Who wouldn't want to take investment advice from the internet's top minds?

If you were alone on a small jet after the pilot died of heart attack, would you rather have advice from the internet's top minds, or an experienced pilot?

If you had accidently ingested a poison and had minutes to live, would you rather have advice from the internet's top minds or from top toxicologists?

I see it the same way. I'd take the topic experts.

If you look at my comment history and hilarious knee-jerk downvoting of anything remotely critical of the HN hive mind, it should be clear to you that I meant that sarcastically.

"the internet's top minds"

Do you think they'll actually read this? I feel like the very prominent people mostly post links to their blog/site and don't respond as much to other posts on here.

I need to hate skinny people.

Do you though?

I think there is dramatic irony if you become what you hate which makes it feel unexpected and important and memorable, but I would push back against the idea that you more likely to become something if you hate it, without further evidence, or at least some kind of exploration of why that happens and in what kind of circumstances.

“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.”

One that has tools that don't make your users hate you. Seriously, the open-source FPGA toolchains are breath of fresh air to use, despite being small projects with few contributors (although due to that and no vendor support they are severly limited in supported targets and special features).

Yep. The Icestorm toolchain for Lattice FPGAs is a real breath of fresh air -- fast compile times, multiple sets of interoperable tools, open file formats, development in the open... it's great. I just wish something like this was available for more than just Lattice parts.

FPGA development tools are generally dated, very very expensive, and one way streets for customisation.

From what I understand, open sourcing the bitstream format in its entirety will only do so much but it would certainly help. It's not just building GCC for FPGAs

Just better tools would be nice (and open-sourcing would bring some hope for that). FPGA tooling is atrocious, especially if you're used to software tooling. And the difference in tooling can sell chips all on its own.

Interesting also to note that comments like yours pointing out the flimsiness of the evidence are being heavily censored by HN.

One look at the comments in a typical HN thread about FOSS shows how good a job the big players (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) have done turning what was a threat into an asset. We literally now have people proclaiming how great it is to be able to work without being paid as if it were a badge of honor.

The washer absolutely works without the app.

The app provides some benefits, but they're not required.

GNU Make's documentation is actually excellent. It's dense, but that is only because there is a lot to cover.

While the autotools system is very powerful, I think people’s problem with it (`make`) is its syntax. `configure` is usually a bash script, but `make` isn’t. It’s pretty unintuitive to a newbie. It looks like a script, but it’s kindof not. The lack of arrays is a weird choice (AFAIK everything is a string) that requires one to use quotes in a lot of places so “array-like” “functions” work correctly.

When I was learning C++ a bit ago, I tried to write basic `Makefile` files, but switched to CMake. There is the disadvantage of practically every Unix-like OS having `make`, but not always CMake, but I found the trade off worth it for one-off projects

I am partial to Rust over C/C++ here, but I do like Rust’s method of a simple `cargo build`, but with the ability to write a program (`build.rs`) for non-Rust parts.