Layer one also explicitly identifies stakeholders, and describes the current (AS-IS) situation with annonated screenshots so everyone quickly sees what we are talking about.
Layer two also lists alternative solutions considered and why not chosen.
Layer three is developers making a few notes on chosen tech design, most important is the choice reasoning here.
In all layers, add and use references. Less is more, a picture beats a wall of text.
Yes, agree with all of that. I don't think every design doc needs every possible section, but if readers would benefit from the background or the an enumeration of stakeholders, that belongs up front, before the design.
I use it to design functional parts for 3D printing at home, very solid 3d design software that works on any internet connected device. Can easily open/see/edit parameters quickly on a phone or tablet even, to address a design flaw.
Workflow in a nutshell:
- Start a sketch on a plane, use toolbar circle, draw, type dimensions, close sketch.
- Click the rectangle you made and use toolbar extrude.
- Click the resulting object (bottom left) and export as STL / 3MF file.
It is parametric design:
- Discover your oops. Go back to sketch or extrude, edit dimension, entire design updates by magic.
- Dimensions can be changed into a quickly editable #variablesYouName by typing # basically.
Documentation is short and to the point. Same for most videos that explain how to accomplish something specific. Love it.
I have long dreamt of automating Factorio in the way that HDL and a PCB router works: just specify the ingredients and it produces a Factorio Blueprint.
First MVP stupid designs, then optimized routing, and eventually usable ingame where it connects with provided in/outputs.
Would be more fun to develop than to play obviously..
I liked the nilhouse mega base with that factory-train-blocks blueprints, its basically Factorio DUPLO.
I think this could be a good starting point for what you describe! This stuff is always more fun to develop than play. Since started working on this project, I can't bring myself to play the core game myself...
I would simply argue that the “offline” editing is a people-problem and hence van not be solved using automation. People shall find a way to break/bypass the automation/system.
The only “offline editing” that I allow on human text documents is having people add comments. So not editing, no automated merging.
For “offline editing” that I allow on automation (source code) is GIT which intentionally does not pretend to solve the merge, it just shows revisions. The merge is an action supervised by humans or specialised automation on a “best guess” effort and still needs reviews and testing to verify success.
Yes I agree. But remember: but git will automatically merge concurrent changes in most cases - since most concurrent changes aren’t in conflict. You’re arguing you want to see & review the merged output anyway - which I agree with.
Ideally, I want to be able to replace git with something that is built on CRDTs. When branches have no conflicts, CRDTs already work fine - since you merge, run tests, and push when you’re happy.
But right now CRDTs are too optimistic. If two branches edit the same line, we do a best-effort merge and move on. Instead in this case, the algorithm should explicitly mark the region as “in conflict” and needing human review, just like git does. Then humans can manually review the marked ranges (or, as others have suggested, ask an llm to do so or something.). And once they’re happy with the result, clear the conflicting range markers and push.
The tricky thing about “most” is that it means more than half, but people tend to treat it like almost all.
I would agree that git works more than half the time.
Merge resolution is a problem so hard that even otherwise capable developers fuck it up regularly. And on a large team made of people who intermittently fuck up, we start getting into and aggregate failure rate that feels like a lot.
The whole idea with CRDTs was to make something humans couldn’t fuck up, but that seems unlikely to
happen. There’s some undiscovered Gödel out there who needs to tell us why.
I think it's just a UX problem. Once that is solved, which I believe is definitely possible, both CRDTs and git can be made much more user friendly. I'm not saying it's easy, because it hasn't been solved yet, but I don't think the right people have been working on it. UX is the domain of designers, not engineers.
I think we are sitting at about 75% on one of those problems that will go asymptotic at 90%.
And that’s if you swap the default diff algorithm for one of the optional ones. I’ve used patience for years but someone tweaked it and called it “histogram” when I wasn’t looking.
> Ideally, I want to be able to replace git with something that is built on CRDTs. When branches have no conflicts, CRDTs already work fine - since you merge, run tests, and push when you’re happy.
How is this different than git's automatic merging? Or another compatible algorithm
In the happy case? Its no different. But in the case where two offline edits happen at the same location, Git's merging knows to flag the conflict for human review. Thats the part that needs to be fixed.
I want a tool with the best parts of both git and a crdt:
- From CRDTs I want support for realtime collaborative editing. This could even include non-code content (like databases). And some developer tools could use the stream of code changes to implement hot-module reloading and live typechecking.
- From git I want .. well, everything git does. Branches. Pull requests. Conflict detection when branches merge. Issue tracking. (This isn't part of git, but it would be easy to add using json-like CRDTs!)
We can do almost all of that today. The one part that's seriously missing is merge conflicts.
This is why I started using a DNS ad blocker. It's not that I hate ads, it's simply that I use more than one tab, and my Apple Silicon doesn't have enough RAM and processing power to keep rendering the ever-changing ads in all the tabs.
It is a little ironic that these EV sites have some of the most annoying ads, including all those video rolls on every page, wasting an immense amount of power.
One caveat: once in a while, like maybe once a year, my wife or I encounter a site that AdGuard blocks and we need to set our DNS back to "normal" for things to work. But you'll probably have the same issue with PiHole, which relies on lists of spammers or other undesirables.
PS: no relationship with AdGuard other than happily using their service.
While blogspam sites are a symptom of web publishing's race to the bottom, "actual news" sites are pretty much indistinguishable when it comes to ads and popups.
On a more serious note: populist politicians seem to like making gettier claims; they cost a lot of time to refute and are free publicity. Aka the worst kind of fake news.
When applying ReactJS in webdev after doing all kinds of engineering in all kinds of (mostly typed) languages in many runtimes, I was so surprised that JS did not actually had a struct/record as seen in C/Pascal. Everything is a prototype that pretends its an object, but without types and pointers, and abstraction layers that added complexity to gain backwards compatibility.
Not even some object hack that many OO and compiled languages had. ES did not add it either, and my hopes where in WebAsm.
This proposal however seems like the actual plan that i’d like to use a lot.
A lot of the code complexity was to get simple guarantees for data quality. The alternative was to not care, either a feature or caveat of the used prototype model.
So true. A solution presented before the problem, IS the problem. Goes for kids and adults, and entire organizations! Quote mine.
Also, this todo system is basically what I apply on chaos-days, but with the addition that I preferably start next days list at end of day, as to remind me of momentum and focus.
https://github.com/jameschrisa/Ollama_Tuning_Guide/blob/main...
reply