It's a clunky metaphor, and it's used clumsily: not for the sake of its clunkiness, but by mixing two decent individual parts in an attempt to have them reinforce each other, but ending up with something weaker.
It communicates an absence of thought and awareness, blind groping at building blocks without understanding. It's borderline vapid, and quite annoying.
I don't follow, the words make perfect sense together in most software engineering contexts.
"Seam" is an industry standard term coined by Michael Feathers in Working Effectively with Legacy Code.
To call a seam load bearing means it's performing critical work for the dependent class, perhaps a database query.
A seam that is not load-bearing would be something that is just injected for testability - maybe a date provider that provides some constant time to avoid flaky tests.
Tbh, this is quite literally the opposite of vapid. A whole book was written about them and their importance, and how to leverage them.
In my experience, Claude uses the word accurately. Code has a lot of seams, and seams are an important thing to communicate when working with code. Therefore, expect to see the word often.
Personally, I don't mind it at all. I'm glad the industry is finally standardizing our language more. Makes it easier for me to communicate with other engineers.
Well, first, we don't have enough context to judge what the "load-bearing seam" was used for in this case ("The key structural point first: the only load-bearing seam is [...]"), so we don't know if it was meant in the well-defined legacy-code sense. But that doesn't really matter.
I'm taking issue with the combination "load-bearing seam". It's a bad metaphor, because seams are usually structural weak points in the physical world, and not load-bearing in the sense that this modifier is usually used. (Seams need to bear loads and stresses to do their job, but so do walls; yet, we do not call all walls load-bearing. We mean something extra when we say that, something that seams don't do.) Even if we were talking about seams in the well-defined software sense, as opposed to the metaphorical one, you still get a mixed metaphor as a result that I find extremely awkward and grating. It doesn't have to be. There are so many ways to highlight the importance of something without calling it "load-bearing".
I understand that you don't see it that way or don't care, but to me, the result is thoughtless, careless and vapid. Bad metaphors put little holes into a text, they leave eddies of confusion where meaning should be, they look load-bearing while actually being weakening, they're like a fart in the elevator that should lift the reader's understanding.
Note that I'm not calling into question that seams may be well-defined in some software contexts, or that "seam" and "load-bearing" can be valid metaphors on their own, as you describe. I think you might have misunderstood me that way. I'm only calling out, and fed up with, the bad style that permeates LLM-generated prose like the whiff of something not quite digested.
It's not this particular case that irks me, but what it exemplifies. I wouldn't mind so much if similar things to this weren't there everywhere, every single day.
As of recently, there is a strong correlation between use of em-dashes and a verbose, bloated style of writing that uses many words to not quite get to multiple repeated points. Not well written, in other words.
The combination of both I usually find in text generated for me by LLM, and so far, it serves as a good signal for density of information and, inversely, not-quite-right ideas and their connections. (That's not to say it's pervasive, but below the surface, the quality of LLM text as a medium is often not great.)
There may be well-written text of non-trivial length generated by LLMs, but so far I haven't knowingly encountered any, with or without em-dashes. Human editing remains very necessary.
Waste the cycles, everyone has too many cycles, is it even waste if the cycles would just go unused, GPUs are expensive, they better do their bit, who's got no GPU, go play somewhere else without your GPU, pal. It's all a game, anyway.
Point being: your comment made me sad and I needed to lighten myself up a bit.
Yes, visual effects and animations in UIs burn cycles just to make it look nicer. Doesn't matter if it's a website or the native system UI.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's fine to constantly render when you know nothing changed. I'm saying the load from this should be very small. Most of the performance issues from this page are actually from the header animation, which you can delete in the inspector to see a significant drop in usage (mine went from ~35 to ~6.6 CPU).
Nothing? I actually measured it incorrectly in the comment you replied. With nothing happening on the page Chrome's task manager reports ~0.1 CPU usage for the tab. Almost all of the overhead on this page is from the header and footer animations [1] and not the widgets. Browsers limit things like `requestAnimationFrame` in inactive tabs anyway so even if it was bad it wouldn't be devastating.
Nothing wrong with browsers using resources to do useful work. I'm just not a fan of bloat that eats resources because they're assumed to always be available.
There's no rule against being surprised, and especially not against _ever_ being surprised. They are asking people not to express surprise, real or not, when responding to a question, as a courtesy to the person asking. Like: Keep your surprise in check in situations when it's not helping.
I don't think that's too much to ask, just like it's generally considered preferable to not chew with your mouth open when in company, or talk to people with food in your mouth.
They even acknowledge that they expect these rules to not be followed all the time.
I'm surprised that you read it as a general prohibition of being surprised. ;)
Edit: Sorry, wrote my reply before I saw your substantial edits where you clarify your position and distinguish between "positive" and "negative" surprise. I agree there's a better way express surprise. The rule clearly wants people to avoid putting other people down by creating a feeling of "wow, how can you not know this". That's the spirit of the rule, and I guess it could be expressed better. I don't think they'd have a problem if someone managed to turn the surprise into a positive, but to do that, it's good to be mindful that it's often perceived negatively.
Sorry for the ninja edits. Writing from phone and didn't think there'd be people replying right away.
Seems like we're in agreement. But I reiterate that it's not a good rule if it should be regularly broken, for the good.
Thus, for a project that's been around for seemingly a very long time, it's hard to imagine that they haven't had ample time and feedback to vastly improve the wording of it all. Thus, they seem to be content that it expresses exactly what they want it to.
I don't think that the rule should regularly be broken. That's not what they say, and it's not what they mean. The strongest interpretation is: err on the side of not acting surprised at people's questions, because it tends to put people off asking them.
I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them. Could the rule be written to convey the intent more clearly? Yes, I think so. Is it only their own responsibility how the rule is interpreted? No, I don't think so.
The hacker news guidelines ask us to:
> respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
This is good advice in general. It is your choice to pick an the interpretation that you disagree with the strongest, and subsequently use it to condemn them: "puts me off entirely", "no room for nuance", and (paraphrasing:) it's on them to prevent me from interpreting the rule in the most severe way.
No. The spirit of the rule is clear. The nuance is there. What you do with it, that is all you.
> I do think you're simply reading their rule in a way that's not intended by them.
I share a similar apprehension, although it's hard to put into words exactly. Across the entire document, really. Like, it's clearly well intended, and not too bad of a match for things I would advocate myself. But at the same time it's suggestive of an impossibly high standard, and I have trauma from seeing "standards that can be interpreted as impossibly high" being applied inconsistently.
Especially the concept of "no subtle -isms": too often have I seen one side of a discussion accused of "-isms" they couldn't understand, while "-isms" they found more sympathetic/obvious went unnoticed. (That's, er, tangentially related to how I ended up making an account here in the first place.)
Yes, agreed. The document is dripping with red flags - I only called out the surprise rule, but could have criticized the rest.
It may very well be a wonderful environment there, but I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if people get accused of improper behaviour that either didn't even happen, or the vast majority of the world would be perfectly in support of.
I understand the apprehension, and I agree that rules should be as clear as possible and not be applied inconsistently. Hoewever, I take exception to the suggestion that the mere existence of a rule means that it will be applied wrong.
There is a difference between saying "I worry that these rules are too open for interpretation" and "these rules only pretend to be sensible and fair, they are clearly intended as weapons made in bad faith, the jury is rigged and I will not even consider any other interpretation". The first point is open and constructive, the other rejects other perspectives outright and dismisses the possibility of understanding and compromise. You're making the first point; the comments I replied to above seem essentially to be doing the latter, and that's what I'm arguing against.
I don't really see a difference between applying maximalist intepretations of rules to treat people unfairly on the one hand, or on the other, using maximalist interpretations of rules to dismiss good-faith rules _a priori_, that is, to use a certain reading of rules to accuse people of conspiring to use them in a certain way. How on earth are you going to make any rule that is immune to either?
In fact, I think both are the exact indentical failure to not be a dick, by the same method, just approached from opposing sides. They're born of the same inflexibility, the same uwillingness to extend other people some credit, and I do not envy anyone who has to deal with either of them as a result of trying to bring people together for some common good.
Agreed - the rule does not say, nor do they mean that the rule should be broken regularly. I was saying that because it is true, because it's not a good rule as written.
Once again, I'm reading (and quoting!) the rules exactly as wrttien by them.
> it doesn’t matter whether they’re pretending to be surprised or actually surprised
Moreover, like the sibling to this comment, I take exception to the entire document but didn't bother to expound on the rest.
Another particularly concerning excerpt
> You should not be afraid of breaking a social rule. These are things that everyone does, and breaking one doesn’t make you a bad person. If someone says, "hey, you just feigned surprise," or "that’s subtly sexist," don’t worry. Just apologize, reflect for a second, and move on.
Once again, no room for nuance, discussion etc. If someone concludes that you've broken a rule, shut up and apologize. Don't dare ask how/why, let alone disagree and try to start a discussion about the topic.
This is an environment in which professional victims/sociopaths could thrive. I've been baselessly accused many times of racism and sexism in places like this, which is not only laughable if you knew the context, but the other parties are the ones who weaponize their false victimhood in order to be sexist and racist (and corrupt).
It may very well be a wonderful environment there. But the rules, as written, seem like they're better suited to some sort of trauma-recovery facility, where everyone is enormously fragile and it is therefore extremely prudent to err egregiously on the side of "safety". But that, of course, is by definition not a healthy environment.
Once again, it would be simple to re-write or, perhaps better, replace the rules such that you don't need such ambiguity, nuance, explanations, debate etc... I already did it for one. Another such modification would just be a simple "no politics or religion" rule, which is common in hostels worldwide. Instead the opt-in rule for such topics just invites a mess.
They evidently want the rules to be as they are at this point.
The social rules page links to the code of conduct, which contains a rule about the roof. The most sensible interpretation to me is that OP wanted to comment on both, possibly forgetting that they had to follow a link to the roof rule, or maybe actively considering both pages to be a single unit.
That would be the"strongest interpretation" of OPs comment, which the local guidelines prefer us to respond to.
I'm honestly surprised how controversial this sub thread became. To put it to rest -- this is indeed correct. I commented on the roof rule but didn't link to the code of conduct because doing so didn't really seem to add anything that a reader couldn't find on their own.
The transparency of this information is a public good in itself, so it is in the interest of the public that this information can be requested as freely as possible.
Of course there should probably be a way to limit waste, but putting all financial cost onto a single person is a way to effectively limit freedom of information to the point where it contradicts and undermines the whole idea behind it. That's one of the reasons why this change is being proposed, and it is not a stretch to call this nefarious.
How do you know it's not SQL-lite with the single L serving a double role?
Common pronunciations allow you to stay perfectly ambiguous about where the L goes, which aligns quite well with the name as spelled. If you do it right, nobody can tell if you're saying sequel-ite or sequel-lite or seque-lite on the one hand, or S-Q-L-ite or S-Q-L-lite or S-Q-lite on the other.
AFAIK there is no official word on how the name is intended to be read or said.
Interesting, thanks for mentioning that. I've always wondered about the origins of the name, never found anything, but now with your mention of "mineral" I was able to find this:
> (Hipp) How do I pronounce the name of the product? I say S-Q-L-ite, like a mineral.
> But I also hear a lot people say, "Sequel lite and SQL lite." You know, I don't care. Whatever comes off of your tongue easily is fine with me.
I think we're all aware of that. The post you're responding to essentially made the same point you did, but to someone who thought it appropriate to express their love for realism in a much less mature way.
I was never part of one, but in case nobody with more experience chimes in: I'm assuming the large battles involve a lot of sitting around, pressing the occasional button to change to the next designated target, while stuck in massive game-time dilation:
It communicates an absence of thought and awareness, blind groping at building blocks without understanding. It's borderline vapid, and quite annoying.
reply