If you're building a brand new, multi-language, multi-platform system that uses advanced open-api features - you will get bitten by lack of support in 3.1 versions of tooling for features that already existed and work fine right now in 3.0 tool versions. Especially if you're using a schema-first workflow (which you should be). For example, $ref's to files across windows/linux/macos across multiple different language tools - java, .net, typescript, etc.
If you need (or just want) maximum compatibility across tools, platforms and languages - open-api 3.1 is still not viable, and isn't looking like it will be anytime soon.
The solution here is to demand support for the most recent specification version from your tooling vendors. We (the OpenAPI TSC) sometimes hear from vendors "we're not moving quickly to support the latest version because our users aren't asking for it." So it's a catch-22 unless you make your needs known.
That's some serious forward thinking you've got going on with your date format there. I like it, I will be formatting all my years to 5 digits from now on.
OTOH, if it was just a typo - keep it to yourself, I don't wanna know. I'm all in - 5 digit years is a thing now.
> I like it, I will be formatting all my years to 5 digits from now on.
Please don't, it's highly irritating and usually just serves as a way to get people to discuss the leading zero rather than the subject they were really interested in in the first place. Leading zeros aren't a thing for a reason. It's about as useful as expressing the temperature in Kelvin.
Degrees Kelvin has its place, just as leading zeros. The Farmer's Almanac may have a point but if they do I can't see it and to put a leading zero in front of a year is just annoying. Think about it: how would you pronounce the dates from now on, are you really going to say 'Today is the 7th of november of zero-two-zero-two-five'? And why stop at one zero, really forward thinking people should start counting from the big bang up, that's as close as you can get to the Kelvin analogy, might as well take it all the way then.
Well said. Five-digit years are the Shadow the Hedgehog of rationalism. But he successfully derailed the thread and took the spotlight for himself, so... mission accomplished, I guess.
That was a synthesized example of how they insert years seemingly for the sake of formatting it weirdly. Now that I’ve pointed it out to you, next time you see this come up, ask yourself if anyone else would have mentioned a date in that context.
If I were them, I might end this comment with “I haven’t seen it done like that since I first got online, in around 01993.”
How many of those are actually (New England) zip codes? (and of the ones that are years, how many of them are "kragen is at it again" :-) Seriously, I've never noticed a thread on these and not found a kragen post as a trigger, but there's probably sampling bias in that - or maybe the intersection of "people who are into the Long Now Foundation" and HN posters is that small?)
If they aren't a thing, why are we talking about them? Clearly they're a thing. And not even an obscure thing. If you've ever used commonly used representations like ZIP codes, bank account numbers, or serial numbers you'll no doubt have encountered it before. And that even goes for dates. ISO 8601, for example, requires leading zeros, including for the year component. "1" is not considered a valid year under that standard. It must be represented as "0001". Granted, ISO 8601 only requires a minimum of four characters to represent the year, but expecting at least five characters is conceptually just as valid.
The question asks why we're talking about something that is purportedly not a thing, not a quest to find further confirmation of it being a thing. Swing and a miss.
RFC 2550 Section 3.1 has years from 0000 to 9999 as four digit but zero padded (so the fall of Rome was 0476). It then gets appropriately weird as it was published April 1, 1999.
this thing where someone performs an in group practice (the leading zero behavior) to garner interest, and then another in group member appears to try to recruit the curious person who takes the bait, that y'all are doing?
it's creepy cult behavior, and the "Long Now" name and framing focused on the infinite isn't helping
> That's some serious forward thinking you've got going on with your date format there. I like it, I will be formatting all my years to 5 digits from now on.
I like this.
I wonder what other conventions we could break by being "forward-thinking" in this sense.
Past tense for all proper names ("America was...", "Google was..."), prices pegged to energy equivalents (bananas were priced at 10 kWh). Describing life on the North American Plate under Alpha Centauri aligned constellations...
Those are all awkward. The date thing is just smooth.
This, with TypeScript strictness cranked all the way up.
MUI for the component library, plus Playwright for integration-testing and hoverfly to stub/fake/mock the backend, and Open-API to define the APIs between app -> bff -> backend.
This stack, plus claude-code, with the whole project fully automated (i.e. claude-code run all the parts easily) - is a literal productivity super-power. You can crank out entire complicated LoB apps, 10 - 30 pages of distinct, medium-complicated functionality in about a week, if not less - instead of weeks or months. Fully tested, production-ready codebase, not prototype-tier/vibe-code.
Unsurprisingly, minimising the amount of cognitive complexity is how you get the most out of LLM coding agents. So now have a theoretically repeatable way to measure cognitive load as contextualised to software engineering.
"micro-management" is not a useful concept, it's just a though-terminating cliche - let's get specific.
The problem with bad stand-ups is usually that they're just "personal status updates" by another name. They're abused as a way for team lead/project manager to "get a feel" for what individuals on the team are doing. Bad managers do this, because they're bad at their jobs. It's literally their job to know what people are doing, where they're at in their various tasks, what's going on with the project. They should be doing that all day, every day - when they're not "managing up". Gathering info in a 15 minute standup is both too short a feedback cycle and too long and nowhere near high enough bandwidth. It's also one of the major reasons stand-ups frequently go off the rails and end up taking so long, in badly run projects. Stopping those derailments is actually supposed to be one of their jobs and should be one of their main priorities during the stand up.
If you're stand-up involves going around the team, one person at a time asking "what did you do yesterday, what are you doing today" - that's a bad stand-up.
Stand-ups should be run from the sprint board - you run through all open tickets for the sprint, asking whoever is assigned to that ticket "what's up with that?"
Once you've gong the through the tickets, you're done. No looking forward to next sprint - that's for backlog grooming and planning sessions. No looking backward, that's for retros.
Don't get to talk during the stand-up? Then WTF are you even working on, and why isn't a story in the sprint? That's a question the manager should be asking and resolving - privately, outside of the standup.
Stand-ups are for "visibility of the team, for the team". Not for managers or other wanna be management.
Stand-ups are for telling your teammates "i unstuck this ticket this way, if that's an issue or there's a better way, hit me up after the standup" or "I'm going to be working on X and I don't know anything about that; anyone who can help me, hit me up after the standup".
If your stand-ups aren't like that they're bad stand-ups. Because your manager sucks. Don't worry - most managers suck. Deal with it, get over it; and stop blaming your tools.
micromanage (verb): control every part, however small, of (an enterprise or activity).
Managers who insist on stand-ups, insist on being present in them, and insist on managing the the backlog of tasks, assigning tasks, and forcing developers to estimate each one... are micromanaging.
No amount of, "I'm the friendly manager you can trust!" is going to melt the ice that your presence, as a manager, brings into a standup. You control salaries, promotions, and the stress levels of everyone there. It's going to be a conflict every time some one pushes back on your demands. Everything devolves into a status update meant to save face rather than be honest. It's wholly a waste of time.
> Stand-ups are for "visibility of the team, for the team". Not for managers or other wanna be management.
I agree.
Standups are a whole different game when it's a group of developers with a goal who need each other to meet it.
A good manager trusts their team to do this work themselves. If that means standups, cool. If they only need to meetup once a week as a group and people meet impromptu based on what they're working on... fine. As long as the team is shipping and meeting it's goals and milestones, all gravy.
So this tech has been out there for a while now and Vercel users are starting to see the benefits.
If this IS working out well, it won't be long before non-Vercel solutions start popping up.
AWS have already calculated the pricing model of lambda to take advantage of this massive inefficiency of their lambda product, they charge multiple customers simulatnaeously to use for the same hardware for the compute that would otherwise be sitting idle 95% of the time due to Lambda's basic design.
If large numbers of customers start using this model to reduce AWS' ability to double-dip, it's going to severely affect the profitability of Lambda, I wonder how AWS will respond?
But a naive increase will punish the majority of customers who aren't yet using a similar efficiency mechanism.
My guess, if this approach becomes popular - we'll see a whole new layer of complexity added to Lambda pricing making it even harder to estimate lambda costs ahead of time.
Plus, they're getting real world training data from everyone who either hasn't or doesn't have the ability to opt out of their stuff being used.
For my personal stuff, I don't opt out of training for this very reason. What's more, I resent Stack Overflow and Reddit etc. trying to gate-keep the content that I wanted to give to the community and charge rent for it.
I used to intentionally post question-answer style posts where I would both ask the question,wait for a while, then answer the question on both Reddit and Stack Overflow. I don't do that anymore because I'm not giving them free money if they're not passing some of the benefit on to the community
"... resent SO and Reddit trying to gatekeep": Am curious why you felt they were gatekeeping your content. They are free websites, and anybody who wants/needs to read your content, can.
"... not giving them free money if they're notnpassing some of the benefits ..." - Could you expand on the specific benefits you wanted them to pass on to the community? As a user, being able to find other people's content that is relevant to my current need is already a pretty solid benefit.
> For my personal stuff, I don't opt out of training for this very reason. What's more, I resent Stack Overflow and Reddit etc. trying to gate-keep the content that I wanted to give to the community and charge rent for it.
And AI companies don't charge for their stuff and charge rent?
If you're building a brand new, multi-language, multi-platform system that uses advanced open-api features - you will get bitten by lack of support in 3.1 versions of tooling for features that already existed and work fine right now in 3.0 tool versions. Especially if you're using a schema-first workflow (which you should be). For example, $ref's to files across windows/linux/macos across multiple different language tools - java, .net, typescript, etc.
If you need (or just want) maximum compatibility across tools, platforms and languages - open-api 3.1 is still not viable, and isn't looking like it will be anytime soon.