My take is you've got the right reasoning but the wrong conclusion, I agree with your contextless definition of vulnerability and with the use of it in this context, vulnerability makes people vulnerable, by definition.
From my experience, the reason you'd risk being vulnerable is there are some things you can't achieve without doing so, it'd be like trying to do surgery with a scalpel on someone wearing platemail, or trying to detect radiation with a Geiger counter behind 20 meters of lead, for some tools to work properly they're required to be in a position where they're 'vulnerable', like eyes.
I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. Which in my opinion is worse than nothing as at least when you're not faking something it's easier to agree that you haven't really tried it.
> I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance.
You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not and performative anything is not required for acceptance, but people are not accepting of others who deal with their social interaction in these terms and your very language betrays where you stand. These imaginary requirements for affection are not what's sad here.
> You only think it's performative because you think people are signalling
You're correct that I think something because I think something else. You're assuming I'm unwilling or unable to tell the difference.
I don't see a betrayal to state that I think it's a shame that people that have copied a performative action, gotten nothing out of it and are then hesitant to try again because they feel they've already tried that avenue and had bad results. It's the same feeling of sadness I get when people have tried therapy, for whatever reason haven't gotten much out of it and then write it off as a sham.
I do get that you're saying 'aha ! I've detected your true intent through my clever analysis of your language' - consider your assumption "You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not"
They're not? You can state absolute facts with confidence about the people I've experienced in my life that you don't know anything about? That is either some amazing superpower or regular old conjecture.
It might help you to notice how many times I said I think or in my opinion, and how many absolutes you're willing to state.
Sometimes people do signal. I know people who do not cry and maybe need to, and others who can and do to try and get what they want. Some emotions are performative — look at the performative grief over Evita, Diana or even Stalin.
Plus rarely survives requirements/context changing because most abstractions are leaky.
My favourite frameworks are written by people smart enough to know they're not smart enough to build the eternal perfect abstraction layers and include 'escape hatches' (like getting direct references to html elements in a web UI framework etc) in their approach so you're not screwed when it turns out they didn't have perfect future-sight.
Do you have any idea how much I made in Fintech converting spreadsheets that'd exceeded the TA's ability to hack/keep it all in their head and/or quit?
Favourite included a single cell that had, I am not kidding, something like 150+ nested if statements.. and there was a dateTime bug in it somewhere :D
A friend did very well positioning himself as a data engineering consultant that could come in and quickly improve poorly thrown together data pipelines, wonder what the equivalent is for these :)
Wasn't fintech but was fin something. Several weeks into trying to port a Excel workbook with a zillion tabs, some VBscript from stackoverflow and other nastiness and being unable to replicate the results. I discovered the "consultant" who help them create this insane thing had turned on the "allow circular references"[1] option and choosen a number of iterations that "Seemed to make it work"
Yay! for non-deterministic financial modeling.
Also was really fun trying to explain to the folks who hired me why I couldnt get the results they wanted to see.
ha wow, read about a guy having to clean up after some data scientists that'd figured out how to use circular references and an iteration limit to do crazy, hard to replicate stuff, (thankfully) never ran into it myself but I bet that was a 'fun' time for you !
Here's to hoping we both never have to dip back into that world again :D
Also have to hard disagree. I remember going from the Oculus DevKit2 to the Vive, seeing the change in people we'd invite over for "I'm done trying to convince you with words just Come over and try out VR" evenings.
6DOF, even when sitting, is a significant difference. Your brain immediately feels far more at home with good 6DOF.
Fun fact : one week I spent about 5-6 hours every evening playing Elite Dangerous in VR. Mining asteroids while listening to lofi cyberpunk and pretending that mining was my whole life, it was great. Until my partner would bop me on the back of the head ^_^
ty, not reinventing is the purpose of my post :) I've explored using PowerBI a bit, it doesn't seem to be geared towards extracting the data once it's in PowerBI. I'd want to be able to query the data from other services, for example grafana so that we could set up alerting. There doesn't seem to be a clean way to do this, all I could find was https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/power-bi/datasets...
You could just out an SQL server somewhere and connect it as a datasource to Power BI. If you’d prefer a more standalone and SQL oriented Open Source solution, go ahead an checkout metabase as a BI platform.
However, I’m not aware of any BI platform providing APIs for data manipulation because displaying said data is usually the exclusive responsibility of a BI platform.
It's frustrating that it forces you to jump into handling async code, though, in all cases. This wasn't always the case, and for good reason: sometimes async code is just vastly more complicated for no actual benefit if you can tolerate the FFI causing a crash at any calling point.
The interest in Elm took a major hit after the compiler banned use of JS.
That is what I mean! You need static top-level declarations of every out-of-elm iteration you want to do.
React on the other hand can wrap a JQuery calendar in a React component and from a programming point of view, using that component you would be none the wiser.
Also ports force everything to be async - and I am not talking just promises - I mean a new render per call response! So calculating 1+1 on a port requires generate a new render, and intercepting the result in a Redux-style handler, bubbling that into a component.
While you won't need to do 1+1 via ports, you might need to use a synchronous web-api feature that has not been ported to elm, or even use a math package to multiply some matrices.
Agreed, I thought we were past this with the 4th generation of these frameworks, this is like knockoutjs all over again.
The moment the penny dropped for me was when I read something like this about React:
"We realised that inventing our own Yet Another Binding Language that was less expressive than javascript was harder and worse than doing the work to put the relatively simple HTML constructs into Javascript"
A lot of young companies are hindered by the pain and overhead of developing and supporting multiple native apps (including patching, tracking & resolving separate bugs etc), spending their precious resources on solved problems rather than user-centric things like better understanding the users by rapidly improving the app and getting feedback etc.
Picture a maybe-for-legal-reasons-theoretical app that needs to be supported on android and iOS plus would massively benefit from the ability to preview the mobile app in a supporting Web portal.
PWA gives us :
- A unified codebase across 2 apps and a Web portal (same project produces the ios, Android and web builds, reuse of css styles, UI components etc)
- Significant reduction in effort developing and maintaining 3ish separate codebases for the same functionality (not quite 3x reduction, there are platform specific issues you have to resolve but still really great).
- Way easier time resourcing the project, one skillet for the 3 frontends and the team can swarm to the required work (This was amazing in the current high demand market)
- Access to the huge array of existing libraries and UI components
For larger more established companies then sure go native. But for companies that have to efficiently use capital, any money spent basically building the same thing twice is money not invested in further understanding the user's needs and improving their experience.
From my experience, the reason you'd risk being vulnerable is there are some things you can't achieve without doing so, it'd be like trying to do surgery with a scalpel on someone wearing platemail, or trying to detect radiation with a Geiger counter behind 20 meters of lead, for some tools to work properly they're required to be in a position where they're 'vulnerable', like eyes.
I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. Which in my opinion is worse than nothing as at least when you're not faking something it's easier to agree that you haven't really tried it.