My memory is hazy since it's been a while, but I implemented collaborative editing in TipTap using YJS. This requires coordinating editor state with a socket interface and I had to use a bunch of useEffect trickery to make sure the state didn't get out of sync. I'm afraid I can't elaborate further, but I will say that I'd highly recommend TipTap if you want to build collaborative editing. Once I got it working, it worked perfectly.
Yes, it works well but there is a limit of 16k words. See this reddit comment thread [0] for more details, but if your documents are anywhere near that big then I'd say Postgres is definitely not the right tool for you.
Yes, and if it falls short you can also use the RUM extension if you don't mind the extra index size (can install via package manager or maybe you db provider like supabase has it available)
This line of reasoning never made sense to me. The speed of light prevents there from being calamities that can wipe out an entire star-faring civilization at once. Once intelligent life has spread throughout a region of space beyond a few light years, I don't see how extinction is possible.
Because there is zero proof that species will get past the point where they can start moving between the stars. If you're willing to take it as read that every species that is intelligent (or even most of them) will eventually make it to that stage then yes, your other point will hold as well. But that's a huge assumption that may not necessarily turn out to be true.
> Because there is zero proof that species will get past the point where they can start moving between the stars.
The feasibility of interstellar space travel is an unknown unknown. We have so much more to understand about our universe and our world before we can even cast doubt on whether it's possible or not. When we don't even know what 85% of the universe consists of, much less lack a unified field theory, we just don't yet have the knowledge to make bold assertions on this topic.
Yes, that is yet another assumption. In general any conversation about such stuff should start out with stating clearly what your assumptions are. Since the GGGP started out with interstellar travel as assumed I felt no need to fix that (and technically, voyager qualifies as an interstellar spacecraft at this point in time, even if it is an unmanned one). But you are 100% right, interstellar travel by intelligent beings should definitely not be assumed until there is proof of it actually happening and/or being done.
We are within a century of achieving that capability. The SpaceX Starship is sufficient to expand into the galaxy, even if just by the slow pace of island-hopping through the Oort cloud. We just need to achieve an in-space capability for Starship construction and maintenance, which is achievable on that timeline.
You can not possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. The difference between going to Mars and going to even the nearest star with a manned spacecraft is roughly equivalent to the difference between 'science' and 'science fiction'.
This IS my field, and I can make that claim. The Starship is designed to operate as a reusable, in-situ refutable vehicle in the regime of <4km/s delta-V trajectories. That is sufficient to get anywhere through staging, using other starships as tankers. It is designed for this.
By analogy it's like pointing out that an off-road jeep is sufficient to get anywhere on Earth, even with only a 300 mile range, because jeeps can carry supplies and/or an extra tank of gas as its cargo instead of people, with staging outposts (gas & maintenance stations) setup and supplied every few hundred miles.
You can make the claim that it is your field, which makes it a simple appeal to authority. But that doesn't make your claim true. There are lots of people in lots of fields that make claims that turn out to be bogus and this - to me - seems to be one of those.
If you honestly believe that we have solved all the interesting problems in interstellar travel and it's 'a mere matter of engineering' then that's fine with me, you're going to have to live with me not believing you.
Best of luck, and - FWIW - I hope you succeed but I highly doubt that you will, the whole 'we are less than a century away from X' stuff is exactly why I say it is science fiction and not science, you can't possibly know the future to that degree.
I made no such claim that we have solved all interesting problems. Merely that the self-sufficiency that could be achieved on such a timescale would be sufficient to support limitless expansion into the cosmos. It’s the bare minimum, if you will.
I think you're right about all of this! And to add another point, I worry the only people who will have access to this are those who can afford a bunch of health gadgets and a premium primary care provider.
But, at the same time, it's impossible to imagine our government creating such a thing :(
Totally, but in order to benefit from this system you'd probably also need a connected mattress, watch, maybe a continuous glucose monitor, some sort of workout device, etc.
It adds up. This is a country where half the population earns $40k or less a year.
Which is peanuts in the overall costs of healthcare. At what point are you given one as part of your welcome kit? There are already health plans in the US that offer fitbits or will subsidize their cost.
The game becomes encouraging a healthier lifestyle to help people avoid getting sick or hurt which costs alot less than treating someone once they have developed a full blown disease. It's one place where both the patients' and the insurer's and hospitals' interests are all in line with each other.
Well Apple Health is an open API that anyone can integrate with. So I'd assume Whoop either A) doesn't want to be modularized, or B) has a data format that doesn't fit with Apple's specification for some good reason.
You can actually integrate with Health while still also showing it in your app. Health is like a database of sorts which you can choose to add your data to or access from yoUr app. (Similar to HomeKit, actually.)
Right, what I'm saying is that Whoop should, but doesn't. I don't really want to export my data, transform it for Apple's Health APIs and then re-import it. I want Whoop to do that for me. I'd use their App and Apple Health.
You should reach out to Whoop and request they sync their data with Apple Health. This isn't an Apple issue, this is a Whoop issue. The more users who request it, hopefully, the more they'll see the need.
Also, to counter one of your arguments above, Apple Health doesn't do a lot of analysis on third party data short of showing it in charts, so there is still value to using Whoops app for that aspect of it.
As an example, my scale is Whithings, my bed had a Beautyrest Sleeptracker both of these services consume and contribute to Apple Health.
This is definitely a common complaint with WHOOP! Looking into the reviews for the WHOOP 3.0 the biggest piece of negative feedback I could find is the lack of integration with Apple Health. Seems like this is a bridge they'll have to cross eventually.
Or probably people have become vary of companies like Apple and Amazon who are very focused on vertical integration at the cost of killing off the business of their partners. Spotify had to spend decade to reach critical mass of users for it to reach profitability. Apple Music got their much sooner because Apple was able to push it as the default music app.
Totally agree! It's going to take a whole new sub-specialty of ML to make any sense of it. But I think there's a positive feedback loop where more data → better algorithms → more data, because more people opt into the system in order to get access to the algorithms.
I think there might be an even bigger problem in coming up with any kind of response that we didn't already know. E.g. the advice "Don't smoke, stop eating before you're full, eat more vegetables, eat less bread and pasta, drink less alcohol, prefer water instead of drinks like juice, milk or soda, stop eating processed sugar, avoid saturated fats, get regular cardio, avoid stress, get enough sleep and do so at roughly the same time every night" is likely to be correct for the vast majority of people. Having top-of-the-line ML crunch a bunch of data only to spit out the exact same recommendation to everyone doesn't really accomplish much. Maybe more specific recommendations would be possible in a decade or two if we start having detailed data to look at, but considering how hard a time we've had just answering simple questions like 'are eggs good or bad for you?' in general, I'm not really all that optimistic about our ability to make precise individual recommendations that are not already obvious.
Generally I think you're right. But also I think there are a ton of edge cases we could discover based on complex interactions of genetics, environmental factors, disease history, etc.
Also there's a lot more urgency when an algorithm detects an anomaly and asks you to schedule a blood test!
Hey! I wrote this article. There is literally a description of the basic mechanics of the app starting at word 48 of the piece. I have no clue how you missed this!
> "After we exchanged pleasantries, Paul explained how the app works. There’s one global “room,” and when you join you start off on mute, but anyone can unmute themselves. When you open the app, it sends push notifications to everyone on the app, so they can join you and chat if they’re free."
I'm curious why this didn't work for you and what you would have wanted instead?
