标签：#watercooler

I log commutes in a spreadsheet because mobility apps smooth over the ugly legs. Last week I added a column I should have tracked years ago: carry seconds ? time from curb to platform when stairs replace ramps. The hidden leg My one-wheel leg is fine on paper. Three metro exits on my route have no elevator during maintenance. Carrying a 14 kg wheel down 22 stairs does not show up in trip duration. It shows up in whether I arrive annoyed enough to skip coffee. What I logged (one week) Exit Stairs Carry time (s) Mood after (1-5) North gate 22 38 2 Side ramp (control) 0 8 4 East stairs 16 29 3 Battery delta on those days? Within noise. Mood delta? Not noise. A cheap decision rule I turned this into a go/no-go check before leaving: if stairs > 15 AND carry_weight_kg > 12: prefer transit-only or locker elif stairs > 0 AND wet_floor: walk the wheel (no riding in station) else: ride It is blunt. It works better than pretending every leg is rideable. Assumptions up front Wheel weight includes pads and charger pouch (~14 kg for my commuter setup). I am not timing competitive carries ? just whether I can do this daily without hating it. Your threshold differs if every exit has elevators. What I would do differently I would log carry seconds from day one, same tab as distance and battery percent. Range math without carry math is incomplete for anyone who mixes metro and one-wheel. I work around personal EVs and sometimes cross-check specs on the official Kingsong catalog. https://www.kingsong.com/collections/electric-unicycle

Top 7 Featured DEV Posts of the Week Cyberpunk cat RPGs and robot personalities Jess Lee Jess Lee Jess Lee Follow for The DEV Team Jun 23 Top 7 Featured DEV Posts of the Week # discuss # top7 34 reactions 7 comments 2 min read

TL;DR: What gadgets, tools, furniture and whatnot do I need for an ideal desk setup for a...

Why AI Alternatives Matter AI is prone to problems affecting its output: hallucinations, incompleteness, inconsistency, and bias. AI usage is costly, and the popular free services might require expensive paid plans or downgrade to sponsored light versions at any time. Don't Hit Submit! Ethical issues aside, lazily using AI to often and too early won't make you a better coder or more creative. And AI companies don't only take your money, they're also after your data – and your time! Techniques like Rubber Duck Debugging (internal dialog development preparing questions and anticipating answers without actually asking anyone) are alternatives to AI for coding and creativity. Don't Ask Suggestive Questions If your question implies a certain answer, asking only makes sense for falsification. AI (and other people) will hopefully tell you when you're completely wrong. Only that AI often doesn't. Current models are trained for flattery and verbosity. Don't Ask Why What a waste of time! Try to ask open questions, and always prefer asking "how", not "why". Stay Skeptical Don't believe anything without a factful proof or a recent, reputable, relevant source. GEO, the AI-agent-targeting variant of search engine optimization, already succeeded to gaslight AI and poison its answers with fake sources biased towards commercial results. AI seems much more gullible than real people. Source: The Shape of Enshittification: Books That No Longer Get Read, An Internet That No Longer Gets Surfed, & The End of Social Media As We Know It.. Principle of Least Power Remember the rule of least power : don't rent a truck when you need a mini van. Don't use AI when you need autocomplete, web search, or a tutorial! I sketched a pyramid of thinking, creativity, and information retrieval again. As you can guess, AI assistants are "on top" as the most costly exception, while the broad basis should be traditional groundwork. Here's a cute AI-slop adaption: Source: Hand-Crafted Creative Counter-Culture

Somewhere right now a guy at a bar is making a stranger sign an NDA on a napkin. For an app idea. Just sit with that. That napkin is going in a drawer. The drawer is a graveyard. Quick tour. Exhibit A: bro we should open a bar Two beers in, you're suddenly a hospitality mogul. Picking a name. Arguing about taco night. By the time the check comes, the bar is already dead. It died of "let's talk about this again soon," which never happens. Exhibit B: bro we should start a band A guitar shows up at a party. Someone says "we should actually start something." One rehearsal happens. In a garage. A neighbor complains. The band dies before it has a name or a single original song. RIP. Exhibit C: the app idea, may it rest in your Notes app The big one. Open your Notes app, it's a cemetery. "App that reminds you to text people back." Dead. "Tinder but for gym buddies." Dead. These ideas didn't fail. They never even got born. Why none of these make it out alive The ideas aren't even bad. Some are genuinely good. The problem is ideas are free and easy to say out loud. Building one makes it real, and real things can fail in public with your name on them. Saying "we should open a bar" costs nothing. Actually opening one costs $400,000, a liquor license, and every Saturday for five years. Guess which one people actually do. Building also got way easier, which makes this worse. You don't need a technical cofounder anymore. You can describe an app to a chat box and watch a prototype show up before your coffee's cold. The wall that used to stop people is mostly gone. People are still standing where it used to be, out of habit. A small ceremony for the ones we lost HERE LIES: "the app idea I had in the shower" born: tuesday died: tuesday, when I got out of the shower HERE LIES: "our band" born: one guitar, one party died: one noise complaint HERE LIES: "the bar we were gonna open" born: 1:47am died: 1:48am, checked the bill Two graves that still have a heartbeat Here's the part nobody

Gustavo Manso (Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley) e Nassim Taleb affrontano entrambi il problema centrale dell'innovazione, ma da angolazioni complementari: Manso con la precisione del contratto ottimale, Taleb con la filosofia dell'antifragilità . Entrambi convergono su un'idea contro-intuitiva: per generare innovazione dirompente, bisogna proteggere il fallimento. Manso: Il contratto come strumento di tolleranza Il lavoro di Manso si concentra sui meccanismi di incentivazione che rendono l'innovazione possibile all'interno delle organizzazioni. La sua ricerca fondamentale (2011) modella esplicitamente il trade-off tra exploration (esplorazione di azioni nuove e non testate) e exploitation (sfruttamento di azioni note). Manso dimostra che i contratti ottimali per motivare l'innovazione richiedono una combinazione specifica: tolleranza per i fallimenti nel breve termine e ricompensa per il successo nel lungo termine . Questo è l'esatto opposto del classico "pay-for-performance" (paga in base alle prestazioni), che funziona bene per compiti routine ma soffoca l'innovazione. Come ha osservato Bengt Holmström (1989), citato da Manso, le attività innovative "richiedono una tolleranza eccezionale per il fallimento" perché il processo è imprevedibile e idiosincratico. Uno studio empirico fondamentale — che applica direttamente la teoria di Manso al venture capital — ha mostrato che i VC più tolleranti verso il fallimento generano startup significativamente più innovative. Un aumento dell'1% nella tolleranza al fallimento del VC porta a un aumento dello 0,5% nelle citazioni per brevetto. L'effetto è amplificato nelle recessioni e per le startup in fase iniziale. Manso ha anche esteso questa logica al finanziamento della ricerca scientifica, mostrando come la struttura dei fondi influenzi gli studi dirompenti. La sua analisi suggerisce che le leggi del lavoro che proteggono i dipendenti dal licenziamento arbitrario — attraverso quello che gli studiosi chiamano "effetto a

I joined DEV at the start of January, but it's only really been in the past week or so that things clicked into place — and looking back, it's been a lot more eventful than I expected for "week one." What I Set Out to Do My original plan was simple: write a structured series covering iOS development with Swift and SwiftUI, one topic at a time, with anime examples thrown in to keep things fun. Strings, arrays, loops, functions — the building blocks. What I didn't plan for was everything else that happened alongside it. The June Solstice Game Jam Happened I saw the announcement for DEV's June Solstice Game Jam and, on a whim, decided to build something for it. A few hours later I had a fully working SwiftUI trivia game — Pride Trivia & Alan Turing Edition — with ten questions covering LGBTQIA+ history and Alan Turing's legacy, a rainbow progress bar, and a results screen with score-based messages. I'd never built and shipped something end-to-end like that before, let alone submitted it to a community challenge. Going from "let's see if this works in the simulator" to "this is live on GitHub with a demo video and a published writeup" in one sitting was honestly a bit of a blur. Then I Detoured Into Google AI Studio A few days later, I worked through the DEV Education Track for Google AI Studio and built MascotCraft Studio — an app that generates coding mascots using Gemini and Imagen. One prompt later, I had a fully deployed web app and a mascot named Octo-Byte , a cheerful deep-sea developer with eight arms and a talent for multitasking. That post sparked one of my favorite discussions so far — a few comments turned into a genuinely interesting conversation about how AI is shifting the bottleneck from "can I build this" to "what should I build, and how do I know if it's good." Not at all what I expected from a post about a cartoon octopus. The Badges Somewhere in all of this, I picked up: A 1 Week Community Wellness Streak badge, just from commenting on other people's

Hey all! I have this thought in mind that we should all come together as a community to celebrate...

Meme Monday! Today's cover image comes from the last thread. DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in...

In times when people believe that "AI can code a website in 2 days" (see: how to leverage AI as a...

I said "maybe a couple days" on a call last Tuesday. By Wednesday morning it was in a Jira ticket as "2 days." By Thursday afternoon somebody was checking in to see if we were tracking against the two day commitment. Nobody did anything wrong. The person who wrote it down was capturing what I said. The person checking in was doing their job. I was the one who said the words. The system worked exactly as designed. The system is the problem. Something Ive learned is that theres no such thing as a rough number in meetings today with all of the AI note takers... The moment you say a number out loud, it stops being a feeling and starts being a quote. The hedge in front of it doesnt survive the transcription. "Maybe" disappears. "Couple" gets rounded to a specific integer. "Give or take" is the first thing that hits the cutting room floor. What lands in the document is the number, naked, with no caveats and no error bars. Everyone in the meeting heard what you heard. They heard the hedge. They watched you wave your hands. They understood, in the moment, that you werent committing. But the document doesnt remember any of that. The document just remembers the number. And the document outlives the conversation, which is where all the nuance lived. Ive watched myself do this for years and I still get caught by it. Someone asks how long something will take. I want to be helpful. I want to seem confident. I want to keep the meeting moving. So I say a number. The number is approximately right, or at least I think it is, but I havent actually thought about it the way you would think about it if you were going to commit to it. By saying it out loud, Ive committed to it. The fix, if theres one, is to refuse the number. Not rudely. Just clearly. "I need to look at it before I give you a real number. I can have one for you by Friday." This works about half the time. The other half, somebody in the room is going to ask you for a ballpark anyway, and youre going to give them one, and t

Meme Monday! Today's cover image comes from the last thread . DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in poor taste will be downvoted by mods.

Old School RuneScape has some of the most punishing—and rewarding—boss fights in any MMORPG. But unlike modern games that hand-hold you through a linear storyline, OSRS drops you into a massive open world with dozens of bosses and almost no guidance on which ones you should actually fight at your current level. If you've ever asked yourself: "I have 70 Attack—now what? Where do I even start with bossing?"—this guide is for you. The reality is that boss progression in OSRS isn't just about combat level. It's about unlocking content , learning mechanics , building gear on a budget , and scaling difficulty at the right pace . Rush into Vorkath at combat 90 with Tier 30 gear, and you'll bleed GP on deaths. Wait too long, and you'll miss out on millions of GP/hour that could have accelerated your account. This roadmap is designed to take you from your first boss kill to endgame PvM—with exact combat level ranges, gear checkpoints, EXP/hour benchmarks, and the reasoning behind every step. Table of Contents Why Boss Progression Matters The Three Pillars of Boss Readiness Phase 1: Pre-Boss Foundation (Combat 1–60) Phase 2: Your First Boss Kills (Combat 60–75) Phase 3: Mid-Game Bossing (Combat 75–90) Phase 4: Late Mid-Game Unlocks (Combat 90–105) Phase 5: Endgame PvM (Combat 105–126) Gear Progression Pathway Common Progression Mistakes (And How to Avoid Them) Conclusion: Your Bossing Journey Starts Now Why Boss Progression Matters Most OSRS players approach bossing backwards. They see a max-level player at Vorkath making 2M GP/hour, and they want that. So they grind combat to 80, buy some mid-tier gear, and head straight to Vorkath. Result? They die twice, spend 500K on gear repairs and supplies, and walk away thinking bossing isn't worth it. The problem isn't the boss. It's the progression . Bossing in OSRS is a skill, just like any other. Every boss teaches you a specific mechanic: prayer flicking, movement, eating under pressure, or managing multiple enemies. If you skip

Every weekday, we averaged 10 groups. Every weekend, 15. Same karaoke bar. Same staff. Same songs. For a long time, I just accepted that gap as "normal." Weekends are busier. That's just how hospitality works, right? Wrong. It took me years to realize I wasn't looking at a staffing problem. I was looking at a funnel problem — and I had no idea what a funnel even was. The moment I noticed something was off One Tuesday afternoon, a group of four walked past the front door, looked at the menu board outside, and kept walking. I watched from the counter. I had open rooms. Competitive prices. Cold drinks. Everything they needed. But they left anyway. That one moment stuck with me. Why did they walk in? Why did they look? Why did they leave? I started tracking these moments obsessively. Not with software — just a notebook and a lot of attention. Here's what I found over six weeks: Weekdays : About 40 people walked past who paused at the sign. Of those, maybe 15 came to the door. Of those, 10 groups actually came in and paid. Weekends : About 90 people paused. 30 came to the door. 15 groups booked a room. The conversion rate was almost identical — roughly 25% from "stopped to look" to "became a customer." The difference wasn't that we were worse at converting on weekdays. We just had fewer people at the top. That's a funnel. I didn't know the term at the time. But what I was describing is exactly what marketers call a marketing funnel : Awareness — people notice you exist Interest — they stop to look Consideration — they walk to the door, check the price Action — they book a room and pay Most businesses obsess over the bottom of the funnel. Better sales scripts. Discount campaigns. Loyalty cards. I did the same. I ran Tuesday specials. I trained staff to upsell drinks. I rearranged the menu. None of it closed the gap. Because the gap wasn't at the bottom. It was at the top. On weekdays, I simply had fewer people aware we existed. What I tried instead Once I framed it as a f

Not a job application — a peer search .\n\nI ship PHP/JS/AI production sites. People around me cannot relate to webhook failures at 2am.\n\nI want friends who are better coders than me in some layers.\n\nReply with what you are building: https://dev.to/elionreigns/looking-for-dev-friends-who-actually-get-how-much-work-this-is-3m0c

I don't identify as a gamer. I occasionally participate in board games or an amateur football match,...

Meme Monday! Today's cover image comes from the last thread. DEV is an inclusive space! Humor in...