But as I read the OP it is that he objects to the barrier of entry. He would prefer (possibly very harsh) rate limiting over the hassle of registrering an account. Maybe combined with a weak "nag" screen.
It might be hard implementing in a bulletproof way as IP restrictions are easy to circumvent. But it might be "good enough" to drive more adoption.
I'm a bit on the fence. It would be an interesting experiment.
I did that at home. But I needed to try several KVMs until I found one which was stable. And I hate all the cables.
I agree that the industry hates its consumers and likes to mess things up. CEC never always quite the same. Not supported on many GPUs etc.
I do not want to appear to condone LG. But actually (sorry!) some supoort[0] it using DDC side channels (0x50 rather that 0x51). But I agree it is painful. Yet I prefer it over my cable spaghetti.
Most people are unaware that the should buy a monitor with USB and DP-Alt mode. The same people are also unaware that they should ensure the same for the laptop they are buying.
Lower prices are always nice. But such things can be found at reasonable prices. I think awareness is a larger problem.
I am happy enough with the built-in speakers. But I do agree that line level aux out on the back would be nice.
What a great idea. It should be obvious and easy but DDC commands are hard to find and should be documented better.
I have a Dell U4323QE in the office and look forward to trying this out. I wondered if it was the same DDC commands so I googled a little and found this gist (concerning DDM):
Totally out of fashion today but think of TN3270. Rather than "streaming" they were forms based and heavily keyboard driven.
This could easily be mimicked by a GUI but keyboard shortcuts has become an afterthought.
I still today meet users missing those old workflows. But they express it as "old text interface" aka TUI. If you listen to them you realize they mean blazing fast and shortcut driven. When you work with data entry you care about speed - not animations.
Any beginner likes eye candy. The veteran has stopped caring.
Many US buses have a bike rack on the front that can hold 2 or 3 bikes which allows for easy bike-bus travel. I don’t think bringing the bike inside the bus is an option anywhere.
The bike is for biking. Of course it is annoying when people bring it on the bus. Or park it in front of my door.
The bike on the metro is not rare because it is annoying. People do simply not have that much tact. It is more rare because people bike those distances and you pay extra on the metro. It is free on the S-Train which also covers longer distances - hence more bikes.
I find bikes annoying in general as well. But that is because they are usually attached to a human.
The point was that it can actually work.
It is not all of nothing. It is an integrated system which actually works.
This was a reply to a comment which claimed that bikes could not work in a large city with a lot of bikes and public transportation.
The same people often argue that bikes cannot work in cold weather.
I respect your opinion and especially your honesty.
And at the same time I hope that you will some day be forced to maintain a project written by someone else with that mindset. Cruel, yes. But unfortunately schadenfreude is a real thing - I must be honest too.
I have gotten to old for ship now, ask questions later projects.
I'm in camp 1 too. I've maintained projects developed with that mindset. It's fine! Your job is to make the thing work, not take on its quality as part of your personal identity.
If it's harder to work with, it's harder to work with, it's not the end of the world. At least it exists, which it probably wouldn't have if developed with "camp 2" tendencies.
I think camp 2 would rather see one beautiful thing than ten useful things.
100% not what Camp 1 is or does. Their #1 goal is make it work. It is your #1 priority. So quite the opposite, Camp 2 will spin and make 100 "useful" (not) abstraction with the slickest imaginable code doing things you go "OMFG, how on Earth did you come up with this, insane" while during that development Camp 1 shipped 37 new features for its customers
Customer pays me to make it work, not make a pretty thing that doesn't work and is over budget - but pretty.
I optimise for "make it work", that's what the deal says.
If there's extra time, I might go to step two which is "make it pretty". Meaning that I go through the code and see that it's all good and proper if we need to add features later on.
> I think camp 2 would rather see one beautiful thing than ten useful things.
Unashamedly, I would, but this is a false dilemma. We can have ten beautiful and useful things.
The thing that drives the camp 2 folk crazy is that often it would have taken no extra effort (or perhaps even less effort overall) to make a good version of the thing but the people who made thing simply couldn't be bothered.
The attitude you're describing here has led directly to our world being full of profoundly disappointing objects that proliferate because they meet a minimum bar of usefulness.
People don't like the minimum bar. They'll take it if it's the only thing on offer, but they like better things.
>the people who made thing simply couldn't be bothered.
There is nothing I despise more than someone who doesn't care.
I remember reviewing code once, a C++ class that allocates new objects on the heap, but was lacking cleanup code to delete these objects.
"It doesn't matter if the memory leaks. Those methods rarely get called."
And he was right, during the lifetime of the application it would've likely leaked only kilobytes worth of memory. But it would've taken very little effort to write cleanup code.
I believe those that take no pride in their work will never amount for anything more than mediocrity.
I don't get how camp 1 can ship more than one version (do they jump teams/companies each time?). If your code is immovable mess then how do you add features/fix bugs in time?
I think I fall in camp 1.5 (I don't fall in camp 1 or camp 2) as in I can see value in prototyping (with AI) and sometimes make quick scripts when I need them, but long term I would like to grow with an idea and build something genuinely nice from those prototypes, even manually writing the code as I found personally, AI codebases are an hassle to manage and have many bugs especially within important things (@iamcalledrob message here sums it up brilliantly as well)
> I think camp 2 would rather see one beautiful thing than ten useful things.
Both beautiful and useful are subjective (imo). Steve job's adding calligraphy to computer fonts could've considered a thing of beauty which derived from his personal relation to calligraphy, but it also is an really useful thing.
It's my personal opinion that some of the most valuable innovations are both useful and beautiful (elegant).
Of course, there are rough hacks sometimes but those are beautiful in their own way as well. Once again, both beauty and usefulness is subjective.
(If you measure Usefulness with the profit earned within a purely capitalistic lens, what happens is that you might do layoffs and you might degrade customer service to get to that measure, which ultimately reduces the usefulness. profit is a very lousy measure of usefulness in my opinion. We all need profit though but doing solely everything for profit also feels a bit greedy to me.)
Neither is the original assertion. There are thousands of examples of exceptionally well crafted code bases that are used by many. I would posit the Linux kernel as an example, which is arguably the most used piece of software in the world.
> [...] one beautiful thing than ten useful things
They didn't say beautiful/crafted things were not necessary.
They were critiquing viewpoints that all code needs to be.
Even if we (for humorous purposes) took their 1 in 10 ratio as a deadly serious cap on crafting, 10% of projects being "exceptionally well crafted code" would be a wonderful world. I would take 1% high craft to 99% useful! (Not disjointly of course.)
People with this attitude never end up maintaining anything. When projects get to that phase the work becomes too difficult and boring for them, so they decide that they've "set the team up for long-term success" and move on to a new opportunity.
reply