Juggling is something I've done on and off all my life and every time I ever see any writing about it, it doesn't at all capture how juggling fits with me. Every time I read about it, I feel like I'm doing something wrong. I know I'm not, but I thought I'd share my views in case it helps someone want to pickup juggling in a different way.
Most writing on juggling talks about moves and repetition. You'll see the same terminology and approaches everwhere, site swap notation, cascades, messes, 1 hand, 2 hand, claws etc.
This can sometimes give the impression that when you're juggling, you're basically doing a move, or repeating a motion, or following a script, like being able to perform the specific move is the skill and achievement itself, but it's really, really not.
I think it's better to think of the balls as instruments. When you're reading and learning about juggling moves like cascades and messes and clawing, you're reading about chords on that instrument. If all you know is how to play individual chords, and the names of the chords and theoretical and technical ways to represent the chords, you're missing the point of knowing how to play an instrument.
Most of the time when I'm juggling, I'm in the same creative and expressive mindset and headspace as I am if I'm soloing on drums. Every move is a different move between a bunch of different moves based on wherever my mood takes me. It feels good and allegedly look impressive too.
I've tried to learn keyboard/piano so, so, so many times and it just doesn't stick with me, I struggle to retain the theory, I can't get the intuition, I never find myself in the zone after years and years of attempts and lessons. Drumming was the opposite though, I felt comfortable on it within months of having my kit with very, very little theoretical background. I consider myself a theoretical person, but juggling - like drumming - seems to be one of those few things for me where the theory makes it worse/harder/less intuitive/less fun for me.
That link doesn't have much affiliation with Qwen or anyone who produces/trained the Qwen models. That doesn't mean it's not good or safe, but it seems quite subjective to suggest it's the latest latest or greatest Qwen iteration.
I can see huggingface turning into the same poisoned watering-hole as NPM if people fall into the same habits of dropping links and context like that.
I'm not saying it's the latest Qwen iteration - that would be Qwen3.6.
I'm saying it's the latest iteration of the finetuned model mentioned in the parent comment.
I'm also not suggesting that it's "the latest and greatest" anything. In fact, I think it's rather clear that I'm suggesting the opposite? As in - how can a small fine tune produce better results than a frontier lab's work?
The defining difference about paying money to a corporation in exchange for a product is you're paying for something already there, an agreed exchange of value. The whole point about a donation is it's given not in exchange for doing any particular task, but gratuitously.
It's not a weird sentiment to want to know what benefits a gift is providing. That's all people are asking for when they want transparency around donations: tell us how you're benefiting from it so we can feel good about gifting you.
Is it necessary? No. The point being made is that people would be happier and potentially gift more if there was more transparency. If your argument is transparency costs more than the extra gifts then the solution to that is - ironically - be transparent about it and people might gift means to make transparency cheaper and make donations viable.
US nonprofits are as transparent as can get. Their tax returns have to be public record by law. Maybe a press release shared to Hacker News doesn't have the information you want, but you can call them up any time you please and get a detailed categorized line items of everything they spend money on, or use any number of aggregator services that publish IRS Form-990s for free on the web. You can also get it directly from the IRS itself, which has a searchable database. Here is Mozilla's tax return for 2024: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/200097189_202412_990_...
> It's not a weird sentiment to want to know what benefits a gift is providing.
"I bought you tickets for your favorite artist for your birthday. I expect a detailed trip report" :)
Yes, you're right, personal gifts aren't donations, but then maybe we should stop calling donations gifts, too. Gifts are given without any expectations attached. Donations do and should have expectations.
If Thunderbird required users to sign up for an annual subscription, then that specific problem -- not being able to tell what good one's payment would do -- would go away. There would be a very specific reason to pay the money.
(In practice, they presumably couldn't do that, at least not effectively, because the code is open source and someone else could fork it. But let's imagine that somehow they could require all Thunderbird users to pay them.)
That doesn't, of course, mean that it would be better overall. Thunderbird users would go from getting Thunderbird for free and maybe having reason to donate some money, to having to pay some money just to keep the ability to use Thunderbird: obviously worse for them. There'd probably be more money available for Thunderbird development, which would be good. The overall result might be either good or bad. But it would, indeed, no longer be unclear whether and why a Thunderbird user might choose to pay money to the Thunderbird project.
> Instead, people act like they're buying in to a 50% share with their $5 and then act like they cofounded the project forever after the donation.
You've twisted the timing. My comment is about
"Give me money." "Okay, tell me why I should give you money."
not
"I gave you money. Tell me what you did with it." It's a big difference. It's easy for me to just not give them money if I don't know what I'm donating to.
Those two examples map to the first and second parts of my claim.
Though I'm making a general reflection rather than trying to antagonize any individual here. I was already thinking about this when clicking into TFA to see that yes, it's another donation beg.
The answer to the person I replied to is basically: yes.
There's a nit in human psychology between mutual transactions (even lopsided against our favor) and voluntary unilateral ones (like donations) where the latter results in disproportionate scrutiny and entitlement compared to the former.
I once started accepting donations on my forum. I noticed people acted like they were about to make the grandest gesture in the world, would I be so lucky to deserve it after answering their questions despite having built a forum they spend four hours a day on. (They gave me $5)
And once they donated, they saw themselves as a boardmember-like persona with veto power and a disproportionate say on what I do, often pointing out that they're a donor. (They gave me $5)
I'm exaggerating a bit to paint a picture of what I mean. I think it's all unintentional, and they might be embarrassed if I'd told them this.
But I ended up refunding everyone after a while.
Yet when I charged $5 to let users expand their PM inbox size or max avatar resolution, nobody ever brought it up. They understood the transaction ended there. What is the $5 used for? -- What do you mean? It doubled my PM inbox size.
It's a funny quirk of our brain. I think a license purchase aligns expectations much more than groveling for donations, and it creates a natural freemium model for open source (or source-available rather?) projects.
> I dont post on federated networks yet but I would rather share in my principles with those willing to listen than to throw up my hands and share my stuff everywhere.
This is an interesting view point and I agree and disagree. I imagine people are split. There are clearly people who put stuff on the web and want to get it into all eyeballs whether those eyeballs want it or not. I see the logic and appeal behind that: if you really believe in what you're writing, why wouldn't you want everyone to have a read? If you don't want everyone to read what you're writing, why put it on the Web of all places?
In reality though, the older I get, the more fear I have about posting online, especially on a personal website, through fear of being rude, or imposing, or coming across like some sort of narcissistic influencer. It feels like a sign of self awareness and maturity to believe that not everyone wants to read what you have to say.
>if you really believe in what you're writing, why wouldn't you want everyone to have a read?
I write in public so that there’s a time stamped publicly accessible record of my opinion that I can reference quickly for people I’m communicating with. It’s like a public ledger
I don’t really care how many people read my writing because it’s illegible to 99.999999% of humans (I’d guess there are about 7000 ppl on earth who could grok my work). Not everything is for everyone. Just because I publish doesn’t mean I want everyone to read my stuff
Yeah, I agree with your approach entirely - it feels like the mature option compared to the young influencer view that you want everyone to read your opinion.
Seeing it as a public ledger, rather than a platform or podium means you might not even want people to read it, but you do need everyone to be able to for it to act as a valid public ledger.
I feel conflicted with this view. It feels partially like something social media giants would advocate, the idea that their little social media platform is some special community where people are different and normal open web rules shouldn't apply.
I feel the philosophy of posting on the web and hosting your own website is that the web is the community with which I want to share my thoughts. If I just wanted to share my thoughts with just one platform/community, I would go and just post it on that one platform, I wouldn't go to the trouble of running a website.
I get that it's important that there's safe spaces, and some communities should be like that (essentially, private but online) but that view should be the minority and exception for edge cases, rather than the default view of all different websites or platforms.
I also find it ends up looking rather spammy. A blog article is written, and then it's posted everywhere in an attempt to drive traffic to it. It's often hard to see a difference between someone practicing POSSE and someone spamming in an attempt to help their SEO. This is especially true of 100% of their posts are just links off to the blog, where they treat all the social platforms like alternate RSS protocols.
A social networking site designed around POSSE may be different, where you can subscribed to your blog as a means to post, and the post shows up as the RSS would in a feed reader. This way people don't have to click through to read what was posted, or can at least read what is above the fold. This can be rounded out with comments, one-off posting, and maybe some standard way to write a blog post that references another, for a proper linked/threaded response for more thought out and thoughtful replies than a short comment.
I fully accept that my view may be dated to the point of having inverse consequences (maybe in line with what you're saying). But, there's just no getting around the feeling I get when I see the exact same post, in the exact same context, showing up on every platform I use. There's just no way that can't feel like spam. And when I do it, it feels like I'm spamming people, too. Having come up in the blogging days of 2003 on, I'm just sort of programmed that way now. But, like I said above, I get why people do it.
Side note: It's such a bizarre thing that the platform you're on matters at all. Not without reason (they all have a vibe now, that's basically politically informed). But, back then, you were just on whatever blog platform was the easiest. The platform was more or less invisible (or at least ignored).
I definitely relate to that feeling. I miss the days of forum signatures which felt like the perfect solution.
And funny you should say that side note, I also agree. A relevant observation/recollection a few days ago:
> there was a time where social media platforms were defined by their features, Vine was short video, snapchat was disappearing pictures, twitter was short status posts etc. but now they're all bloated messes that try do everything.
I feel blogging was one of the main platform and the main feature in the early 2000s. There was a period from mid 2000s to mid 2010s where there was a separation between platforms and features, and now they've reconsolidated into all platforms having all features... I think? I don't really follow/use social media much, I've not used TikTok but I guess it might break the cycle.
> Due to that, and because it's a popular an open source alternative, I want to be able to recommend it and be enthusiastic about it. The problem for me is that the development practices of the people that are working on it are suboptimal at best;
This is my experience with most AI tools that I spend more than a few weeks with. It's happening so often it's making me question my own judgement: "if everything smells of shit, check your own shoes." I left professional software engineering a couple of years ago, and I don't know how much of this is also just me losing touch with the profession, or being an old man moaning about how we used to do it better.
It reminds me of social media: there was a time where social media platforms were defined by their features, Vine was short video, snapchat was disappearing pictures, twitter was short status posts etc. but now they're all bloated messes that try do everything.
The same looks to be happening with AI and agent software. They start off as defined by one features, and then become messes trying to implement the latest AI approach (skills, or tools, or functions, or RAG, or AGENTS.md, or claws etc. etc.)
I can fully see pi doing the same. It talks about a whole bunch of stuff it proudly doesn't do. New techniques will come around still, and if pi adopts them, it becomes bloated/unusable/unusable like opencode, and if it doesn't, then it falls behind SoTA and gets overtaken by next-big-thing.
I think shitty AI software is a product of being in a bubble and the pressure to move fast and stay relevant. Just like there was a bunch of shitty blockchain software, and a bunch of shitty VR software, and a bunch of shitty mobile app software when they were booming.
I don't think pi has been around long enough to prove it's immune to this yet.
I think modern overlay networks can navigate CG-NAT fine now. Other options include free cloudflare, or just a wireguard tunnel to a free tier VPS. On a similar point, I don't think enough people talk about how most western home internet connections now also have similar bandwidth as entire datacentres had in the 2000's too.
We still take for granted how hard basic web technology is for people who don't consider themselves technology people though.
I'm all for personal website and these sentiments which regularly come up here around self hosting. This one seems a bit disproportionately confused and angry though.
If we're going to have any large aggregation or social media businesses where individuals trade data ownership for convenience, being able to put your opening hours and rates on the the internet without having to figure out how to have a website seems like the optimal use case.
I think we should aim for a sensible mid ground where social media provides just the things it provided before around 2011, like updates and communication with people you know and want to interact with already.
An "all personal websites" web that OP is calling for is just pushing the exclusion they feel onto the people they're complaining about.
We should have websites. We should also use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job, and running your own website isn't the best tool if you just want to get your business rates and opening hours on the web.
Most writing on juggling talks about moves and repetition. You'll see the same terminology and approaches everwhere, site swap notation, cascades, messes, 1 hand, 2 hand, claws etc.
This can sometimes give the impression that when you're juggling, you're basically doing a move, or repeating a motion, or following a script, like being able to perform the specific move is the skill and achievement itself, but it's really, really not.
I think it's better to think of the balls as instruments. When you're reading and learning about juggling moves like cascades and messes and clawing, you're reading about chords on that instrument. If all you know is how to play individual chords, and the names of the chords and theoretical and technical ways to represent the chords, you're missing the point of knowing how to play an instrument.
Most of the time when I'm juggling, I'm in the same creative and expressive mindset and headspace as I am if I'm soloing on drums. Every move is a different move between a bunch of different moves based on wherever my mood takes me. It feels good and allegedly look impressive too.
I've tried to learn keyboard/piano so, so, so many times and it just doesn't stick with me, I struggle to retain the theory, I can't get the intuition, I never find myself in the zone after years and years of attempts and lessons. Drumming was the opposite though, I felt comfortable on it within months of having my kit with very, very little theoretical background. I consider myself a theoretical person, but juggling - like drumming - seems to be one of those few things for me where the theory makes it worse/harder/less intuitive/less fun for me.
reply