E.g. react-router was ready 5990 commits ago. It is a grift, they keep rewriting it and reengineering the API over and over and over again just to be able to sell more training.
Look at wouter for what is possible if your motivation isn't selling training material. It was written and left alone, it works just as well, it's stable and doesn't change for no reason.
You asked if react-router team sold courses, they sold consulting services. Seems like a conflict of interest to sell consulting on a tool you built while introducing breaking changes (but hey if you need quick help throw us a few dozen grand).
I guess that's fine for you but it's very smarmy IMO.
I think that adds to my point. How does that have so many stars on github? The customers "star" it. Who uses this on a real app? It's alright to slowly accept the bitter truth that grifting scales.
Not really sure that's relevant. Grift implies an intentional value extraction without providing anything. Using your example: I'm confident that the time spent working on remix and courses related to it resulted in far less monetary gain than spinning out courses on React. If you think Remix is misguided or a bad framework etc... that is very different from grifting. A corollary: Is Deno a grift because it shares the same creator as Node and has a paid product attached to it? In my opinion no but you might disagree... I'm mostly opposed to the idea remix in particular exists purely as a grift - love it or hate it there are far easier ways for someone with the influence of Kent to make money.
That was the end goal for this whole thing. I do look at the pricing page (what are you trying to sell constantly?) on anything people put up on the internet and judge from there. You can have the last word and put in a testimonial for Remix, since I won't be budging on this. It's a rabbit hole for both you and me to keep going at this, as I've seen enough of this pattern. Consider me a neural net on this front (end).
I'm not interested in writing a testimonial for Remix, merely commenting on the absurdity of calling a project of this scale as nothing more than a grift to sell educational content. There's no reference to these paid courses anywhere on the landing page, there's no callout for paid courses in the main navigation. The only mention of tutorials at all is buried in the community section which leads to: https://remix.guide/ which seems to be unaffiliated with the Remix team, and has no section advertising paid courses anywhere. You're talking about a framework that has been acquired and subsequently used in production by a global company in Shopify - clearly there is something to the framework beyond being a vehicle for tutorial sales.
Again, I want to be clear: This is NOT an endorsement of Remix. Your line of thinking seems to be conspiratorial and not grounded in reality. You mention repeatedly about pricing and the end goal of funneling noobs toward course purchases... One would assume that in conspiring to sell courses the team behind Remix might actually advertise that they have courses for sale on their website.
I have to be honest as a third party that a. doesn't work with remix, b. doesn't know anyone who works on remix, c. doesn't know you - it seems like you have a personal vendetta.
No personal vendetta. We sit here and punch the mysterious air as to why things are the way they are. I thought maybe we'd punch up at something that is plausibly a culprit. I'll admit it may be punching down, since this is just one dude. But then again, it's one dude who influenced a lot of people ...
We can't just keep sitting here and blaming developers for being
1) New
2) Dumb
3) FOMO
4) Dumb
5) Unqualified
You understand? It's worth looking at what content they are consuming and where the mindshare is being promoted from. It's worth asking who is selling them the idea of these frameworks.
> We can't just keep sitting here and blaming developers for being New / Dumb …
Well, as a cohort, I think the ratio of inept programmers to skilled programmers stays mostly constant regardless of stuff like this. Like, if programming is hard to learn, fewer people will try and learn it. But also the skill bar goes up - so people spend more time as inept developers before they’re skilled. Likewise if programming gets easier to learn, we get a swell of fresh faces eager to become frontend developers. And the ratio stays more or less the same. It’s kinda like a sales funnel, or a hiring funnel. You always have more leads in your funnel than conversions. (And if you don’t, you’re in trouble!)
We live in an anti gatekeeper era. Content is free, but nobody protects you from wasting your time watching edutainment. The downside of that is real - lots of people waste countless hours larping as students. But the upside is real too. It’s easier than ever to learn anything.
>Grift implies an intentional value extraction without providing anything.
Is it without providing anything, or a value extraction greater than what one is providing?
If the former, it makes the definition very each to check, but it almost makes it very easy to avoid grifting by providing even the most minimal value, and leads use to needing a new word for providing some value but extracting more than provided (perhaps intention should be included). If that is the case, might I suggest "jrift"?
Really? On what basis? To be honest, I've been burnt out when it comes to supplements and health max/min type things, so I never dove deep into the Hubermann World.
With that being said, I know he's a (purportedly) prolific Stanford researcher of all healthy living things...nutrition, sleep, supplements and so on. He knows what he is talking about from what I have listened to.
We live in a society...blah blah, make a dollar blah blah. I highly doubt he's going out of his way to get people on things they shouldn't be on or claiming a supp. is something it is not.
But if he is blatantly endorsing garbage/pushing bullocks claims, that'd be beyond highly unethical and astonishing.
The basis is self evident: he is an affiliate marketer for an overpriced product with astronomical margins (investors piled in at north of a billion) making health claims without scientific basis, 3rd party testing, or transparent labeling.
Good on him for getting his bag, but the incentives are clear: he made his name before sponsorships with quality content, but now the demand for ad impressions has outpaced his supply of meaningful insights. He needs to keep churning out videos to earn sponsorship dollars, so it's a natural symbiotic choice to invite low quality guests.
They bring the content (and controversy / engagement / followers), he supplies the veneer of legitimacy, studio lighting and somber expression in the thumbnail. The advertisers benefit and all get their payday, as long as his adherents keep overpaying for processed powder with multivitamin.
> he is an affiliate marketer for an overpriced product
Didn't he recently announce that he now even has equity in AG1? So, it even goes beyond "affiliate".
That said, if you listen to the actual wordings of the claims he makes about AG1, he very clearly makes it a subjective statement, as in, he himself is taking it, because it sounds to him like a good idea (and walks through his thinking).
He very clearly distinguishes the modality around that from the modality around the science he reviews and that sort of thing. At least, to a trained ear, the distinction comes across very clearly.
You wrote so many things but you also could not provide any evidence on what you said, product selling is not proof of anything. Please give proper evidence while accusing others of such and writing long comments.
It seems you could do this with any technological/medical advancement - how is this any different from semaglutide for obesity or wellbutrin for addiction? It's just a different lever to pull.
Harkening back to lobotomies is a false dichotomy, the environment in which research is done today wouldn't even allow for an outcome like that.
They are literally shaking small parts of the brain until they act differently. It's not as extreme as a lobotomy but its lobotomy adjacent and a little scary.
Sure, unlike a lobotomy it probably just jostling areas of the brain and not damaging entire sections with an icepick, but it's still fair to accept that some people (like myself) feel automatic body horror and fear at the idea of parts of my brain being damaged.
If my life were ruined and I was dying from alcoholism or drug addiction I get the feeling I probably wouldn't be thinking about this in a philosophical way. Societal impacts or potential abuses would be the least of my concerns.
How about this scenario: In 20 years, this treatment is standard, but there's a catch: it's bundled with a wider behavioral modification treatment protocol, whereby they first reduce the cravings for drugs and alcohol, then they start showing you anti-establishment imagery, and zap the parts of your brain that respond to it.
In fact the second treatment is also standard issue for all those who are diagnosed with oppositionism, a growing mental health disorder characterized by symptoms such as distrusting government authorities and forbes 500 companies. Treatments show a 90% reduction of symptoms and improving quality of life, for example they no longer clash with authorities or make hate statements as defined by the patriot act II of 2028.
Obviously an exaggeration, but there is a real concern. The line is blurry and will be crossed if we let it happen. Taking intravenous drugs for 20 years does some serious damage. It's nice if we develop a treatment for it, but it also shifts the focus away from prevention. People shouldn't be reaching that point, and wouldn't if we were acting on it.
It's not really a blurry line. "They" could require you to take antipsychotic pills when you renew your driver license. "They" could chemically castrate you when you register to vote and select the wrong party affiliation. But they can't, because in the US patients can refuse treatment.
Panicking about new treatments because "they" might someday bundle them with other treatments isn't particularly effective, because you can just decline the treatments you don't want. The days of no-oversight asshole doctors drilling holes in people for being weird are conscripted to the past. If patient rights to refuse treatment are destroyed, then sure, freak out all you want.
Meanwhile, research is not a zero-sum game. Treatments and prevention can be, and are, worked on in parallel, often by people with wildly different research backgrounds. Specifically, the resources and personnel involved are not fungible. Discouraging field A because you'd rather have someone work on field B doesn't necessarily mean anyone will work on field B, it just guarantees you don't make progress in field A.
Especially if the alternative is cold turkey, or a good old DT... All my heartfelt deep thanks to everyone who keeps digging for solutions, workarounds... anything that might help there.
No, that's fair, my stance very much was from the viewpoint of a generically healthy mind and not from the viewpoint of a damaged mind.
If I were in that position I might seriously consider the value of having 99% of me make it to the other side of this misery in exchange for the 1% of my brain that is ruining my life.
> They are literally shaking small parts of the brain until they act differently.
No, from what other comments have said, they are using ultrasound to open the blood/brain barrier so that drugs can enter the affected area. They aren't indiscriminately shaking the patient's brain and hoping for the best.
My issue is more with framing it as a lobotomy analogue when in reality the similarity ends at them both being brain procedures. My read is that this is more akin to something like rehabilitation in that previously damaged tissue is being worked on to improve function.
With regards to the body horror thing, that is legitimate and there is the possibility that we look back on this in 20 years like we do with lobotomy. I personally think it's unlikely considering the differences in how research is regulated compared to the past.
In general I think we need to reframe how we look at medical treatments. Changing the brain is literally the point - it's dysfunctional. Whether that be through physical manipulation like this or via pharmacology, something HAS to change functionally or there will be no difference. Until the point that we have nano robots carrying out bodily processes for us it's on our brain and body to adapt to whatever environmental stress it's exposed to, for better (exercising improving health for example) and for worse(trauma causing increased likelihood of addiction etc). This treatment is no different from anything else, all that matters is the positive or negative reaction.
This can't be emphasized enough. Exercise is likely the single most important and effective intervention we have available from a preventative medicine standpoint.
If you're not optimizing adequate exercise alongside controlling bodyfat levels first and foremost you're doing it wrong.
tRPC on the back end essentially is sharing the typed return value of an API route call with it's react query wrapper on the client. It's useful with Prisma because you can leverage type inference coming from the Prisma query, meaning your types will always be up to date with your DB.
EG a tRPC query that returns prisma.posts.findMany() will share the typeof Post with your client when you call the tRPC route as the return type of the API call, without you having to do any type definitions etc.
Not sure if this is intentional, but your blog posts seem to be ordered alphabetically rather than by time. Having that as default behavior feels a bit weird.
> PPS - Creatine's COVID and post-COVID price increase has made it more niche than it perhaps once was. It used to be near $10 per 30-day from a reputable brand, not it can be $20-30 depending on brand (e.g. Creapure is $32/30 day right now).
There's no reason to be using anything but generic creatine monohydrate - studies show no difference in efficacy between different formulations. BulkSupplements current price is ~$56/kg at ~28 cents per dose per day. No reason to let price scare you away from one of the few supplements with a real body of evidence.
I think the biggest concern people have with cheap supplements is not so much efficacy as contamination with heavy metals and other nastiness. Especially with the vast majority of the raw ingredients being sourced from China. People are counting on the domestic distributer's testing to catch quality control issues before the product reaches consumers.
As you said, you need to look at individual resellers/distributors and see what kind of QC/testing is being done on a company by company basis. Raw ingredients are sourced from China regardless of if they're expensive "designer" supplements or cheap generics. My comment was more along the lines of different formulations don't seem to have any difference wise, meaning that you can buy high quality generic creatine monohydrate at fraction of the price of something like Creapure(which is just monohydrate), creatine HCL, ethyl ester etc. Again, you need to audit who you're getting your supplements from - cheap doesnt always = poor quality and expensive doesn't always = high quality
I haven't looked into that wrt creatine broadly - you can get generic creatine monohydrate across the spectrum from cheap to expensive. In the case I gave, bulk supplements does heavy mineral and contaminant testing on their supplements but it's going to vary depending on where you buy the generic from.
Oh thanks for pointing that out! I originally owned a 12 Pro when I built out that front page, but have since moved to a 13 Mini and I'm seeing some responsiveness bugs now, too.
