_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI Talk Python in Production
tha182HatR wrote 2 hours 48 min ago:
The book needs to remove the AI images. They are actively hurting the
eyes with the wrong and weird perspective.
It is pretty light reading, name dropping a lot of software without
going into details.
As always with Python: These books do not tell you the downsides, and
the future of Python is uncertain because the governance has been taken
over by a bunch of mediocre weirdos. Python core has always suffered
from the problem that occasionally smart people implement something and
then leave, but the majority of core devs are pretty dumb and they can
now vote in their own after van Rossum left.
fastasucan wrote 5 hours 37 min ago:
Ironically what is styled as is very hard to read as its almost the
same color as the background.
csmantle wrote 5 hours 47 min ago:
I don't know, but the "Read Online" button leads me to
"https[://]talkpython.fm/books/python-in-production/#read-online", and
that URL then tries to redirect to
"https[://]talkpython.fm/books/python-in-production#read-online".
(Notice how the last slash of the path is missing).
This forced my browser to reload the page, and it beats the entire
purpose of anchoring and fragment-based navs.
CraigJPerry wrote 7 hours 18 min ago:
You can and probably should go thinner than this, with uv we
effectively have a workflow comparable to deploying static binaries in
other language stacks. You don't need the complexity of docker for this
book's goal.
Was hoping the book would cover data persistence.
portly wrote 6 hours 31 min ago:
Could you please elaborate? Where do you run your apps?
CraigJPerry wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
Exactly as sibling comment says, e.g. let's pretend the popular
httpx cli was my project to deploy and run on the server. With only
uv installed, i can:
uv tool run "httpx[cli] @ git+https://github.com/encode/httpx"
To be clear in this example i'm not pulling a package published on
pypi, i'm running the HEAD of that git repo (i could do a branch or
tag instead). I could use the "uvx" shortcut instead of "uv tool
run". I could specify a specific python version (either one already
installed on this OS or choose a dist which uv downloads for me).
This caches the deps in an isolated virtual env for me. It'll only
download the deps in the first run.
rcxdude wrote 6 hours 29 min ago:
Presumably just directly on whatever system they are using. If you
have something that can be plopped on whatever linux distro and run
reliably then you've already got what docker is supposed to give
you.
maeln wrote 8 hours 32 min ago:
Didn't yet go through the content, but having a AI generated image that
you didn't even bother to at least touch-up a bit to fix the text does
not give me a lot of confidence about the effort that went into this.
barapa wrote 2 hours 52 min ago:
Chill dog
wiseowise wrote 3 hours 4 min ago:
You don't use ngirx in production? Do you even web scale, bro?
numlock86 wrote 3 hours 50 min ago:
I clicked on the link and was greeted by AI slop instantly. I checked
the comments, saw this, am writing this and will probably not look at
it ever again. Guess I am just not the target audience. I wish them
that their AI slop strategy works out just for the sake of good
vibes, though. If everyone does it it can't be bad, right? I'm the
issue here, clearly.
arcanemachiner wrote 6 hours 3 min ago:
Are you telling me that you haven't integrated granian and ngirx into
your workflow?!
sonnig wrote 2 hours 35 min ago:
we've integrated granian into our stack at $WORK recently and
couldn't be happier
csmantle wrote 5 hours 46 min ago:
And you definitely don't want to miss "Web Arppss" running on
"Limux"!
_joel wrote 6 hours 14 min ago:
AI voice on podcast too, no thanks.
lenkite wrote 6 hours 41 min ago:
Isn't this overly critical ?. The content matters far more than the
image and the chapters are good. I didn't even register the image - I
think most folks today have eyes that auto-skip images after being
pattern-trained to ignore ads.
MyOutfitIsVague wrote 18 min ago:
The cover has a stack that says "ngirx", and it's all a smudgy
mess.
"Don't judge a book by its cover" is for people who don't actually
read books. You can tell when a book is good based on its cover,
but you can absolutely tell with a high certainty that a book with
a lazy, crappy, low effort cover is probably going to have a
similar level of care and attention put to the contents. It's
easily at least a 95% hit rate. Is not overly critical to see
something presented lazily and assume it will also be lazy inside,
and in this kind of field, I'd also expect that if the cover is AI
generated, most of the content could easily be as well.
PetitPrince wrote 52 min ago:
"Don't judge a book by its cover" indeed (and litteraly in that
case), but also "first impression matters".
In that case throwing a generated image without touch up shows the
lack of care of the author for a work that's not as fleeting as a
podcast. It's not that hard to type the correct words and/or a non
wobbly font with Paint.NET / Photopea / Gimp / Affinity Photo /
Photoshop / . It also shows an usage of AI without supervision
which is kind of a red flag.
I used to listen to Michael Kennedy a lot when my day job was
Python, and still occasionally do so this may get a pass, but it's
still a bad signal in my books.
rcxdude wrote 6 hours 38 min ago:
With an image that is that poor quality, if it didn't matter then
it would have been better not to include it.
7bit wrote 1 hour 37 min ago:
Yes, but jumping to the conclusion that there would also be no
effort in the text is a bit harsh. It's absolutely normal to set
priorities.
Elfener wrote 7 hours 37 min ago:
I don't even understand why they do that, surely putting even a low
quality something together would make it much better, and with actual
font rendering.
mnx wrote 7 hours 49 min ago:
Yeah, immediately off-putting, even though I actually enjoy the
podcast. Not for like "AI bad" reasons, it's just ugly. Micheal, if
you are reading this - please fix, it should take 5 minutes.
thrance wrote 8 hours 7 min ago:
ngirx and granian are my favorite technologies to work with!
Completely agree, this trend of putting a completely useless and ugly
AI image on top of your page, I despise. You could have searched the
web for an actual diagram, if you wanted one here. These images
provided negative values to your articles.
degamad wrote 7 hours 26 min ago:
> ngirx and granian are my favorite technologies to work with!
I had the same initial thought, but I was skimming the page and
came across this line:
> Then, see how to deploy a Flask+HTMX app via Granian, wire it
into NGINX, and ensure automatic startups with systemd.
So I've just discovered that [1] exists...
URI [1]: https://github.com/emmett-framework/granian
MadameBanaan wrote 8 hours 16 min ago:
I came to this comment section to say exactly that.
At my work (university research lab) the Ph.D. students have to
publish their thesis as a book to defend their degree. They are free
to make the image for the cover, which is a very nice touch ang give
you artistic freedom in what was supposed to be one of the most
important moments of your career (I went for a picture of the chip I
designed during my research).
For the past 3 years or so all we have are generic AI generated
sciency-looking figures at the cover and it is depressing.
ahoka wrote 8 hours 17 min ago:
Adds nothing, they could just picked a totally unrelated stock photo
if they wanted to add something there. It just immediately halo
effects the whole thing as something put together without effort.
Stop doing this!
ayhanfuat wrote 8 hours 20 min ago:
Iâm an occasional listener of the Talk Python podcast, and Iâve
also taken Michaelâs pytest course. Itâs clear that he puts
considerable effort into his content.
DannyPage wrote 55 min ago:
But there was no care in the images, which made me skeptical of the
content. The free chapters are also poorly written. It reads like
he dictated the content and didn't do a single review pass on it.
The Docker Compose chapter especially is very light on details and
doesn't explain how to use the various features and what tradeoffs
or issues you may encounter. Like the AI images, the whole product
feels rushed and haphazard and lacking in quality.
benrutter wrote 5 hours 15 min ago:
I agree with everyone! Michael's name is a big stamp of "this will
be high quality" for me, but if I didn't previously know that and
saw an AI generated cover, there's a good chance I'd assume the
content inside was AI generated slop, and might tune out without
looking any further.
_joel wrote 6 hours 12 min ago:
Just not enough to actually record a podcast, but generate a script
and send it to an API to generate a (very recognisable) AI voiced
podcast. It's literally called "Talk Python" with no humans
talking.
benrutter wrote 5 hours 13 min ago:
Not sure if you're confusing with something else? "Talk Python to
Me" is a long running podcast that has had a lot of definitely
real humans on the show[0].
[0]
URI [1]: https://talkpython.fm/
_joel wrote 40 min ago:
No, listen to the audio on the site originally attached. It's
definitely AI.
fastasucan wrote 5 hours 37 min ago:
What? The interview podcast?
_joel wrote 3 hours 5 min ago:
The sample that's on the site, it's definitely AI generated.
bakugo wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
Listened to it and yeah... not only is the voice obvious AI,
it drops an "It's not just X â it's Y" within the first 20
seconds. Copy-pasted straight from GPT.
Likely safe to assume that everything on this site is AI
generated, including the book.
maeln wrote 7 hours 33 min ago:
In which case it is very infuriating and sad. Honestly if he just
did not put that AI art on every page, the whole thing would look
way more serious. Presentation and first impression sadly do
matter.
Put a pile of trash in a museum and people will think it's art, put
art next to a pile of garbage and people will think it's trash.
aquariusDue wrote 6 hours 48 min ago:
These days I feel like a stick figure drawing in MS Paint even if
crude denotes that an actual effort was made compared to
"Generate an image of XYZ that includes blah blah blah..." sadly.
In my mind both are first steps to something more "proper" but
one is at least hand-crafted artisan-ish compared to the other.
I have no qualms about using AI generated images as placeholder
stuff or as a first step in an iterative process but when someone
just slaps the image without the least bit of retouching it ends
up looking kitsch.
esyir wrote 7 hours 8 min ago:
I think you're going to realize that as time passes and this
becomes more normalized, your opinion is going to become the
minority. That might be a good thing, or maybe not.
seanthemon wrote 8 hours 11 min ago:
but clearly he lapsed here and as a non-listener I immediately
clicked out.
aitchnyu wrote 8 hours 33 min ago:
Is there a catch in "It's 6x cheaper than DO and a whopping 20x cheaper
than Azure" or are most companies I know getting ripped off?
MyOutfitIsVague wrote 11 min ago:
Those numbers bother me. What does it mean to be "6x cheaper"? Is
that a sixth the price? If something costs $100, what is 6x cheaper
than it? 2x cheaper? 1x cheaper?
It is as frustrating as when people use "200% faster" to mean exactly
the same thing as "twice as fast", and "100% faster" to mean the same
thing.
rcxdude wrote 6 hours 34 min ago:
A lot are getting ripped off. To what degree depends on their tech
capabilities and business savvy (i.e. what would it cost them to do
it themselves and what kind of discount can they negotiate from the
cloud provider. If you're paying the listed rates you are getting
ripped of).
aitchnyu wrote 6 hours 10 min ago:
At which monthly spend should we negotiate with AWS for example?
And will they check if we are using 25 of their services instead of
easily migratable VM-hosted apps?
brap wrote 8 hours 20 min ago:
Depends on which $$s go into that comparison. Server costs? Probably.
Engineering time? Accounting for all kinds of risks? Unlikely.
rcxdude wrote 6 hours 33 min ago:
I don't think I've seen a cloud-first company that spent less
engineering time on managing their infrastructure. You just replace
one set of work with another.
data_marsupial wrote 3 hours 31 min ago:
Sometimes it results in more work because of the lowered upfront
cost of spinning up new cloud services
kinix wrote 9 hours 3 min ago:
Unrelated to the content: why on earth is super-light grey a good
"bold" colour for a white background? I'm having to highlight each of
the bolded parts of the text just to understand it :/
edit: console command for anyone else struggling to read this
`document.documentElement.style.setProperty('--bulma-strong-color',
'#000');`
Elfener wrote 7 hours 43 min ago:
Is this some new trend where websites include @media
(prefers-color-scheme: light) and @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark)
in their css, but it just breaks the site?
This site doesn't even have two themes, that css is just there to
break the bold text!
perch56 wrote 8 hours 49 min ago:
Loads as a regular webpage for me (Safari, black font, white
background).
JimDabell wrote 8 hours 34 min ago:
It only happens if you are using dark mode. That seems to be the
only difference between light and dark mode on that site.
kinix wrote 8 hours 47 min ago:
The main text is black yes, but anything that's bold is light grey
as per the CSS, which is near unreadable (even if you're not as
colourblind as me I suspect)
nickez wrote 8 hours 27 min ago:
Only if your system/browser is set to dark mode
azangru wrote 8 hours 50 min ago:
Haha, came here to mention the light grey text on white background as
well. This is a great example of poor accessibility. It should be
obvious to a human eye that this is bad; but in case it weren't, one
could open up Chrome dev tools, find the styles for this text, click
on the color picker, and observe that Chrome reports the contrast
ratio for that text to be 1.17, whereas a comfortable (accessible)
contrast ratio starts at 4.5.
VBprogrammer wrote 9 hours 5 min ago:
"Have you heard the phrase "You're not Google, you're not Facebook, and
you're not Netflix"? The TL;DR; is those tech giants that have 1M+
concurrent users. They have a hard requirement for no downtime."
Actually, one of the more interesting parts of the Google SRE book was
that they don't try to aim for 0 downtime. They consider the background
error rate of any network request and optimising much beyond this is
counter productive.
Even for individual services they make a point of not trying to make
them perfectly available, as this means downstream services are less
likely to build in adequate provision for failure.
1dom wrote 8 hours 38 min ago:
I agree with this.
Those tech giants got to where they are by recognising specifically
that they don't have "no downtime" requirements.
"Move fast and break things" isn't the mantra of companies with zero
downtime requirements.
hshdhdhehd wrote 8 hours 38 min ago:
Choose how many nines you want. For most 99.9% availability is
probably OK.
mikeckennedy wrote 2 days ago:
The idea of the book is to pull away a lot of the hype of big cloud
providers, show practical steps how we run things over at Talk Python
(podcast, courses, e-commerce, and more).I hope some of you find this
refreshing!
You can read the first 1/3 online for free. The rest is available DRM
free.
bakugo wrote 1 hour 7 min ago:
How much of the book is AI generated? Please be honest.
fastasucan wrote 5 hours 34 min ago:
Something is wrong with the js/css on the site - for everyone with
dark mode the text is grey against white background - super hard to
read.
hshdhdhehd wrote 8 hours 40 min ago:
Amazing what a Hetzner dedi and docker compose can do
randomtoast wrote 8 hours 32 min ago:
I recently compared AWS and Hetzner, not only in terms of raw
compute costs but also by factoring in the personnel costs required
for operation. I found this perspective particularly interesting:
URI [1]: https://beuke.org/hetzner-aws/
Kumzy wrote 9 hours 14 min ago:
Seems interesting, read the online summary. I am curious to read
about your part on Chapter 14 (I am part of Litestar maintainer).
Thank you for the book anyway !
DIR <- back to front page