Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ctb9's commentslogin

Welp, this changes my 2024 outlook.

I've been using Airplane.dev since their first post on HN, and I was repeatedly delighted with the way the product "just worked", I thought they made great choices about code vs. config vs. admin, and their feature development velocity was superb.

I was ready to really jump in and move beyond simple internal tools to build complex, mission critical internal systems in airplane.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I would love to leverage the powerful Airtable UI, but their scripting vs. custom extension offerings have always felt underpowered and needlessly complex, respectively.


I think windmill.dev is conceptually closest to Airplane, and since it’s OSS you don’t run the same risk if disappearance.


I haven't used it, but Tooljet is the open source Retool. Also, there's AppSmith and Budibase. Both open source.

https://www.tooljet.com/

https://www.appsmith.com/

https://budibase.com/


I have never used Airplane but have done projects in Retool which is really nice but little on the pricey side since they charge on a per user basis not on a per app basis. Wish they charged on a usage or app model since it makes it really expensive at first.

I know a lot of people using it so i doubt it is going away.


Retool?


A retool is probably a given.


... with https://retool.com/ as an option


“Retooling, that’s a good excuse.

I’LL RETOOL YOU!”


Take a look at Superblocks: https://www.superblocks.com/


Give Budibase a whirl - it's open source and sits between Airtable and Airplane from a UX perspective.


Xano


This seems like it could be cool, but I would need an actual product screenshot or a demo video on the website to move forward.

And the "Learn more" link inside the Your Design Assistant section doesn't point anywhere.


Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix that! Here's a screenshot which might help you https://imgur.com/HlmOoK4

also added it on the website.


Agreed, if anything this placebo finding supports your idea that the experience mediates the improvement more than the chemical itself.

I once attended a talk by a neuroscientist at UCSF, Adam Gazzaley, that really helped me see what the future of medicine could look like if we appreciated the power of experience, and more importantly if we could measure and then alter said experience in a realtime closed-loop system. My takeaway was that one day we might think of blasting our synapses with SSRIs or Adderall similarly to civil war era surgeons...the bone saw does prevent gangrene, but in a such an inefficient way.


assuming i was willing to ever interact with a SOAP api in my life which i sure as hell am not

^^^ this killed me. i'm sure everyone who has ever interacted with a SOAP api feels the same. god bless this tiny kitten/person/hacktivist, the world needs more of this energy.


Ten years ago I was told to never use Git submodules.

Five years ago I inherited a project that had four repos sharing a Git submodule.

Now I tell people to never use Git submodules.


I think it very much depends how you use them. A great option to manage submodules is TwoSigma's "git-meta" https://github.com/twosigma/git-meta.

There's also just "meta" which is a cleaner way to approach the functionality of submodules https://github.com/mateodelnorte/meta.


I was struck by this sentence: "I have no message for suffering humanity and, though I was bullied at school and lost my virginity like so many of us used to do in the old days, I have never been tempted to foist these and other harrowing personal experiences on the public."

Is Ian Fleming saying that he was sexually abused as a child?


Perhaps. He went to Eton. Abuse and less-than-consensual sexual activity among the boys were pretty common in English prep and public schools of the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/oct/12/publicscho...


This, having read "into the silence" about the mountaineer George Mallory it explained that in the 19th/20th century english prep schools were rampant with sexual abuse(student on student).


You can google for more information, but British boys' schools (especially in the 20th century) are notorious for bullying and sexual abuse.


I found the second half of that far more interesting (and refreshing given todays climate).


I assumed it meant he lost his virginity to a prostitute.


That was my first thought too, but I don't see why that would be categorized as a 'harrowing experience.'


Could be as simply as him not being ready and going because of pressure or expectation. Or could be something worse, like a family member taking them to the prostitute.

>Before World War II, if a young man wanted sex, he had two basic options: marriage or a brothel. So in the 1930s, one in five American men lost his virginity to a prostitute.

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/superfreakonomics-prostitutions-...


It might have meant that had it not been included alongside his being bullied and described as a harrowing experience.


It depends how it happened. Having a parent or relative take you to a prostitute, or being peer pressured into it when you are a teenager and not ready is sexual abuse.


Surely you don't think he invented the name 'Pussy Galore'?


I really like this. I keep bouncing between text-based todo lists and more visual/kanban tools, so this feels like the best of both worlds. (If I could stand the airtable/notion database view those tools would be great, but alas.)

One thing that's preventing me from dumping in a bunch of action items is that I can't figure out a way of creating tasks via the keyboard. Is this possible?


I can definitely add that. Can we chat? I’d love to get more feedback and iterate if you’d like.


I would need an example project (the final product and template inside the tool) to give this a try.

As it stands you just get dumped into the builder with no guidance whatsoever. I wanted to evaluate the tool, but there's no way I could dedicate that kind of time to something I didn't know existed 5 minutes ago without even knowing what it's capable of building.

Surely you have made something complex and impressive with it, right?


Absolutely, this is a great point. We were working with B2B clients previously so we could "get away with" not having proper onboarding/documentation.

We're working hard on this and we'll have something close to what you mentioned soon! Stay tuned :)


Could someone explain how this compares to Next.js?


next is primarily focused on the rendering layer, capable over static, server, and serverless rendering. it makes it easy to set up api routes but doesnt have any opinions whatsoever on data layer.

redwood is full-stack, has an opinion on graphql/prisma as part of your data layer, integrated into Cells for declarative loading states. its still super early days but you can feasibly view it as doing the same thing Rails does in terms of organizing and picking techs for you for all parts of a stack, including setting up scaffolding for you.


How does one come to that figure?


Some combination of the holographic principle and the the information overhead of classically representing a quantum state? (I don't know, I'm not a physicist.)

Surprised that the currently exponential overhead for simulating a quantum system is a distant second in commenter objections here. "Simulating the universe" in the holistic manner that I feel such a phrase entails would require at least clearing that bar (say, with a quantum computer? Or at a longer shot, showing BQP = P?), and that's before thinking about the status of quantum gravity.


That's not even my second objection. My second objection is the rate of Entropy of the computer that would be using to make that computation, the amount of mass of the computer that would be required to use and how long it could continue to make computations before the heat death of computer. Also you would have to consider the fact that as performing multivariate calculus of the expanding universe that is completely gravitationally bound would require that the computer that is performing the calculations that govern the simulation to expand at a rate faster than the simulation that it is computing. Eventually what ever the rate of Entropy is in the Universe of the computer that would be simulating our Universe is would exceed the capability of it to exchange information from one end of the machine to the next as it eventually starts to expand faster than whatever the equivalent of the speed of light would be in the simulating universe.


There's a lot of subjectivity to the "we can simulate the universe" variety of claim stated by the article, but I'd tend to forgive considerations of the scale of the entire universe in that claim. It should be obvious that simulating the trajectory of every last particle is straight up impossible. (Even in principle: you could probably even show outright impossibility on logical grounds with a diagonal argument a la the time hierarchy theorem.)

Instead I'd take it as meaning something like, "any slice of physical phenomena there is to observe in the universe, we can simulate given reasonable resources to do so." So, put an imaginary box around some reasonably isolated plot of reality, pick your precision and your time scale, and you could replicate what happens in that space with a "reasonable" computational resource overhead. That's what elevates the quantum simulation overhead objection to number 1 in my mind.


Do you have any sources or further reading for this?



Also, Scott Aaronson gets pulled into speculation on these things a lot, e.g. https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3208


I like the idea as a thought experiment in information theory but I am skeptical of the idea in general.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: