> I hope they start to-reinvent the way things are accessed so that I can stop being the product

Every token incurs a cost.

They are giving away a browser for free.

Do the math.

I tried to wrap my head around hooks, to effectively use them, and have a complete grip over the app, but I kept falling into the "magic" pit.

Things work, But I no longer know how they work.

Frustrated, I shifted to angular with signals, and now my cognitive load to understand data and events happening in the app are clearer and I feel I know what exactly is happening.

Not sure if this feeling is common, of helplessness with react.

I had exactly this problem. In my experience, the documentation over-simplified things to the extreme. Why are hooks not normal function calls? Where do they get their state? Why are they not functionally pure? "Functional purity" has been muddied too. It used to mean a function whose output depends only on its parameter values. But hooks are not pure, and thus components that depend on them are not either. But react still uses this language.

None of the official docs helped, but I found myself required to use it for work. And I faced confusing behavior I could not explain with the documentation. So I went on a deep-dive for a month or so. I didn't learn everything about react, but I got an intuition for how hooks work. That's not to say I like them. I'll use them now only if I have to, but at least I can. To my mind, hooks present a surface that's difficult to make sense of and hard to use.

Think of how context and useContext probably works.

Every fiber has a parent. I suppose the behavior, although possibly not the implementation, is that the ancestry chain is walked up until the nearest context provider is found. That will be the fiber associated with rendering context that provided the context.

> Why can the government or industry not build solar power at an industrial scale

Because there is always a good amount of loss in transmissions.

For solar, the best thing for grid and consumers is to have it very very close to consumption.

Ideally, a home with a good capacity battery, coupled with solar panels, and a smart grid connected controller that charges the batteries based on grid conditions of demand and supply, would be a great system. Costly, but good for the grid.

The transmission losses are trivial. 5-10% max. It makes no sense to isolate batteries behind meters. Sharing batteries on a neighborhood or suburban level would make far more sense. We are meant to be a society, not libertarians living in proximity.

That is so wrong, both your take about transmission losses and the expectations that there is enough land in a 'neighborhood' to do that.

> The government official who insisted that commercial AWS/GCP/Azure couldn't possibly be trusted with keeping the information will be keeping their head low for a few days then...

They absolutely cannot be trusted, especially sensitive govt. data. Can you imagine the US state department getting their hands on compromising data on Korean politicians?

Its like handing over the govt. to US interests wholesale.

That they did not choose to keep the backup, and then another, at different physical locations is a valuable lesson, and must lead to even better design the next time.

But the solution is not to keep it in US hands.

It has a paid version, which frightens me that future greatness of the software and eco-system may be over-shadowed by greed and control.

Only paid version has "private packages".

The free online version doesn't have private packages. You are, of course, free to run the compiler locally with as many private packages as your heart desires.

*paid version of an editor

The lack of this would frighten me that it would be neglected.

If there is a good, easy way to generate methane using atmospheric CO2, then, we could have a chemical battery in the form of methane, which is far easier to handle than Hydrogen.

But I wonder what the round trip efficiency of such a system would be. Current lithium batteries have it at around 80%

The key feature of hydrogen as energy storage wouldn't necessarily be round trip efficiency but cost effectiveness (compared to batteries) of long-term storage over months.

Think about transporting peaks of renewables electricity generation that are not economically usable at the time when they're produced to times when renewables produce too little to meet demand. (Mostly in regions where generation depends significantly on seasons.)

Methane is not abundant, as such. There are specific sources of it, mainly through manual agricultural processes, or in natural systems. Natural gas is mostly methane, I guess.

trump and his cronies would never accept that.

I think this is what Japan did initially. Announce a huge number, 500 bn I think, and then slowly trickle out the news that it will be over 10 or so years.

But that didn't sit well with trump. There was news immediately that Japan must invest the whole amount immediately to escape tariffs.

I'm not sure a single country will to the "invest immediately" thing, like at all.

In the same way politician outside of the US trust anymore what Trump says when it comes to economics, a lot of countries seem to have started to response the same way. I.e. speak with Trump like he did with them, do hollow promises, and then backtrack and/or circumvent them.

Also, appart from authocratic ones, no country can or should decide where private companies will invest.

The West has long been doing "industrial policy". At least since the end of WWII, and to some degree since before as well, but especially during the Cold War and even since then. You can say that the UK, France, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. were all autocratic all that time if you like, but most wouldn't. Maybe today more people would feel that having an industrial policy makes a country autocratic, but keep in mind that industrial policy is not usually practiced by putting a gun to a business' executives' heads -- no, industrial policy is often practiced via incentives and disincentives, with force being very tenuously indirect.

> autocratic all that time if you like, but most wouldn't

yeah because that is not how autocracy is defined

Having a policy and making incentives != promising a sum of investment to another country.

and EU isn't even a country, and all(?/most) EU countries have the budged strictly sitting with the senate, i.e. outside of the hand of any of the leaders discussing deals with Trump

the chance that anything like that will pass those Senats also isn't exactly high

and all of this is public knowledge, so either Trump is incredible badly consulted to a point you wonder if it's malicious or more likely he doesn't care, and only care about a meaningless legally void promise he can present now probably some way smaller immediate subset of the promised actions. And then a few years down it's the "evil other countries" which he knowingly pressured to give him hollow promises they legally can't give, instead of it's seemingly bad/incompetent deal making (if you assume the goal is to actually make working deals and not to rail up people to have excuses for increasingly more extreme actions).

> using a $10 knife that is only reasonably well sharpened is probably 90% as good

I think the value proposition is in the idea that you don't have to sharpen this knife as often as with a normal knife, and that the performance is consistent.

The non stickiness is also a huge value proposition, because that is an annoying and time consuming aspect of any cutting.

> 1. Managers Hoard Information. Leaders Overshare.

And, bad managers play politics with information privy to them.

> 2. Managers Weaponize Policy. Leaders Bend Rules for People.

This is absolutely true. There is a saying that comes to my mind, said by a good manager, "Break the rules and justify it, I am here to ratify it"

> 3. Managers “Fire Fast.” Leaders Coach, Then Help People Land Softly.

Also true, bad managers consider people as "resources" to be used and disposed off.

> 5. Managers Reward Compliance. Leaders Reward Dissent.

This is directly related to the control issue. Compliance means control is easy. But this will not prevent them from blame dumping and un-ethical acts.

You do realize that all of these are false dichotomies.

Leaders share the right amount of context so their people understand the overarching strategy and goals. They don't overshare.

Leaders help move their people away from rule-breaking in the first place.

Leaders prioritize the health of the team. While this should include giving timely correction and assistance to help people to the right track, and finding ways to lean in to individual strengths, it also absolutely includes removing people with poisonous attitudes, disruptive behavior, or someone dragging the team down with poor performance.

Leaders reward justified, rational dissent. Compliance is an expected norm until someone can demonstrate either an exception or the need for a new norm. Compliance is more often related to things that can sink the entire company, so no, it doesn't just mean "control." Compliance is not the same as conformity.

Felt like I was reading a lost on linkedin, with this talk of "leaders".

Its just a kind of bad management vs a kind of good management.

It's not even that. It's management that sounds good vs. management that sounds bad.

I mean, obviously if you're presenting it in the format that the article does, it comes across as a false dichotomy. I read it as one part exaggeration to make the point that what too many managers do is actively detrimental to team health, and one part emphasizing the direction in which to err to be a good leader.

Obviously (just to pick one of the dichotomies there) blindly rewarding dissent is not really any better than blindly suppressing it. All of these need to be done with nuance and judgement. Because those are absolutely vital skills of any good leader.

The point is that managers (of a certain type) are approaching these particular issues in exactly the wrong way, and need to be shown that.

Tell these to Steve Jobs

I see your Steve Jobs and raise you an Elizabeth Holmes.

I call your bluffing, Holmes wanted to be a fake Jobs.

It sounds like we both agree that she was pursuing a similar strategy then. Steve Jobs hoarding information and being successful doesn't mean hoarding information is a good idea or that he wouldn't have been even more successful if he had overcome some of his worst impulses.