I'm building a perp funding arbitrage aggregator. Aggregates funding rates across a number of DEXs to help users track down the most lucrative opportunities.
If there is uptake the plan is to build out a toolset to help with managing a portfolio of arbs.
As a python/stats focused dev, I just want a web framework that simplifies the idea -> website process.
I've been able to 'release' some simple tools into the public with plotly/django, but having to also then figure out things like gunicorn, dbms, vps hosting etc. is quite time consuming.
My biggest issue is that a lot of these frameworks seem to add complexity (under the guise of simplicity) as opposed to making things simpler. They just become more things to manage. Maybe I'm missing something and someone can point me in the right direction.
There are lots of pros on here who will find things like this trivial, but for someone like me (independent with limited professional dev training) the time investment is high as is the cost of "switching" between what seem to be mutually exclusive tasks (web dev/ops, and local analytics work).
I have been there. Devops is never really fun. PaaS can take some of the pain away but quickly problems emerge with vendor lock in and you spend as much if not more time running the PaaS.
The best setup I ever had for deployment was a git hook which set ENVVARS and redeployed Apache when I did a push to prod. But if you need advanced features like multiple environments and database migrations this can get complicated fast
This seems a bit...naive? Get a haircut and headshot as week 1 goals? therapist? look in the mirror? upgrade audio/video? what...? This is just a bunch of things to spend money on :/
Maybe spend the time finding a market with a problem that is lucrative enough to then spend time solving. And then figure out how to validate the problem...and then find a solution that you can get to market in a week or two (if not sooner).
This stuff isn't rocket science its just fucking hard work.
Systemantics thinkers (Gall) would say that optionally you can move
the other way too. In fact that happens when old systems are broken up
into gangs of cowboys (much apropos DOGE etc). Only bad systems are
ones that "cast themselves in stone". We prefer modular systems of
smaller systems and if you put a process in place, it should be as
easy to remove, adapt or replace that process.
SE tells us, never build highly coupled systems where changing one
small bit causes problems in unrelated subsystems.
All this is to say there are such things as "flexible systems", which
are designed to be more like cowboys than steel machines. A good
example is an "operating system", where the essential purview is to
frictionlessly run other systems. Parts can be set running, and just
as easily terminated if they don't work, need bypassing, or the org
grows.
I think it was intended to reflect a name and image that each would call the other.
I am absolutely a cowboy and I understand that this is a pejorative when spoken by a drone or a manager who only wants drones, yet this article does not attack me.
This article does not pick a side and is not disparaging anyone. Simply this dynamic of opposites does exist, and using some more clinical terms would be less honest and less accurate by hiding or downplaying the emotional element which is a real part of the thing they wish to express.
The drones don't see me as "a bit more individualistic and self propelled" they see me as "cowboy".
I think the very point was to show that the negative thing, whichever one you consider negative, is actually unavoidable and you are also exactly the same negative, so maybe not so negative. So it wouldn't be useful to avoid the very thing you aim to discuss.
Same. I think metaphors that paint something as black or white are almost as damaging in practice as they can be useful in understanding. It doesn't help that these metaphors usually have a built-in positive/negative connotation as well - who wants to be a drone?
A lot of people have preferences. I very much had a preference for what I guess is the cowboy role in this piece. I'm not sure "drone" is the best term for a well-defined guard-railed role but I didn't like that as much.
"Drone" seems like absolutely the wrong term. A drone in an ant farm isn't someone who does the work. It's the males who get sent off to procreate and then very swiftly die. The ants that do the job are called "worker ants", not "drones".
Technically the whole concept of marketing is kinda insidious - the goal is to turn non-users into users. I still think a great use case for AR glasses is blotting out ads instead of adding them.
Flyers should be 100% banned - just so much waste.
I'd like to see some form of regulation around % of visible screens/information presented in a public space needing to be specifically useful to the population vs pure advertising.
It's frustrating to be at a train station where every wall is an ad for something, and the actual information concerning the trains themselves is either tucked away on a much smaller, much lower quality screen in the corner, or worse, not working at all.
Basically I'd like to see some solutions to the problem that I'm generally being shown ads at the expense of the public service I'm trying to use.
Well, zero criticism IS a form of criticism so I don't blame the author for not being motivated after the fact. I'd even say its the worst kind of criticism because it leaves you with nothing to build next.
But I think they are highlighting an important thing here that most of us struggle with...building is fun, progress is discrete and clear, the feedback loop is very tight. Selling and marketing to people sucks, its clunky, the feedback loops are variable, and if you're inclined more to being an introvert it is very exhausting.
I'm not sure the author is conditioned to fail as much as they are just more inclined to build.
Agreed, building something is just the first step.
One of the marketing struggles I've had is just getting people to care. I did have a bit of an "If you build it, they will come" attitude because I had confidence in the quality of the work...but even that seems to be irrelevant if you can't get people interested.
As an introvert by nature (extrovert by necessity), I wonder what I'm missing that others seems to grasp innately, because the consequences are fatal for an entrepreneur if you can't convince others to at least try the thing you're offering.
I think it just boils down to that most of the time we are just plain wrong about what people want badly enough to change what they are doing already. Our other fallacy is that quality of work matters - like yes, kind of, but it matters far less than finding and fixing an "important" problem.
How many times have you encountered a piece of software that is utter garbage from a ui/ux/engg. perspective but gets used ALL THE TIME? plenty of b2b examples of this including back ends of banks. They are awful, but they work. The business solves a very real customer problem and the tech is just a supporting (although still critical) act. As long as the problem gets solved, the tech. does not really matter. There is obviously more nuance to this vis a vis software maintenance etc. but when starting up, the tech should matter to you less than finding a valid problem.
