You're the top-rated comment, didn't read the article*, posted the most flippant response possible based on whatever couple sentences you didn't understand, and I'll get downvoted for pointing it out, even if I leave out the "I'll get downvoted" part. Really a shame.

* there's way more than one person involved here

We’ve discovered the review that says the thing is bad, is actually an ad for the thing, because the buy link has an affiliate code.

Am I understanding you right?

I feel like we have stumbled into a classic HN tarpit, where people try justifying something obviously wrong by adding one observation and implying it can be twisted into one segment of the obviously wrong thing.

It’s a tarpit, because as soon as I point out this doesn’t change anything, you can either point out you were just observing or claim some other claim was what was being implied

So you’re not familiar with Wired (!?), and think this is an ad, along with a side of review-in-scare quotes? “you might as well upgrade to a reMarkable tablet.... a pretty big investment for a still-limited device.... neither of them would be my go-to pick”

And you’ve been on HN 15 years, just like me?

Something tells me you’re cranky this morning and trolling a bit

The day I trashed my huge collection of WIRED print mags, including that one Y2K dark glossy cover, was a sad day

I still bemoan selling the first couple of years of issues to someone on ebay. I needed to get the stuff out of the basement, but feels like I should have kept them just for the technology history lessons.

I'm still looking for the very early Wired issue that has an ad that goes something like "they laughed at you when you were growing up because you were different. now they wear a uniform with their name on it. and you don't."

“scrollytelling”? Scrolling? Or tap to slideshow, which doesn’t require scrolling? Or some novel format that uses scrolling as a gesture to “advance”? Wouldn’t that have taken off somewhere other than overwrought marketing pages on Apple.com? Is it different than tapping?

I hope people aren't reading it as silly protesting just because I'm getting old (37) and have 15+ years of neural pathways of daily use of the site to nuke. "tweeted" -> "posted on X.com" is really hard.

I think it's: "tweeted" -> "xited" pronounced "shitted"

You asked what I would have asked, in a sentence, my understanding is: it was LITERALLY a prophecy, I.e. an unscientific statement out of thin air, that in July, there would be an earthquake followed by a larger one. Here, we have reality, an earthquake, ergo the first prong of a mega quake was satisfied, as opposed to prophesied.

Ah, that's probably it. Thank you.

> I never understood why they do not track the OpenJDK versions. I don't work on Android apps.. but it seems mildly insane to basically have a weird almost-Java where you aren't even sure if you can use a given Java lib.

NIH syndrome

> (and not a Dart chat app.. but something actually performant that uses the hardware to the full extent)

I used to work on Android, quit two years ago and have used Flutter since, it's a breath of fresh air. It does use the hardware to the full extent, imo it's significantly more performant: it does an end-around all the ossified Android nonsense.

Hmm, so if you wanted to make an AR app, or some audio processing app, would you do that in Flutter? All the projects I have in mind involve using the camera/microphone/gps etc. Looking at Dart sample projects it just seemed to be quite different from what they're aiming at

My caffeinated instinct is to say basically "yes I'd do anything in Flutter", I honestly would rather stop coding than go back to anything I've done before (ObjC/Swift/Java/Kotlin with side journeys in C++). It boggles my mind how much of a different job dev is with true hot reload.

More carefully, and dealing with what you're indicating more directly:

There's stuff that we just need every millisecond of performance from.

Generally, Dart's great, I don't notice any difference between iOS / Android standard UI platforms.

But...for example, Flutter's image decoding is actually using "native" code behind the scenes, i.e. calling into C or OS-level APIs or browser APIs as needed on each platform. And there's a Flutter package called "image" that's Dart-native but I abhor because I know it's going to be higher latency than going thru lower-level code. (now I'm wondering how Java does this...I wonder if its JNI...)

Let's do a scenario: I've been contracted to build a bus route app for the local gov't. They want an AR feature. What happens if I choose to build on Flutter, build out the basic features, then get to the AR, and I'm getting 5 fps?"

Solution to that is "plugins" - https://docs.flutter.dev/packages-and-plugins/developing-pac... - the intro to the doc is way out of date, like years. TL;DR is you can drop in C / Swift / Java / whatever easily as needed.

You can get a sense of what that looks like from my package for doing ML inference here: https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx, specifically https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx/tree/main/lib/models/minis...: X_native.dart shows us calling into shared C code on every non-mobile platform. On mobile, I have to take a dep on specific packaged & code signed libraries provided by Microsoft for ONNX. Then, I (AI, at this point) writes Swift and Kotlin to call into that library. (Swift: https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx/blob/main/ios/Classes/OrtM..., Kotlin: https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx/blob/main/android/src/main...)

This might feel convoluted at first, it did to me, but really, all that's going on is: when things are slow, we write a Dart interface, then for each platform where we want to use native code, provide impls of that interface in native.

RE: Flutter

Yeah, I'm currently developing a Flutter app and also using flutter_rust_bridge to separate the business logic and I can hardly believe how enjoyable it is.

Other than the initial project setup which is a me and Nix flakes problem it all comes together pretty smoothly.

> Type systems were pretty uncool before Scala

I’m not up on programming language engineering as much as I should be at 37, could you elaborate a bit here? (To my untrained ear, it sounds like you’re saying Scala was one of the first languages that helped types break through? And I’m thinking that means, like, have int x = 42; or Foo y = new Foo()”

Not types, type-safety. Things like covariant and contravariant type declarations, implicit types (variables looked up by type instead of by label), and other things that you need to make a type safe system/service/application. The problem is that that feature of a language is massively oversold. Its nice but to pretend it prevents bugs or is even a great design goal is questionable and not backed up by research (as they claim).

But it’s still a way more powerful and expressive type system than Java. So using it in a JVM ecosystem is a perfect fit.

> Its nice but to pretend it prevents bugs or is even a great design goal is questionable and not backed up by research (as they claim).

That's why people use JavaScript instead of Rust for critical systems, right?

Claiming in the year 2025 that strong static types don't provide massive advantages is almost laughable, TBH. This was settled long ago, and the whole industry now understands that type safety is inevitable to create reliable and scalable systems.

I took their comment to mean that tokens valuations are tied to stablecoins. Sufficiently tied enough as to be de facto properties of tokens themselves.

Is the correction approach best, here? Of course at most companies that’s a ton of revenue! I can confirm at Google 10-100M yearly spend didn’t get you roadmap insight. Can’t parse second half of the comment, (bounds = boards, maybe?) but if we’re talking companies of that size, 10M-100M is almost assuredly _not_ getting you a front row seat to R&D.

You made me realize I am too broke to properly understand the scale of "hundreds of millions". I took it as an order of magnitude higher.

You're right that mere millions won't get you that much love from Google.