Alt + 0151, baby! Or... however you do it on MacOS.
But now, likewise, having to bail on emdashes. My last differentiator is that I always close set the emdash—no spaces on either side, whereas ChatGPT typically opens them (AP Style).
I bought the magnatile-knockoff-version essentially and while not as pure montessori as the wooden blocks, they're 1/10th the price and my 4-year-old is _loving_ this kit: https://amzn.to/3MVXRXg
Steve's comments around merging the culture of creatives and technologists, and how hard it is to attract and _retain_ the kind of world-changing talent that was necessary to invent a new category are interesting: "the very best creative people will only go to work at a few places, Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks,"... "in the same sense, the very best computer scientists and computer graphics people will only go work in a few places, and Pixar is one of those..." "I think Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas."
It feels like there are some obvious parallels to what we're seeing in AI hiring, where you have a firm like Anthropic that openly acknowledges that they're not going to try to compete on comp but on culture, compared to Meta which is basically saying "we'll give you more money than god if you join our efforts to throw things at the wall and be part of this," and watching as people churn out even though the opportunity cost on the surface may be unfathomable.
Put another way: Steve truly understood the virtue and value of that cultural component to not just attract but _retain_ that kind of world-class talent, and _that's_ what he attributes Pixar's success to. He goes on to talk about how getting those disparate talent worlds to stick together for a decade, and how valuable that is.
> Steve truly understood the virtue and value of that cultural component to not just attract but _retain_ that kind of world-class talent, and _that's_ what he attributes Pixar's success to.
Both Jobs and Pixar’s Ed Catmull believed this so strongly that they took illegal measures to protect it:
I think "The Soul of the New Machine" definitely captures the idea -- I don't have the exact words, but it's like playing pinball -- you win and you get to play the next one. The reward of completing a tough job is a tougher job.
I really love this kind of culture. Life is grey without being challenged to the limit.
If I want to use a passkey on my phone, I have to bio authenticate into it. Similarly, with Windows Hello as a passkey provider, via my camera scanner. It works well and is pretty seamless, all things considered. I prefer it to the email/code/magic link method.
Is it me, or does $600,000 a year (presuming that $3M is over the 5 year period) seem a bit of a weak contribution from a company with a $1.8 trillion market cap that's regularly making $100M-$250M TC pay packages for AI scientists?
Like, I get that nothing is _owed_ here, but this feels like more of the same tragedy of the commons open source problem we see: tools that millions of apps depend on, barely propped up, and in this case, the child of a megacorporation that could easily create a proper evergreen endowment rather than a milquetoast token contribution to save face.
Somehow because Meta has released a popular OSS library and dedicated over 10 years of engineering resources to it (that has generated immense value for the wider ecosystem), that they should've shelled out more than the $3M they're contributing in order to give its ownership away to a non-profit.
Maybe it's just me but I think they've contributed more than enough. I'm grateful for what they've already contributed and anything else they choose to contribute in future.
You're right, $3million is a lot for an open source project, with no other context.
But in the context of who that $3million is coming from, how much they have available, how much responsibility they have for the state of it, and how much value it provides to everyone who isn't them, I think it's fair some people might have expected a little more.
If this went the other way where say FaceBook let people freely create accounts and talk to everybody and then later on either charged 10$/month, plastered the site with ads, or started to selling user data people would be upset about a bait and switch.
If you release something for free as you shouldn't be expected compensation for it. People also shouldn't expect anything beyond the terms that you've released it underneath as well.
Right! As long as the license is obeyed, who are you to complain? If the original developer has a problem with the results of something like the MIT License, well, they chose that, and licensing choices are very extensively documented in news.
Pro-tip: LICENSE files are just text! you can edit them. The license is the license, and if someone fucks that up, well, they fucked up. Don't want Amazon to use your lib? Just say that. I have very little pity for those that complain about this sort of thing. "Gratitude" has little legal standing, and expecting a corporation to be ethical is absurd as apologizing to your tapeworm.
I get your points. Nobody owes anyone anything, life is hard, we should be grateful Meta gifted us React in the first place, licenses are a thing etc.
Let me try again to explain the view that you 2 are saying you can't see:
I don't have an obligation to donate anything to anyone ever - like you said nobody does.
However, I think people are entitled to hold the expectation and opinion that I'm a bit of a jerk if I'm super rich and choose to donate virtually nothing.
$3million is virtually nothing to a $3 trillion org.
> $3million is virtually nothing to a $3 trillion org.
Meta only has 1.8T Market Cap, but that number is meaningless and doesn't represent what they own or can spend, from last report they only have $12B cash on hand and have released over 600 OSS projects [1]. If they donated $3M to each of their OSS projects it would cost them 6.67% of their cash war chest.
But the point is, why should they? What benefit is it to their mission or their shareholders? Why should anyone be entitled to more than the decades of development effort and the $3M they're prepared to donate in order to hand the project to another foundation to take over?
I don't think you should be entitled and expect anything more, and we should all be grateful for what they've already contributed to OSS and what they will contribute in future.
I might have expected $1M/year, not $0.6M/year, just because it sounds cooler, but... OTOH, is there any analogous project that was better supported? Maybe, but I can't think of one...
They also have a team of full time react devs they are paying for. That seems to me more than sufficient.
$600,000/year just to run a governance board and organize a conference seems extraordinarily generous to me. In fact I think it's more likely the $3M is more likely to form an endowment for the foundation that will fund it's expenses running forward.
> They also have a team of full time react devs they are paying for.
For now. My guess is they will be included in the next round of layoffs. Money for $100 Million pay packages for AI researchers has to come from somewhere!
I do think I read that as being _part_ of the $3M, not in _addition_ to, which absolutely increases the overall value of the contribution, likely materially.
The post said they would also still pay for their own internal team that would keep contributing code to React, so it feels more like their throwing in $600k in addition to what they already do. And they have brought inn other companies who hopefully also contribute money, seems like a lot more of an healthy situation than before.
Please no. They don't have the best interests of React in mind.
They threw the resources behind RSC to make React, a framework for frontend reactivity, force opt-in for frontend reactivity. Meta is needed more than ever at this point, before React fully becomes a framework for burning compute on Vercel's infra.
They might not have the conflict of interest but they also don’t have the business interest either. Meta is a spyware company who makes all of their money from collecting personal data to sell to advertisers. They have zero incentive to dedicate any kind of significant resources to supporting millions of websites using their internal UI library.
Let's round their yearly revenue at around $160 billion, then assume they've spent $3 million a year on React. That would put the cost at 0.002% of revenue, or to put it another way, if they dedicated just 1% of revenue to philanthropy, they could fund 500 React sized projects indefinitely.
Generally speaking, a lot of firms follow best practice where "issues"/"tasks"/"stories" are written (by a Product Manager, or PM) to include both a prescriptive request as well as a list of acceptance criteria that can be checked off to act as a mutually understood list of requirements for that issue to be considered complete.
The "given/when/then" model is basically, "given this circumstance, when the following occurs, the following behavior is observed" as a framing device for building ACs, though not everyone uses that.
> Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section. This restriction shall expire, absent extension, 12 months after the effective date of this proclamation, which shall be 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2025.
Could be interpreted to mean that anyone who leaves the country on a _current_ H1B and attempts to return might be blocked if they don't have proof of the payment having been made, despite the fact that no process currently exists to remit said payment.
I'd love to say it's doubtful this administration would do something so callous, asinine, and cruel, but...
Regardless of whether you think imposing a $100k fee on H1Bs is a good idea or not, there is no way that a 2 day deadline makes sense from an implementation perspective. On a weekend too. This is just going to cause panic and confusion at the border.
No, the language clearly limits the restriction to those “aliens … currently outside the United States.” “Entry” in this context means seeking admission (or re-entry) to the U.S. from abroad, under a new petition or visa that starts outside. It is tied to new petitions, and specifically those where the beneficiary is abroad.
“(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall restrict decisions on petitions not accompanied by a $100,000 payment for H-1B specialty occupation workers … who are currently outside the United States …”
But now, likewise, having to bail on emdashes. My last differentiator is that I always close set the emdash—no spaces on either side, whereas ChatGPT typically opens them (AP Style).
reply