
If you want devs to focus on value creation you have to make it their job, they have to take ownership of the whole thing. When a dev can help a user or a customer they tend to feel fantastic about it.
But truth is business people think devs are inept at doing that so most companies are structured in a way where the only agency devs have is how much time they have to do something.
> By the time the child had grown to an adult I wonder what kind of results their LLM would produce and the degree to which it might compare to what the child (now grown) would answer?
It very likely would not compare. Humans are shaped by their subjective experiences not by incoming data and you cannot know what a subject is experiencing solely through the incoming data (except if you have a theory accurately modeling the mind of the subject which is exactly what we are currently missing).
Your LLM won't experience the subject's heartbreaks, joy, grief, shame, hope etc. It will have heard and be able to talk about those, but it will not give accurate answers about what it felt like. Also it won't be able to predict/model accurately how the subject has been changed by those experiences so it could make very wrong assumptions about what the subject could/would do in the future.
Profit is one of the least ambiguous term possible.
If you pay yourself 100% of your revenue as income you don't make any profit which is your choice.
Profit is needed to sustain periods when revenue decreases and to act when an investment is needed (for pivoting, adapting to evolutions in the market,
scaling or whatever move the business has to make).
I don't see what is controversial here for a business, profit is like capitalism 101.
If profit was completely unambiguous, accountants wouldn’t have had to invent the word ‘EBITDA’.
The article rather ambiguously says:
> Profit is what allows the company to hire employees, grow, and sustain itself—it is quite literally what funds ongoing development
There’s a key distinction between reinvesting profits - using accrued money to develop or acquire capital assets that can grow the company - and expenses.
Cash used to ‘sustain the business’, ‘grow’ (increase sales) and ‘hire employees’, as well as ‘ongoing development’ in the sense of business development, is largely going in the ‘operating expenses’ bucket. It doesn’t come out of profits, it comes out of revenue and it reduces your profits.
But in the case of a software focused organization, engineering staffing costs and ongoing product development can absolutely be reinvestment into developing software assets - but with a lot of caveats.
So it’s certainly a little ambiguous for the original article to claim that all those things are ‘what profit is for’. Often they are preprofit expenses.
Both Divinity games already set the standard for cRPG, Larian Studios basically solved cRPG.
Indie devs that try something entirely different with the RPG genre will have a shot.
AAA studios have ZERO excuses, some studios like Bethsesda & Rockstar did what Larian is doing decades ago on their own genre and they still are reaping the fruit of this strategy.
I have to admit that I can't imagine competitors like Ubisoft pulling this off even if the life of the business depended on it
But now I just use it to get paid cause it's the standard and I know it well. In my experience keeping a large React codebase simple requires some skills that are clearly not universal.
If I have the choice I use Svelte because reactivity is much easier with it and it includes most of what I need to focus on building things.
reply