Reading the intro, I feel like I got a good hint about what this is. It sounded like "local first git for teams, without the hell of sharing patches via email".

I don't know what gitea or forgejo are, so comparisons wouldn't help me.

The other day someone here coined JTPP - "Just the prompt, please", expressing preference for reading the prompt instead of the e-mail/article it produced. The reasons for that are rather obvious, but I think it applies to marketing copy in general.

With that in mind, I wonder what the original idea behind this project was - the "prompt" that someone got in their mind, which got them excited enough to build this. Reading the "original prompt" might make it easier to figure the product out. Marketing copy is "how we can make what we have look more alluring to people". The "original prompt" is directly answering "what we actually aspired to build".

"make a thing that works like github but doesn't need github or email"

I wrote that as a joke but now that I'm reading it... even a terrible prompt might be useful.

Changed "make a thing" to "describe a tool" and got a raft of text back that I couldn't be bothered to think about, because it's not my space. This jumped out though:

"## Existing things that almost do this (but don’t go far enough)

* Radicle – closest philosophically [...]"

So it seems to me that you succinctly described Radicle - at least well enough for an LLM to recognize it.

P2P Github

I can tell you. Forgejo is a git server (i.e. you can push to a remove that lives in a different machine) plus a web GUI that allows to list repos, list commits within a repo, navigate commits and files within a commit.

The license is Free and Copyleft.

You still have to run it on a server somewhere, which Nintendo can get shut down.

Nintendo (or whoever) will shutdown whatever users visit to download the thing they want gone. From a skim through the user guide, Radicle seems to only handle the dev/backend side of things and Nintendo wouldn't care that much about it. After all there are already several git mirrors of Yuzu, what was lost was the official "download this" page and the centralized Github bits (issues, etc), though other projects could like handle this bit just fine either as addons (Forgejo) or natively (like the Fossil SCM).

Nintendo can't shutdown your git server if it's running on a Raspberry Pi in your pantry, or a NAS appliance in your home office/basement.

As a matter of fact, Forgejo/Gitea are excellent choices for automatic mirroring of any Git repos you fear may be shutdown by DMCA shenanigans.

Right. Radicle would be one way to connect all these Raspberry Pis in many pantries together, and have them replicate each others repos. It also enables others to send patches, without first having to create an account on that Raspberry Pi in your pantry. And in case your Raspberry Pi is offline, others will just as happily serve your project, with cryptographic assurance that it wasn't modified.

Don't get me wrong. Power to you and your Raspberry Pi! Radicle invites you to join a network of people that solve the same problem as you do, and pool resources.

I wasn't shitting on Radicle - I think centralized Git is antithetical to the D in DVCS.

In what way is git antithetical to being distributed? Github, sure, but git itself seems fine.

The key word here is "centralized".

But if people can't find it, then they can't download the code or contribute to the project. And if people can find it, then there is no need to physically wrest your device out of your home: they'll just get your domain name taken away or your ISP to block the connections (at best, if not entirely shut you down).

That’s why you host over Tor with an .onion domain. Immune to takedowns.

Correct. Just ask the Silk Road guy…

They can get you arrested, and you wouldn't be their first.

Just like the MPAA is having people arrested for torrenting films?

It doesn't scale well unless there's a centralized entity you can go after that controls distribution.

I doubt it's "universal". Do coyotes and orcas follow this rule?

From Google:

> Male gorillas, particularly new dominant silverbacks, sometimes kill infants (infanticide) when taking over a group, a behavior that ensures the mother becomes fertile sooner for the new male to sire his own offspring, helping his genes survive, though it's a natural, albeit tragic, part of their evolutionary strategy and group dynamics

If you expect the browser to help you manage your various workflows beyond generic containers (tabs, tab groups), then you become tied into the browser's way of doing things. Are you sure you want that?

I'm not saying your hopes are bad, exactly. I'm interested in what such workflows might look like. Maybe there _is_ a good UX for a web shopping assistant. I have an inkling you could cobble something interesting together quite fast with an agentic browser and a note-taking webapp. But I do worry that such a app will become yet another way for its owner to surveil their users in some of the more accurate and intimate areas of their lives. Careful what you wish for, I reckon.

In the meantime, what's so hard about curating a Notepad/Notes/Obsidian/Org mode file, or Trello/Notion board to help you manage your projects?

shopping assistant was a specific example, but in the process of research, brainstorming, etc theres a bunch of different ways id like to see visualization and record of how i got somewhere, what was discarded, summary of what was retained, whats coming next, options for branching.

the web is a document structure, but browsing it doesnt need to be linear.

I'm with the grandparent comment.

> But even if a PM cares about UX,

How can a PM do their job if they don't *care* about UX?

I mean... I know exactly happens because I've seen it more than once: the product slowly goes to shit. You get a bunch of PMs at various levels of seniority all pursuing separate goals, not collaborating, not actually working together to compose a coherent product; their production teams are actively encouraged to be siloed; features collide and overlap, or worse conflict; every component redefines what a button looks like; bundles bloat; you have three different rendering tools (ok, I've not seen that in practice but it seems to be encouraged by many "best practices") etc etc

Oh, I agree completely with you, sorry if that wasn't clear. The PM should, must, care about UX. Still, they don't always do, or at least end up not caring eventually, for various reasons.

I'm just responding to this:

> what were your Product Managers doing in the first place if tech writer is finding out about usability problems

They might very well be doing their job of caring about UX, by using the available expertise to find problems.

It's a bit like saying (forgive the imperfect analogy): what are the developers doing talking about corner cases in the business logic, isn't the PM doing their job?

Yes, they are. They are using the combined expertise in the team.

Let's allow the PMs to rely on the knowledge and insights of other people, shall we? Their job already isn't easy, even (or especially) if they care.

That's more clear. Thanks.

Depends how old the whisky/whiskey is.

> is that a definition of schizophrenia?

In my limited experience interacting with someone struggling with schizophrenia, it would seem not. They were often resistant to new information and strongly guided by decisions or ideas they'd held for a long time. It was part of the problem (as I saw it, from my position as a friend). I couldn't talk them out of ideas that were obviously (to me) going to lead them towards worse and more paranoid thought patterns & behaviour.

Allegedly the next gen MBPs will have a touch screen. I think Apple have pushed a touch-enabled macOS UI out a year ahead of the hardware: maybe to iron out issues; maybe 'cos they could... I worry that we're stuck with this shit for a few more years, 'til the touch screen goes the way of the touch bar.

These rumors about touchscreen MacBooks have been going around for at least 10 years. At this point I don't believe any of it. Especially with how they sell keyboards for iPads.

Guessing: it's not Blink, but it's easier to work with than Firefox's engine. I know people fork FF, but I vaguely recall hearing the engine itself was harder to separate and integrate into other systems. I'm sure someone closer to the issues can correct me.

> Class names are "global mutable state". You can declare a class in one file, and other file can 'mutate' it.

You can do this in TypeScript and Ruby too.

> constants

Constants which you can redefine/shadow in scopes, and change the values of at runtime via JS.

They seem like variables to me.

> and change the values of at runtime via JS

No, you can't. You can set a new value and reevaluate everything.

I’m dumb and don’t understand the distinction you’re making.

    elem.style.setProperty(‘—var-name’, newValue);

… will set a new value for the “constant”. The element will rerender with the new value. You can animate/automate these changes and the element will continue to rerebder with the updated value.

To me, that justifies the name “variable” from the perspective of the CSS.