My .md files are specific to my domain - game development using Unity. Something that is probably universal and is a good baseline for every project and domain:
- which libraries to use for standard problems
- project structure, it helps if it has a name(vertical slice etc)
- which things llm is free to edit, which not
- naming, comments etc
And most importantly:
"what not to do", and you should do this a lot: Whenever llm does something that is a code smell, make it fix it and make it add a new rule to agents.md.
Ha — the guy is hyper. But I'll give him this: he introduces my kid to garbage trucks, excavators, fire trucks. I'm not physically taking my toddler to see all of those all the time
My issue is with YouTube's UX. I watch an episode with my son, we're singing along, he's excited about putting out the fire. Episode ends. Even with autoplay off, the next recommended videos show up — and of course he wants to watch the next one.
So I block Blippi. Except Blippi's main channel cross-posts into Moonbug, which cross-posts into hundreds of other channels. It's like trying to kill a hydra.
Here's what gets me: YouTube already does content fingerprinting for DRM enforcement in the music industry.
The technology to let me block Blippi across every channel — and turn it back on when I want to exists. They just haven't built it for parents. My point that we can build systems designed for children if we had the intent
We have worked with flutter since 2019; having built internal apps for our staff, public apps for our customers, small utility apps etc- this has been our experience as well. Not only flutter has been rock solid, easy and fast to develop, it has a wide array of libraries. Long may it continue.
Tailscale is just a commercial service that builds upon wireguard. It automatically generates certificates for each of your devices, ensures they're rotated and up to date, automatically configures routing and DNS between your devices and offers some additional functionality.
Tailscale has open source clients but a proprietary server to do this, but you can use the open source alternative headscale instead: https://github.com/juanfont/headscale
Convenience. you're free to run wireguard yourself, but that's a lot of faffing about with config files that some people don't want to do. and then on top of that, they have clients for mobile and eg AppleTV. that may be outside your use case, but some find it handy.
> New users will not be able to sign up for Fig's products right now while we focus on optimizing them for existing customers and addressing some needs identified to integrate Fig with AWS.
I love Ruby, but I always wonder if performance will be an issue if there're many things happening on screen especially on mobile. Does anyone has any experience?
I'm new to this whole thing. Can u point me on how I don't depend 100% on CF, if its DNS is down? Is there such a service? (kinda like load balancing, but with DNS?)
DNS is easy. You can (and must) have multiple nameservers for your domain. Just use different companies (and different regions) and if one goes down the others will still resolve.
You’re not alone. I’ve been migrating my tables to use uuid instead of integers and have been using uuid whenever I have new tables, unless I have very good reason not to. Experience was my teacher.
Destroy is a strong word (and UUIDs can certainly be sorted, but locality is an issue), but all of software is a series of tradeoffs. I've used both auto-increment and UUIDs, and wish I had used UUIDs in almost every case.
Distributed generation - no sending a record to a server to get a key then using it to generate other records. In a world with increasing use of services, this becomes more important every day.
System wide unique - helps with logging, debugging, and avoiding general errors.
Multi-master db replication - I know this depends on the RDBMS, but having a unique key on every record avoids clashes. Also super useful during data migrations (which will happen. I have another rant that data always outlives code, so plan accordingly).
Validation - UUIDs have a form that can be a first level validation on input.
For me, those advantages outweigh some extra space usage, possible performance impact, and ugly URLs.
And on performance, if it's determined that it is an issue because of using UUIDs there are ways to make them more index friendly.
There is a perf hit. You can not help it when you are slugging that many bytes around. An int/int64 fits into a register easy and the instruction for comparison is cheap. However, when you add in replication and other items UUID becomes more desirable due to the property having extra information embedded into it to make them unique. You can get some of the same benefits with more complexity if you are using auto increment. Such as using a stride that is similar to the number of machines you have in the cluster. But even that can get weird, and depending on your db can be a pain to setup. Using them as a cluster index and you probably will most certainly create a hotspot index and poor lookup performance, but decent write. Just due to the fact that items probably are not grouped the same as your where clause. SSD's have hidden most of this for most databases. But the issues are the same.
They don't utterly destroy performance, but there is some hit if you use UUID v4 random values due to database index scattering. That's why this new proposal exists. It adds new versions of UUID that are mostly incrementing in time, so that they group better.
In my experience, thats a big NO. While there is some performance impact, in other ways it can actually be a benefit (spreading writes out to multiple pages, for example) so as with anything in regards to performance: benchmark, benchmark, benchmark.
PS.: UUID's also work quite nicely to deal with certain system hiccups, specifically temporal ones. Could be thought of as something similar to the Erlang supervisor trees.
+1 for TablePlus! I absolutely love them for the fast editing as well as quick and dirty filters. Beats typing SQL for simple stuff. These quality of life features are really underrated. Absolutely worth the yearly fee!
I feel like they see themselves as a database management tool, but with just a few tweaks (good UI for working with relations), could be a FileMaker / Airtable contender.
