Interesting product and obviously awesome execution, as expected from tldraw… but yeah… seems like a very strange departure from what Steve has been building the past few years.
The core product / pitch is still the same—an SDK for whiteboards and other infinite canvas stuff—and that's what we monetize through licenses. Computer (and our other demos) are basically marketing, R&D, and fun.
Well if you're looking for fun stuff... could you make a tool that lets me easily breadboard [1] an app, and then you GenAI it into a low-fidelity clickable prototype?
I'm glad to hear that it was a positive experience for you! Do you think you know what % of your peers ended up working in tech off the top of your head?
just to level set, i myself went thru a normal (non lambda school, but still highly rated) bootcamp in 2017 (some of which were ISAs, the rest regular tuition), and about 30% of my classmates went back to their past jobs and careers. i'm sure about 20-30% of the rest are in tech but in unhappy situations. but for the remaining 30-50% of us it was a lifechanger.
i wish that people would not throw out the baby with the bathwater when changing careers and reskilling people is an inherently messy process that obviously the bootcamp cannot totally control even if were run perfectly, which lambda definitely was not. it just turns off a lot of people like me who actually could potentially change their lives for the better if they were presented simple facts without the extremes of hype or hyperbole.
p.s. for sibling comment - yes it is -normal- for good students to be offered another term as TAs for the next class. this was considered an honor and actually was fairly competitive and i think helped them be really good by the time they got into the job search. TAs are TAs, all colleges have them; they do not replace full instructors, but some of them are worth their weight in gold due to their student empathy.
"TAs are TAs, all colleges have them; they do not replace full instructors, but some of them are worth their weight in gold due to their student empathy."
Lol. TAs in colleges are graduate students. They aren't undergraduates who can't find a job.
like i said i cant speak for lambda school, but at my bootcamp the TAs were the best of us, not the "ones who can't find a job". and at my (fairly prestigious, hopefully not non-legit) university, TAs were very often upperclassmen and sometimes sophomores that -just- completed the previous class.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the term. Graduate Student = someone enrolled in a Masters Program, Post doc, PHD program, etc.
This is quite different from a using a recent Bootcamp grad, likely without any industry experience, as a TA in a Software Dev Bootcamp. Especially because the main purpose of this is just to inflate job placement statistics.
Typically, getting into a graduate program is difficult and has an additional bar past graduation, and unless you are a great student you only TA entry level classes you have to master very well anyways. Especially in CS, graduate student is a paid job, too.
What year did you attend? Did you have actual teachers, or just other classmates conscripted into teaching you things they themselves didn't understand yet?
You can't post like this to HN regardless of who you're for or against, so I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
The dynamics of such a system are rarely considered, which is why it's such an easy trap for societies to fall into, especially societies with high regard for their institutions.
It starts with the voices of reason ("Isn't there a danger this data could be abused?") being slowly pushed out, through lack of promotions or being transferred to other departments where they are a "better fit".
Then this government body starts to attract the naive zealots ("Just think of all the good we can do! How could anyone see a problem with us collecting more data?") which becomes self-reinforcing.
The final step is when the ambitious and malicious take notice ("This data must be worth a lot of money to the right people, and I could make sure my political party never loses another election") at which point the entire process is captured and corrupted from the top down.
Avoiding building these systems in the first place is good civic hygiene, and societies need to develop an instinct that if you allow data and power to accumulate in one place for too long, it will start to attract pests.
No. Variations of the slippery slope argument fail to engage with the actual concrete issues, the actual social trajectory, and anything specific and contextual. Not engaging is not engaging. It is weak and solves nothing.
The Norweigian government has specific plans for this data. Engage those plans. Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
> Concrete adversarial scenarios are in fact helpful from a policy and planning perspective.
Right, and I'm saying that an agency which is tasked with gathering all this private data about innocent citizens, without a warrant, is going to attract people who will want to abuse it, just as other mass surveillance agencies have abused their powers in the past.
How much more concrete do I need to be? Do I need to give the names of actual Norwegian threat actors who I think might want to infiltrate this agency, and specify who they would sell the data to, or which of their ex-partners they would spy on, or which opposition politician's spending habits they would leak to which paper?
I am used to hearing this from software engineers who are secure in the knowledge that when they want to try out a concept, hardware time to do so will be cheap and readily available. At some point, you are going to have to take all of your shiny materials science and turbulence simulations, and actually build a piece of apparatus to test it out on the scale that your chosen application (in this case, power generation) will require. The universe is under no obligation to make sure that it will cost less than billions to do so; hence ITER.
Having said that, there's been a lot of extremely promising recent progress in high field superconductors and fusion designs based on them (MIT ARC, Tokamak Energy, etc) that could shrink the necessary scale for a working reactor, so perhaps it will turn out we're lucky with the physics on this one after all.
You might be right on this one. I'm a bit curious if any other HN-reader is aware of the private fusion project (aka the SAFIRE project) which is now run by the company Aureon Energy (https://aureon.ca/). I do highly recommend watching the video (also available on the legacy page https://safireproject.com/) for the video recording of the experiments. It's not yet quite mainstream physics but we have to remember that once upon the time the mainstream physics people didn't think that heavier-than-air flying machines are possible while nowadays they have wasted countless billions on their fusion experiments and achieved close to nothing.
> we have to remember that once upon the time the mainstream physics people didn't think that heavier-than-air flying machines are possible while nowadays they have wasted countless billions on their fusion experiments and achieved close to nothing
Challenging authority gets you cool-guy points, but does nothing for actual understanding. “The experts don’t know what they’re talking about and are blinded by tribalism” is rhetoric of the 20th century. Physics has moved on.
Also, if experimental surgeries were never attempted in the 20th century the quality and length of our lives, and potentially trillions of future human lives, would be nasty, brutish, and short. Not all attempts had a sound basis and I don’t defend them. I do say the good of the total if 20th century experimental surgeries far outweighs the bad. Importantly, we are able to learn from our mistakes quickly. It took centuries to stop using the breaking wheel. It took less than a lifetime to stop lobotomies.
I’m struggling to understand your point though. Do doctors still practice lobotomies and refuse to wash hands, or have they cast aside their tribalism and make decisions based on science?
So you say. Though I don't see any evidence humanity as a whole has moved past groupthink. But yeah, I might be wrong about SAFIRE, as I haven't done any fusion experiments myself, just read a bit of research.
I work with fusion researchers. We regularly talk about non-mainstream designs and unexplored areas of physics. It’s a lot of fun. The mainstream is mainstream because it’s what works, not because that’s what our fathers built. The theoretical physicists are actively working on a dozen empirical models. They throw out what they need to. No one’s saying “don’t fund alternatives”. Fund alternatives. Show that they work. They haven’t in the past, but if one did the most excited people will be the mainstream fusion researchers.
> Kind of ironic to post this on the web, given it's history.
it's funny because you think it happened because tim berners lee and CERN. I think, it happened because arpanet and universities connecting with each other.
Internet wasn't an organised effort. it was a bottoms up manifestation. Do i need to remind you what CERN was actually supposed to do?
