Uber does offer a similar setting in some markets. It took a while to roll out in the US because of legal uncertainties. So Uber waited until the feds gave them a promise that no action would be taken related to offering a “women only” or “women preferred” feature.
If you’re using Alpine already, then is there a good reason to use HTMX over alpine Ajax? They both look quite similar to me, but I don’t do enough front end work to tell the difference.
Htmx offers more flexibility than Alpine Ajax. Here's an example: htmx allows using relative selectors, which allow you to target elements relative to the triggering element in the DOM tree. This gives us a lot of power for swapping in pieces of UI without having to make up ids for lots of elements.
I have a blog post in the works for this feature, here's a small code sample I made to show the idea:
I have tried to use exclusively each of the libraries to better understand their limit, overtime I got to the following observations:
- htmx is more straightforward (because a lot of the magic basically happening in the backend) and helps a lot to keep some sanity.
- Alpine shines when you need more composition or reactivity in the frontend. But it gets verbose quickly. When you feel you are reimplementing the web, it means you went too far.
For pagination, page structure, big tables, confirmation after post etc. I usually go with htmx. Modals, complex form composition (especially when you need to populate dropdowns from differents APIs), fancy animations, I prefer Alpine. (I probably could do that with htmx and wrapping it in a backend - but often more flexible in the frontend directly.)
To me, the main reason why I use these libraries, is what I write today will still be valid in 5 years without having to re-write the whole thing, and it matters since I have to maintain most of what I write.
> The real problem with Java in particular is you'd end up chaining calls ... and have no idea from the error or the logs what was broken from: a.b.c.d();
That’s been solved since Java 14. (5 years ago) Now the error will tell you exactly what was null.
And “soon” Java will have built in support for expressing nullability in the type system. Though with existing tools like NullAway it’s already (in my opinion) a solved problem.
Chaos testing is such an interesting idea. At my last job we didn’t have access to any of these tools. So I made a poor man’s chaos testing library for Java and spring services. At the application level we would inject random faults into method calls.
It doesn’t test nearly as much as the real tools can, but it did find some bugs in our workflow engine where it wouldn’t properly resume failed tasks.
Per 1 billion vehicle-km the US has 6.9 deaths and the Netherlands has 4.7 deaths. That’s obviously better much but I wouldn’t call it “problem solved”.
My guess is better road design means less miles driven by cars (as opposed to other, safer vehicles) and therefore fewer accidents overall, even if car crash statistics remain the same.
1. Bazel is still not widely used outside of massive monorepos. (because its such a pain to use)
2. Solar power will surpass wind power in the US to become the 4th largest source of electricity. https://eia.languagelatte.com/
3. Starship begins launching real payloads, achieves reusability of the upper stage, and successfully does a ship to ship fuel transfer.
4. Tesla stock has a major correction (>20%) as it becomes increasingly clear that Waymo, Zoox, AVRide, and various Chinese companies are significantly ahead in AV technology. And as it becomes clear that Optimus is a sham.
Chinese will always be irrelevant to the US car market as both political parties will block chinese vehicle sales on (valid) national security grounds.
Uber and Lyft stocks crash as markets realise the game is up - nobody can compete with Tesla who can afford to burn excess spare factory capacity driving cars directly off the line to start picking up passengers. Waymo might have good AI but can't possibly compete with Teslas unit economics.
> 20% is not a major correction. It just recently doubled. Even at price before it doubled wasn't considered undervalued, so anything < 66% down is not a major correction.
I am always intrigued by new SRS systems, though sadly most are just "simplified" Anki clones. I have always been tempted to throw my hat into the ring.
The biggest area for improvement is probably deck collaboration. Most SRS proponents often state that its bets to make cards yourself because the act of making the cards is a key part of the learning process. I don't disagree, but part of the reason that making cards your self is recommended is because the shared decks are, on average, terrible.
After that I would like to see more built in support for non front/back or cloze cards. There are a lot of other card types that you can make, but are difficult or impractical to do in anki. Things like "slow" cards, one sided cards, code/music/math/text cards. These can all be done in anki, but it's a pain.
Then support for card order/hierarchy/prerequisite an and encompassing graphs like what MathAcademy does.
And lastly, a web first experience. Anki is offline/local first. That has the benefit that you are always safe from being rug pulled. But there are a lot of places (like work) where local first does not work well.
Know personally in real life? No. But there are plenty of examples of people using Anki/SRS tools for interesting things outside of school or 2nd language. I’m firmly in the camp that SRS is widely underrated and underused for working adults.
Some examples would be Michael Nielsen, Gwern Branwen, Andy Matuschak and u/SigmaX (reddit - not sure his real name)
They'll always be "underrated" and underused because they're so damn unenjoyable.
Sure, we all need to study and learn things in life here or there, but the flashcardification of the process makes it boring and painful.
From my own personal experience trying it, I find the process to be too far removed from the practice of accomplishing what you are setting out to learn to do. An analogy might be like memorizing a recipe by using Anki cards and not physically cooking it versus doing cooking it a bunch of times without deliberately trying to memorize the recipe. For me, the latter is far more effective because you have your 6 senses of mnemonics to memorize what you are doing. I may not remember that I need 2 cups of flour, but I remember that I scooped my purple flour scoop twice and that the white contents felt powdery like flour and grainy like sugar. Even if I forgot the recipe my body would have smelled, seen, touched, weighed the material and I have all these physical clues to work with.
Learning by doing, experiencing, immersing is more of a "repetition that you don't even know you're doing" while Anki/SRS has the feeling of a chore and an obligation.
I always had the impression that the propellant transfer was the harder question than the heat shield. They have done a transfer demo from one internal tank to another, but they still need to test from one ship to another ship.
I only casually follow the news from r/spacex, but prop transfer is what I see generate the most discussion. It’s a hard requirement for all deep space missions. Where the heat shield could be refurbished between launches.
The heat shield may be a "we don't know how to do the physics" problem, where propellant transfer is a "complex integration of well understood components" problem. If the heat shield requires per launch refurbishment it cripples the colonization dream.
Deep space missions yes. But Starlink isn't deep space - and neither is the vast majority of commercial payloads.
Propellant transfer is relevant because it's vital for sending entire Starships to Moon and Mars - which are the exciting Starship missions. This includes Artemis. But commercially? Artemis contract isn't even a large part of SpaceX's revenue.
Why do you think transfer of propellant is so difficult? We do propellant transfer all the time in space. The only real different is that the liquid is colder and Starship is just plane bigger.
But we pipe around cold stuff in space internal to space ships already quite often.
What is the fundamental limitation that you worried about?
I would say the head-shield is far harder an an unsolved problem, specially with re-use. Refurbish is not economically viable, specially not after 1 launch. That would be against every design goal of Starship. It has never been demonstrated in a practical fashion.
Propellant transfer, with cryogenic propellants, can be done using cryocoolers. It's not too hard of a problem. Besides, Starship only needs prop transfer for Moon and Mars missions, but the later are fantasy and the former probably isn't going to happen either, and actually just regular LEO launches with a fully reusable rocket is where most of the money is anyway.
The heat shield is a huge problem though. Without the heat shield, there's simply no way SpaceX can use Starship to make money.
Heat shield reuse is a big deal for orbital refueling too, because it requires 12+ launches in a short time frame. If you don't have heat shield reuse then you need 12+ Starships and 12+ refurbishments per mission.
reply