I agree, this seems to violate some of the most fundamental concepts of design like least-surprise and using grouping + alignment to give context to readers.
I firmly disagree and think this shallow take dishonors a pretty great man. While not perfect, Disney gave us the bedrock of American children's culture which has been a soft tool for the US for generations. Not to mention technology and other advancements. I'm not a Disney nut, but the man was one-of-a-kind and an impressive industrialist who instilled a great culture of innovation and a deep love of children and play. All things I value.
Yep, Disney was also a leading producer of racist tropes and content during Jim Crow. Historical clips of Mickey Mouse characters putting on minstrel shows with blackface alongside other racist stereotypes like crows can easily be found online[0]. Not to mention Song of the South[1], a film Disney produced based on Uncle Remus stories following slaves who happily live on a Georgia plantation. Disney has, of course, done their best to scrub these entries from history, but they played a major role in depicting racist tropes to kids for decades.
We all acknowledge that Walt Disney was a flawed person, I don't think anybody here disagrees. To me, what sets him apart from other corporate leaders isn't Walt's moral character, but rather his ambition to influence the direction of humanities development, both culturally and technologically. He was about a lot more than just making number go up.
One could argue that the company reoriented itself so purely towards children's art and kitsch because they needed to get themselves into a market segment where they could completely sanitize their output of these kinds of embarrassments.
Temporal is an AMAZING piece of software, however I don't believe it's a replacement for something more simple like Celery. Even if you write helpers, the overhead to setting up workflows, invoking them, etc. is just too much for simple jobs like sending an email (imo). I would love to work in a codebase that had access to both, depending on the complexity of what you're trying to background.
Agreed, and their DB migration workflow leaves much to be desired. By not storing a schema/DB state alongside code, Django depends on the current DB state to try and figure it out from scratch every time you run a DB command. Not to mention defining DB state from model code is inherently flawed, since models are abstractions on top of database tables. I much prefer the Rails way of composing migrations as specific DB instructions, and then getting models 'for free' on top of those tables.
Ruby and Rails are even better candidates. CSP, Background workers, and many other features that Django still lacks have been standard offerings for sometimes 10+ years!
Rails tries to more tightly integrate with the front-end which causes a lot of turn over the years. Django projects from 10 years ago are still upgradable in a day or two. Rails does include some nice stuff though, but I much prefer Django's code first database models than Rail's ActiveRecord.
Those Django models are a pain to work with if you have to access the database with any other tool that is not the original Django app. The only sane way to design a database managed by Django models and migrations is not using any inheritance between models or you'll end up with a number of tables, each one adding a few fields. Django ORM will join them for you but you are on your own if you ever have to write queries with some other tool.
I do agree that Rails' asset stuff has been giant pain over the years and has not kept up well. On the other hand, some apps that adopted separate Rails APIs and a separate (for example, React) frontend have been fine. You're right though that their opinion here added more headaches that necessary!
I’d agree in that I never things like Coffeescript but I think that Rails’ frontend solution since 7.0 of Hotwire has been excellent.
Being able to sprinkle just enough JavaScript on server rended HTML works really well. That you can now use it iOS and Android apps too makes it a simpler alternative to React IMHO.
I still much prefer server rendering in a monolith than dealing with GraphQL, backend for frontend and the complexity of micro services and distributed transactions.
BTW Hotwire and Hotwire Native are also options for Django too.
CSP is literally in this release, and background workers are intentionally not part of Django because you usually want to offload tasks to other nodes so your CPU can keep serving HTTP requests.
Edit: Background tasks for light work are also included in this release.
My point was that these features that are considered new and exciting have been standard in Rails for many, many years. There are many _other_ features that Django still lacks!
I don't understand your point about the workers, since you argue it doesn't belong in Django, but then in your edit mention they have been added. To be clear I'm talking about a worker abstraction, not actually running the workers pods themselves.
You said "that Django still lacks". Django no longer lacks CSP and background tasks.
Regarding my edit, you need to differentiate between different types of jobs. Sending an email is okay to do in process. Other (mostly async) Python web frameworks have implemented this, so the Django team probably felt compelled to offer the same.
Processing a user-uploaded file is much more expensive and shouldn't be done in the web process. If enough users upload files you're starving your workers for CPU.
Having worked in mortgage, two important points:
1. Credit unions and large banks do not have access to the same vault of loan products at the same rates as each other. Fannie and Freddie offer rate discounts at volume.
2. Credit unions typically do not run mortgage programs for profit, unlike big banks. This also contributes to their ability to eat your cost.
Tit-for-tat, if you reduce it all down, the Chase's and Wells' should be able to offer the better terms based on their agreements with GSEs/secondary markets.
In reality, no one is getting the product at face value, so opportunities like this will exist, and you can take advantage of it like in these cases.
There's also specialization and process optimization that big banks do that little CUs simply don't have the volume to justify. If someone buried deep within BofA or Chase or some other national entity looks at your stuff and says some factor that's marginal makes it a no-go for some product that's the end of it despite being offset by some other factor that's out of the ordinary in a good direction. At a credit union with the process broken down across fewer people the person making that decision is more likely to be able to see that the big picture math still works for a given product.
> At a credit union with the process broken down across fewer people the person making that decision is more likely to be able to see that the big picture math still works for a given product
You and OP agree.
Broadly speaking, if you have good credit (or are wealthy) you’ll get a better rate at a bank or mortgage specialist. If you don’t, you’re more likely to get approved at a credit union.
Credit unions, or small banks are likely to be helpful in some situations. When building our house 8 years ago we had a lot of trouble getting the construction loan mostly because of 1-2 bad comps in our area. One of the big banks turned us down with no recourse with an assessment that included a picture of the wrong lot (a farm field across the street). Another said no one should build a house under 3k square feet, so no to our plan.
Our little local bank was able to actually take a look and approve us.
> we had a lot of trouble getting the construction loan mostly because of 1-2 bad comps in our area
Yup. The broadest categorization is are you first minimizing cost or chasing approval. If the latter, you’re better off with someone intensely local. If the former, you want economies of scale. (Of course, one should still shop around even if focusing on approval first.)
> If you don’t, you’re more likely to get approved at a credit union.
Or you're buying well below your means but don't wanna get screwed into a different product because what you're buying is on the ragged edge of what can be bought with the lower cost mortgage product you want.
Some jerk at corporate for the big bank will punt because some rule he's supposed to follow says he ought to do that and it's not like he stands to benefit by not. The CU will probably squint and work with you.
> Or you're buying well below your means but don't wanna get screwed into a different product
This customer is looking for a lender who can and will eat costs for the relationship. That’s probably a mortgage specialist with a wealth management arm. The ones who require 25 to 35% down, but undercut the rates e.g. a credit union can charge.
> because what you're buying is on the ragged edge of what can be bought with the lower cost mortgage product you want
If you’re buying within your means, you shouldn’t be on the ragged edge of anything. You should be getting a cheap, plain mortgage from a lender competing for your business. Ideally conforming, and where the originator eats origination and closing costs.
>This customer is looking for a lender who can and will eat costs for the relationship. That’s probably a mortgage specialist with a wealth management arm. The ones who require 25 to 35% down, but undercut the rates e.g. a credit union can charge.
>If you’re buying within your means, you shouldn’t be on the ragged edge of anything. You should be getting a cheap, plain mortgage from a lender competing for your business. Ideally conforming, and where the originator eats origination and closing costs.
I can't put my finger quite on why, but your comment has a really not nice tone to it.
This customer is an otherwise normal-ish buyer who wants a fix and flip (like real fix, more than just cosmetic or "updating" or something like that) and they outnumber people who have any relevance to a "mortgage specialist with a wealth management arm" 100 if not 1000 to 1.
> This customer is an otherwise normal-ish buyer who wants a fix and flip
Are you referring to chrisBob? They aren’t the ones who made the “ragged edge” comment.
If you’re on the ragged edge of any financial product, you’re stretching something. If a customer is buying well within their means, they shouldn’t be pursuing—nor getting sold—a ragged edge product.
If, on the other hand, you’re doing a new build that isn’t optimized for resale, yeah, you may very well need to be on the ragged edge of a financial product. But I’d still evaluate that with scepticism if you aren’t financially stretching.
> they outnumber people who have any relevance to a "mortgage specialist with a wealth management arm"
Most home buyers don’t buy below their means. (They buy at or a bit above.)
Most home buyers should not be buying niche financial products, or optimising to be within tolerances of specific financial products.
Here's my take - art has value because of the context it is created in. The author's history, current events that we live through as groups, the reactions to a work being released, availability of materials - all these things are fundamentally human. I believe the reason art has value to us is because of the empathy and humanity that we all share despite major differences in beliefs.
That's not to say computers can't generate beautiful things, but unless you expand the context out to include the history of how a program that can create such art came to be, the output is not meaningful. This is why people do not react well to AI art made from simply throwing prompts at a model, or writing that does not feel like it has style, struggle, or any personal flavor.
I've always believed that LLMs will be able to fake it perfectly one day. But as a music fan, no fully computer-generated music will ever bring me the range of emotion and joy that another human's story and creative process through that story does.
If/when the AI music gets good enough, how will you know the difference? I find small artists on spotify all the time that I enjoy and there's no way to know anything about their creative process.
I think what you describe is different than the level of joy/enjoyment I seek and am talking about. Sure the AI song can be pleasing to the ear, much like a catchy pop song or jingle at a grocery store is pleasing to the ear.
The level of enjoyment I get from art is looking into the artist, their background, and anything else surrounding the work that can add meaning to it for me. Even small artists have these, and it's easier than ever to connect with artists on this level thanks to the internet.
All to say is sure at a glance it may sound/look the same, but that's only part of the joy of art.
It might be the age thing, honestly. I'm past 30, and recently I changed my cursor coloring to bright orange/yellow because I was genuinely spending time trying to find my white cursor on all my white backgrounds (Github, some text editors, Notion, etc). I think I'll continue to adopt some of these tools since they just increase comfort and remove strain for tasks I do 100s of times a day.
I have to switch to the black / white outline cursor or I will guaranteed lose my cursor. I also bump up the size significantly. Any time I use a coworker's computer station I lose the cursor for a second.
> Deciding to put your resources into something that only a really stupid criminal would be caught by gives you a false sense of security.
Interestingly enough, this is the premise for a lot of security in the physical world. Broken windows theory, door locks as a form of security in the first place, crimes of opportunity, etc.
But one should consider that in tech, the barrier to entry is a little higher and so maybe there are less 'dumb' criminals (or they don't get very far).
reply