There's a huge chasm between VSCode-with-all-kitchen-sinks and 120 Hz. "Never freezes for more than 300ms" is a very valid point on that spectrum, and nowhere near the need for GPU acceleration.
I remember part of the discourse being that this was a much needed wake up call to web-devs for their relentless reliance on micro packages like left-pad. Part of it was the culture of publishing packages for the sake of popularity and github stars. Part of it were also devs insisting that implementing anything that could otherwise be installed through NPM was "reinventing the wheel". Today I work with a lot of devs who still prefer using micro packages, regardless of their simplicity, because to them it means "less maintenance". Go figure.
This seems like it's already trying to solve too many problems at once. A CMS by definition is just an UI layer for inserting data in a DB, respecting the defined schema(s). Anything else would be getting in my way.
Except PhpMyAdmin is not meant for “content editors”. The point here is that a CMS shouldn’t be concerned with things like “themes”. Surely there’s a sweet spot somewhere.
What do you mean? Many CM systems allow things like custom per-article themes (common in news publishing systems) and multi-channel / multi-site publishing.
I believe that to people like Magnus it goes beyond "the job becoming boring" and his stance alludes directly to Fischer's disillusionment with the game – lacking in genuine and human creativity.
That's exactly why Magnus is now championing Free Style Chess, originally promoted by Fischer: you randomize the starting position of the pieces, which makes traditional opening theory useless. That cuts away a lot of the memorization and introduces a lot of new creativity.
It's not entirely surprising that both of these world champions saw that as a way to keep the game interesting.
Something else that Magnus sometimes does, even against fellow grandmasters, is play a completely ridiculous opening that's obviously bad. But more importantly, it's different, and all the existing opening theory goes out the window.
Including his recent "Berlin regret" against Caruana (which was more about bringing a position back into boring territory than trying for chaos, admittedly).
I read the above and it made me feel he was annoyed that Chess is a strategic zero sum game? "preparation and memorization than pure skill and innovation" - I think (at least in the zero sum strategy game I love) - prep + data IS the skill and innovation, how do you prep and where do you get your data, that's the joy of the game?
I understand, but isn't the opening decision tree depth IS the zero sum nature playing out?? the depth of the opening decision tree exactly what you'd expect in a zero sum strategic game? In any highly competitive zero sum environment (poker, business, etc.), players will inevitably explore and optimize every available edge, ESPECIALLY preparation? That was the fun of it I thought? Any arms race in opening theory is a natural consequence of the zero sum structure... if memorizing 25 moves gives you an edge over someone who memorized 23, the competitive pressure forces everyone deeper into preparation?
Yes and that's exactly what's happened. It's also happened in various sports as we've optimised strategies there. The argument is just that the sum of all these marginal gains is a worse spectacle and less fun for practitioners. And so those practitioners propose other formats like Fischer Random or shorter time controls to rebalance things.
Less fun for the players who lose because they don't like that way of playing? If you enjoy that way of play, winning would be a lot of fun I'd suspect? He created a new way of playing I read? His strengths (calculation?) matter most, his weakness (willingness to grind opening theory) is neutralized, nobody else can gain the preparation advantages that were starting to threaten his dominance? What is "pure chess"? The more I read about this guy the more I feel he's both... a bit lazy and a sore loser?
Nearly no player enjoys the grind of memorising opening theory. But every high level player has to do months of it because every other player does months of it. It is a negative-sum equilibrium for them. Prep can be neutralised with prep but no chess player got into the game because they enjoy it.
So any variation that eliminates the need for preparation is a gain for both the winner and the loser.
And Magnus Carlsen is not a sore loser, he can both out-prep and out-calculate anyone in the world; hence the credibility of him suggesting that classical is not fun is higher than anyone else’s - because they could be called sore losers…
To be clear: the sore loser guy I was calling was the guy who invented is his own chess style, not Magnus! I would have thought most players got deep into the game because they enjoy winning, I like playing the games I win anyway, but the games I play and win are always zero sum strategy games that require a lot of research. The NBA is like the most research and prep filled strategic zero sum game right now I think, people seem to still love watching and playing basketball.
To be clear myself: I work in sports analytics, I have chosen my side of history and I'm happy with it, but there are plenty of people who _don't_ like modern basketball. There are also plenty of people who don't enjoy the increasingly conservative tactics in the Premier League in soccer etc. I don't think there's any harm in having empathy for those points of view. Either way, perhaps we can agree there are different layers of preparation: one is attending to a specific problem in front of you and putting in the work to solve it. Another is more pure practice so that you can problem solve in the face of emergent situations in-game. Some people find the former very satisfying, some people the latter. Some people are lucky to excel at, and enjoy, both.
What's your game of choice, out of interest? I personally love Magic: the Gathering because it is a brilliant balance of preparation ahead of time, whilst rewarding quick thinking in game (with a fair dose of variance).
I think we CAN agree on that!!! 1000% I was just annoyed at that guy when I read about him because it just seemed like he didn't want to spend the time up front, and I actually get it, but that's what it takes to play at the world class level I think? Business is mine. Love it to death, not for everyone and not everyone likes to play it the way I do, especially not those I play against, but I love to play business as a strategic zero sum game, I spend a lot of time studying it, practicing it, researching my plays etc. And to your point, many many people who like to play business hate modern business as it's all research grind at this point. (outside of HN and some youtube, it's how I spend almost all my time)
It's hard to defend Fischer because he was a massive weirdo. Magnus has had far more skin in the game long term though, so I'm generally willing to hear him out.
I mean, massive weirdo, and maybe not Magnus... but he didn't invent Fischer Random Chess because chess was too hard for him. He dominated for several years, right? The game wasn't as advanced or computer prep dominated as it is now, but he seems like he was arguing from a very similar position and mindset as Magnus.
Sure, this is just cause and effect. Doing months of work for a World Championship cycle or slogging through 20 moves of supercomputer prep is boring _because_ it impoverishes the creative side of the game. I'm just saying a lot of people here probably recognise the same pattern between the magic of computing in their youth and the reality of a lot of enterprise tech jobs.
Nielsen was mostly concerned with labeling himself a “guru” to boost his consultancy firm. The idea of user-driven design goes all the way back to the late 60s with the rise of Participatory Design.
I never really got the hype around Arc so I see how Dia is already a much more focused product with a more ambitious pitch. That still can't hide the fact that this major pivot is most likely motivated by their investors.
It almost always means bloat though, because any library that’s not updated in the span of a year is considered “abandoned” and succumbs to feature creep.
Wow that's one awkwardly pompous introduction. Nevertheless Zed never fails to impress. Aside from all the AI fireworks it really goes to show how building software "from scratch" pays off in the long run.
reply