The nice thing in this case is that Django will meet you where you are with your preferences. Want to go the manual route? Sure. Want it to take a shot at auto-generation and then you customize? Very doable and. Want to let Django take the wheel fully the majority of the time? Sure.
is this like the "it takes 50 hours to set up a project management tool to work the way you want"? what happens if you onboard a superstar that works with django some other way?
> what happens if you onboard a superstar that works with django some other way
If you hired a "superstar" that goes out of their way to hand-write migrations in cases where Django can do it by default (the majority of them) you did not in fact get a superstar.
I have yet to see anyone hand-roll migrations on purpose. In fact the problem is usually the opposite, the built-in migration generator works so well that a lot of people have very little expertise is doing manual migrations because they maybe had to do it like 5 times in their entire career.
Either way the end result is a single file in migrations/ that describes the change, though you do have to write it with Django's API if you want further migrations to work without issues (so no raw SQL, but this low-level API is things like CreateTable() and AddColumn() - and is what Django generates automatically from the models, so the auto-generated migrations are easily inspectable and won't change).
No. Django is very good at having the autogenerated/default stuff be consistent with what you do if you want to write manually, it's not one of those "if you want to use the magic as-is it all just works, if you want to customize even one tiny piece you have to manually replicate all of the magic parts" frameworks.
Most countries don't have a notion of a formally licenses physicist either. That doesn't make it right to call astrology physics. And all of the practices around using LLM agents for coding are a lot closer to astrology than they are to astronomy.
I was replying to someone who claimed that getting real productivity gains from this tool requires engineering and needs to be approached as such. It also compared learning to use LLM agents to learning to code in emacs or vim, or learning a programming language - things which are nothing alike to learning to control an inherently stochastic tool that can't even be understood using any of our regular scientific methods.
I think it's relevant when people keep using terms like "prompt engineering" to try and beef up this charade of md files that don't even seem to work consistently.
This is a far far cry from even writing yaml for Github/Gitlab CICD pipelines. Folks keep trying to say "engineering" when every AI thread like this seems to push me more towards "snake oil" as an appropriate term.
I’ve never been on a team that migrated to Aurora PG for raw query perf. It is slower than a bespoke setup that is optimized for raw latency, but Aurora is going to hold up under much higher traffic with much less fuss. It also has an excellent snapshot/restore facility.
Auto vacuuming is enabled now. We did have some near misses due to long running vacuums that barely completed before wraparounds, but got things tuned over time.
I did none of that work but was on the team where it happened.
It does when the biggest expenditure category is for a positional good (ie. rent). There's only so much land in new york and so many apartment units. Being in a wealthy country means your peers are also wealthy, which means a household with double income can easily outbid a household with a single income.
The last line in the comment was a little petty but I don’t think I’d describe it as a Molotov cocktail. It sucks that we’ve ended up in this situation but Texas is an objectively more risky place to live if you are in the 50% of the population that has a uterus.
Women and healthcare are welcome to be discussed abstractly in their own silos, but mixing “women” up with the idea of “tech workers” in the context of moving to Texas is going to piss off a group of people that are less of a hassle to dang if he deferentially capitulates to their preferences in advance.
I don't know who you're talking about but this was a straightforward moderation call, not some weird capitulation.
Nearly every time we moderate any X at all, someone jumps to the conclusion "mod secretly agrees with the enemies of X or is secretly under their power". But X varies across the set of all topics, so if this logic is correct, we'd have to secretly be favoring everybody's enemy.
> this was a straightforward moderation call, not some weird capitulation.
This makes sense. Despite the post being critically salient and undeniably on topic, it is a violation of the rules. Or not, just a moderation call or both or neither. Anyway despite the obvious relevance here the rules/your discretion (whichever one it is) have thankfully saved us from any discussion of the uncontested fact that this is a material issue and not an abstract discussion of moral issues.
I am sorry that I gave you the impression that this was some weird capitulation, that’s not the case. It’s a wholly normal and humdrum capitulation that is not in any way odd. Treating issues like this as abstract or unworthy of discussion is the norm in many industries, tech included!
The fact that the attorney general of the state can and will intervene between doctors and patients in order to further an ideological agenda is wholly abstract to a group that will insist that “this doesn’t apply to me personally and therefore is unworthy of discussion”. By default (either rules or moderation call, whichever) they have been deemed correct and endorsed here by explicitly disallowing any discussion to the contrary.
That's just a case of us not having seen it. I've responded now. It's not possible for us to read everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
> Were discussion about Foxxcon suicides equally moderated?
I can't fathom what that has to do with this, but the answer is of course. The principles are the same.
You can always find examples of comments that escape moderation on any side of any sufficiently-discussed topic. People are far too eager to make inferences about moderation bias from what is in fact just randomness.
reply