This will supplement two of ChatGPT's larger deficiences: math and the veracity of its output. It'll be interesting to see how they price this integration, and how long OpenAI will maintain the $20 pricing for ChatGPT+.
Yeah if it keeps improving at this rate $20 for ChatGPT+ will be absurdly low. I can see a future where both this is $100+ per month and the top tier of Copilot is $1000+ per month.
You can still throw in something like Vue later, easily. It is one script tag away. That is what most do not get. You can go the traditional template rendering way for as long as it serves you well and then you can still have interactive components, when you really need them.
I was recently writing raw html and the typesystem compared to js components (aka JSX) is... just not there? I hate coding without proper autocomplete.
Yep. My experience has been that you can start with a wonderfully simple tool, but you end up jamming in dynamic behavior because users today want it and expect it... even in "simple" internal LOB apps.
Updating the UI in response to user value input and state changes in real time: error messaging, validation, presenting more relevant additional inputs, formatting, etc.
How much of a usability win is making things “real time?” Submitting a form and having the server do validation and render the error messages can feel just as fast. Plus, if you use the correct HTML input types the browser will handle the most obvious validation without any JS.
You have to do validation on the server anyway. Why do it again on the front end?
You don’t have to do all validation on the server side.
Did the user forget to fill a mandatory field? Is this phone number actually even possible? Does this zip/postal code exist? Is the age entered too low to create an account? Is the password long enough? Does it meet all the requirements. Can we dynamically show which requirements it doesn’t meet.
Even email, which you will want to verify by actually sending an email, can have some basic front end checks (is there an @ in the email entered by the user).
In fact, I bet the vast majority of validations can in fact be done in the front end in real time.
Client-side code is subject to potential manipulation. No validation you perform there can be a guaranteed truth for the server-side. Thus you cannot replace validation on server-side with validation on client-side.
You had all this (most often as free & open source jQuery plugins) 10 years ago.
Honestly, 99% of webapps today are 2 very interactive pages (which could often be developed in jQuery anyway) + bunch of generic datagrids & forms we have seen many times since the introduction of <form> and <table> tags decades ago.
While this could be achieved on the frontend with jQuery + plugins (or even vanilla JS, let's be honest) I think you're not remembering how cumbersome and error-prone building forms / complicated flows was without a dedicated framework. Speaking from experience, I believe Backbone.js was the first time I felt confident building state based UI on the web. Newer frameworks (first Angular, then React/Vue since then) have upped the stakes.
Honestly, my problems as a developer generally aren't with the frameworks (I'm mostly defending Vue here, as I find it predictable and easy) but with the build tools, which have gotten a bit out of hand and always feel brittle.
Personally, I think the main problem with jQuery was .data instead of having proper state management. If we used jQuery just as a library and not the centre of everything without any layer above, we might be perfectly ok with it even now in 2023 for everything that's 100* simpler than GMail (which most of webapps are).
Verbosity is hardly the problem these UI libraries/frameworks solve. They establish idioms for data flow and composition.
The UI component model’s data flow might vary between libraries, but they’re all generally opinionated and fairly consistent internally. The equivalent in “vanilla JS” can easily become unwieldy even with a lot of discipline, because the underlying APIs are designed with the view as the source of truth. That’s almost always the opposite of how you’d want to design a system with more than a very small amount of complexity. But that’s where inertia will guide you because there isn’t even a notion of state that doesn’t reference the DOM etc.
Once you’ve succumbed to this even partially, composition becomes incredibly difficult because the underlying model leaks implementation details. Tangling them is not just easy, it’s the default. Avoiding tangling them means basically developing a UI library with its own opinions and idioms. Which maybe you want that, but most people are building something else.
Untangling them is an enormous task. I’m maintaining an application that began in the era when this was common, and picked up some notion of components along the way. Even just understanding how things get invoked can take hours or days tracing app code and its interaction with implicit state in the view, and that’s with two years of familiarity with the code.
I don’t even like React or several of its idioms. But stuff that takes me hours or days would take minutes to understand with just the basic assumptions React or any other component library would afford. I can’t speak for any specific commenter, but I think this is the kind of “scale” most UI devs mean when they discuss it in those terms.
And granted, the critique that many things don’t need the scale they take on—that they add incidental complexity to fit a library/framework’s model. That can certainly be true, but I think the “vanilla JS” camp really underestimates how steep that cliff is and how quickly many projects can run off it.
Facebook API is today very granular and a lot stricter, in fact their system is borderline onerous for developers. They've obviously learned from the Cambridge Analytica situation, and I understand the need for the requirements, but unfortunately it also stops all smaller projects.
The discourse regarding this incident is deranged. Despite all the resources put into teaching intellectuals and academians to exercise critical thinking, they still believe the most absurd claims without any evidence.
The claims I've seen circulating are all insane, such as that Russia did it to avoid being found guilty of contract violations or that they did it to attack the Norway-Baltic pipeline. Note that the Nord Stream pipelines' total capacity is 150+ BCM, whereas the Norway-Baltic pipeline is only 10BCM NG - less than 1/10th.
Russia has gained zero, whereas EU countries have removed an internal pressure point, and the USA has gained a larger energy share. I don't know who sabotaged the pipelines, but the superficial blaming of Russia without any evidence should be criticized.
Lastly, I detest all attacks and invasions of sovereign entities.
Cui bono? The argument about "who benefits" is going to go on for quite a while, but I'll agree with you that this doesn't seem to benefit Russia at all. If all actors involved were perfectly rational, Russia would be near the bottom of my list for suspect.
Of course, all actors are not perfectly rational, and Russia is notably irrational at the moment, so I guess they can't be eliminated from the list entirely. Still, I don't consider them the most likely.
Vlad is very far from rational these days. Gazprom was sending out pictures of their 'oil leaks' earlier this month [0] in a very obviously mocking way. That Vlad would intentionally sabotage the pipes to thumb his nose at the Germans is more than likely to me. Nothing about this war has made any sense for Vlad.
The only thing that does make sense to me is if Vlad is trying to use the destruction of the pipe as a way to get sanctions lifted. The pipe and compressor stations that may have been destroyed are quite difficult to replace without the help of Russia. So Vlad may be trying to use his second-to-last card [1] to get the Germans on his side again.
To you and I, that's obviously not going to make the Germans be on his side. But Vlad isn't really playing with a full deck anymore (sorry for all the card related metaphors). Blowing up the pipes is a 'cunningly dumb' idea that kinda fits with end-stage regimes like his.
The US is already exporting everything it possibly can as fast as Europe can accept it. The US ain't no saint, but the energy angle isn't a plausible motive.
...think about this for a second. There's supply, and then there's demand.
I live in Appletown, where there are two orchards and three cider-making operations. I run one of the orchards and make X apples per year, it's a fixe amount. My competitor makes ~X apples per year.
Now a giant bomb is dropped on my competitor's orchard. I can still only sell X apples per year, as that's all I can currently make. However, do you think the price of my apples will go up or down?
In this scenario, shipments from your competitor's orchard have already been halted for a month. The market has already priced in the loss, and burning down the orchard itself doesn't change anything. Nord Stream hasn't transmitted any gas since August, since Putin has been gamely claiming that it needs new pumps which, coincidentally, can only be achieved via the lifting of sanctions.
It certainly highlights the vulnerability of undersea pipelines to sabotage. If Russia had written off a restart of NS(1/2) this move further destabilizes the large EU economies, introduces fear and uncertainty into the political theater and sows discord between allies.
Any of the highly sophisticated players could have rendered the pipeline useless without this explicit show of force. A simple reversing of the cathodic protection undersea would permanently degrade kilometers of pipeline. There are dozens of proposed scenarios that would permanently damage both pipelines while maintaining at least the semblance of reasonable doubt.
So the "critical thinking exercise" is not just who gains from the NS destruction, but who gains from this flashy, public show of force.
At this point the "China Theory" that this forces Russia over the barrel on pricing is as good as any.
(Disclaimer - I think Russia totally did it, but no one here knows).
Russia was searching any possible excuse to not deliver gas well before this incident, and had stopped delivering already (from a failed turbine and missing spares from Siemens to complicated payment methods). There were public threads to not deliver gas during the winter also: cfr. "it will be a long winter" video.
Negating those informations, and the fact that rationality is no the first thing that comes to my mind, when I think of Putin's actions, cannot be seriously called "exercise critical thinking".
Of course it should be carefully analysed, but asserting "it was USA" is a long shot.
Russia lost a bargaining chip though with this. Before they could hold it ransom. With the pipe being destroyed - they can’t use it as a bargaining chip. It’s just gone.
It doesn’t make sense for Russia to destroy its own pipelines when it controls the valves…
This is like me having a farm where I have all my food - I decide to not sell as to create an incentive for people to do what I want. Am I going to burn down my farm and lose that as a bargaining chip? Why would I do that? That doesn’t benefit me at all…
No. Debt owed to China is less than 10% of Sri Lanka's total debt. And it owes a lot more to western nations/institutes.
I'm still shocked how this clearly unsubstantiated claim continues to circulate. The so called "China debt trap diplomacy" is a phenomenon mostly fabricated/promoted by columnists with a clear agenda.
A lot of the debt is not even disclosed, so your 10% number, particularly from a country such as Sri Lanka which has some extremely corrupt leaders, should be taken with a fistful of salt. America and Europe have stringent anti-corruption laws when dealing with both domestic and foreign entities. China has none of that, and in fact, it does not care or raise human rights or other ethics concerns when lending to countries (on questionable terms and often in secret with no transparency or accountability). To add to the opacity, China does not publish any details of such lending, whereas a lot of American and European lending is done through institutions that operate with a much higher level of transparency.
Nothing of that sort. Repeated investigations of Chinese debt by different groups yield the recurring theme of confidentiality, very high interest rates over very compressed repayment periods that border on predatory, non participation in Paris Club (which exists to resolve debtor nations' problems in an orderly, reasonable manner), extensive use of cash collateral in offshore accounts... All of them very much against modern and international norms, and extremely secretive.
He, undoubtedly, overpaid for Twitter. Also, the blue-check allows key users to distinguish themselves and is one major reason that "notable" people are using Twitter for essentially all their communications. Elon's plan to diminish the blue-check by giving it to anyone who has verified themselves by buying Twitter Blue would be very destructive and hurt Twitter's moat.
-- Edit --
Actually, disregard the blue-check comment. I oversold it. A blue-check is actually not that important.
I kinda doubt it. Notable people were using Twitter long before blue checks were a thing, and although people threaten to leave twitter for other platforms, they usually come back.
Instead, I think his ideas for blue check verification won’t happen because blue checks are unofficially a carrot that Twitter can hang for brands that spend on their ad platform.
I wasn't even considering the people who threatened to leave in response to Elon's takeover - the true number would be inconsequential.
> Notable people were using Twitter long before blue checks were a thing
True. Now that I think about it, I most definitely oversold it. Blue-check is a nice to have benefit but notable accounts are still today religiously using Twitter despite not being verified. I think I was focusing too much on the journalist clique on Twitter and their excessive desire for a blue-check.
Overpaid? There’s a good chance he can 10x Twitters value. He could make the previous 10 year business model look embarrassing. There is so much low hanging fruit out there to improve. The management/board of Twitter has been a train wreck.
He could maybe do different colored "verified" (maybe green?) checks.
Obviously anyone with a blue check is going to be inclined to defend the exclusivity of it, but that's the problem. There are also notable people who aren't verified because they didn't jump through Twitter's hoops to become verified.
Personally I'd like to see real human verification and filtering based on "real human" and I'd pay for something like Twitter Blue if it had this. Sam Harris recently interviewed Eric Schmidt (former CEO of Google) and he had a very interesting and related point which was free speech should be just for real humans, bots don't have such rights. Unfortunately it seems that there is Blue Checkmark land and then spam land for the rest of us. If it kills Twitter for certain people to lose their status symbol, well, it would have killed Twitter in the long run anyway by maintaining it.
