I signed up for Hinge. Holy shit with the boosts. How does someone who works on this wake up every morning and feel okay about themselves? Similarly with the tip screens, Uber algorithm, all the zero sum bullshit using all the tricks of psychology to extract a little bit more from every interaction in society. Nudge. Nudge. NUDGE. Want to partake in normal society like buying a coffee, going on a date, getting a ride, paying a friend. Oh, there’s a middle man now. An evil ominous middleman using state of the art AI algorithms to extract just a little bit more from you. But eventually the market will fix this, right? People will feel sick of being manipulated and move elsewhere? Ahhh, but they see that coming long before you do. They have dashboards. Quick Jeeves, tune the AI to make people feel less manipulated. Give them a little bit more for now, we have to think about maximizing lifetime customer value here. Oh the AI already did this on its own? Jeeves you’ve been replaced! People perpetually on the edge. You want to opt out of this all you say? Good luck running a competitive business! Every metric is now a target. You better maximize engagement or you will lose engagement this is a red queen’s race we can’t afford to lose! Burn all the social capital, burn all your values, FEED IT ALL TO MOLOCH! Someday, people will have to realize we live in a society. What will it take? A complete self cannibalization to the point you can’t eat your own mouth? It sure as hell isn’t going to be people opting out, that’s a collective action problem you can’t solve. Democracy, haha, you think the algorithms will let you vote to kill them? Your vote is as decoupled from action as the amount Uber pays the driver is decoupled from the fare that you pay. There’s no reform here, there’s only revolution. Will it simply be a huge financial collapse? Or do we need World War 3? And even World War 3 is on a spectrum. Will mass starvation fix this? Or will the attitude of thinking it’s okay to manipulate others at scale persist even past that? He’s got his, and I’ve got mine… If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again? It’s not okay. Advertising is not okay. Price discrimination is not okay. Using big data, machine learning, and psychology to manipulate others at scale is not okay. But you aren’t going to learn this lesson until you have fed a huge majority of your customers to Moloch. Modern capitialism is wireheading. Release the hypnodrones. How many cans of Pepsi did you want them to consume an hour again?

I've never seen so many developers curious about leaving the Mac and giving Linux a go. Something has really changed in the last few years. Maybe Linux just got better? Maybe powerful mini PCs made it easier? Maybe Apple just fumbled their relationship with developers one too many times? Maybe it's all of it. But whatever the reason, the vibe shift is noticeable. This is why the future is so hard to predict! People have been joking about "The Year of Linux on the Desktop" since the late 90s. Just like self-driving cars were supposed to be a thing back in 2017. And now, in the year of our Lord 2025, it seems like we're getting both! I also wouldn't underestimate the cultural influence of a few key people. PewDiePie sharing his journey into Arch and Hyprland with his 110 million followers is important. ThePrimeagen moving to Arch and Hyprland is important. Typecraft teaching beginners how to build an Arch and Hyprland setup from scratch is important (and who I just spoke to about Omarchy). Gabe Newell's Steam Deck being built on Arch and pushing Proton to over 20,000 compatible Linux games is important. You'll notice a trend here, which is that Arch Linux, a notoriously "difficult" distribution, is at the center of much of this new engagement. Despite the fact that it's been around since 2003! There's nothing new about Arch, but there's something new about the circles of people it's engaging. I've put Arch at the center of Omarchy too. Originally just because that was what Hyprland recommended. Then, after living with the wonders of 90,000+ packages on the community-driven AUR package repository, for its own sake. It's really good! But while Arch (and Hyprland) are having a moment amongst a new crowd, it's also "just" Linux at its core. And Linux really is the star of the show. The perfect, free, and open alternative that was just sitting around waiting for developers to finally have had enough of the commercial offerings from Apple and Microsoft. Now obviously there's a taste of "new vegan sees vegans everywhere" here. You start talking about Linux, and you'll hear from folks already in the community or those considering the move too. It's easy to confuse what you'd like to be true with what is actually true. And it's definitely true that Linux is still a niche operating system on the desktop. Even among developers. Apple and Microsoft sit on the lion's share of the market share. But the mind share? They've been losing that fast. The window is open for a major shift to happen. First gradually, then suddenly. It feels like morning in Linux land!

Snippets are a useful addition to Svelte 5. I use them in my Svelte 5 projects like Edna. Snippet basics A snippet is a function that renders html based on its arguments. Here’s how to define and use a snippet: {#snippet hello(name)} <div>Hello {name}!</div> {/snippet} {@render hello("Andrew")} {@render hello("Amy")} You can re-use snippets by exporting them: <script module> export { hello }; </script> {@snippet hello(name)}<div>Hello {name}!</div>{/snippet} Snippets use cases Snippets for less nesting Deeply nested html is hard to read. You can use snippets to extract some parts to make the structure clearer. For example, you can transform: <div> <div class="flex justify-end mt-2"> <button onclick={onclose} class="mr-4 px-4 py-1 border border-black hover:bg-gray-100" >Cancel</button > <button onclick={() => emitRename()} disabled={!canRename} class="px-4 py-1 border border-black hover:bg-gray-50 disabled:text-gray-400 disabled:border-gray-400 disabled:bg-white default:bg-slate-700" >Rename</button > </div> into: {#snippet buttonCancel()} <button onclick={onclose} class="mr-4 px-4 py-1 border border-black hover:bg-gray-100" >Cancel</button > {/snippet} {#snippet buttonRename()}...{/snippet} To make this easier to read: <div> <div class="flex justify-end mt-2"> {@render buttonCancel()} {@render buttonRename()} </div> </div> snippets replace default <slot/> In Svelte 4, if you wanted place some HTML inside the component, you used <slot />. Let’s say you have Overlay.svelte component used like this: <Overlay> <MyDialog></MyDialog> </Overlay> In Svelte 4, you would use <slot /> to render children: <div class="overlay-wrapper"> <slot /> </div> <slot /> would be replaced with <MyDialog></MyDialog>. In Svelte 5 <MyDialog></MyDialog> is passed to Overlay.svelte as children property so you would change Overlay.svelte to: <script> let { children } = $props(); </script> <div class="overlay-wrapper"> {@render children()} </div> children property is created by Svelte compiler so you should avoid naming your own props children. snippets replace named slots A component can have a default slot for rendering children and additional named slots. In Svelte 5 instead of named slots you pass snippets as props. An example of Dialog.svelte: <script> let { title, children } = $props(); </script> <div class="dialog"> <div class="title"> {@render title()} </div> {@render children()} </div> And use: {#snippet title()} <div class="fancy-title">My fancy title</div> {/snippet} <Dialog title={title}> <div>Body of the dialog</div> </Dialog> passing snippets as implicit props You can pass title snippet prop implicitly: <Dialog> {#snippet title()} <div class="fancy-title">My fancy title</div> {/snippet} <div>Body of the dialog</div> </Dialog> Because {snippet title()} is a child or <Dialog>, we don’t have to pass it as explicit title={title} prop. The compiler does it for us. snippets to reduce repetition Here’s part of how I render https://tools.arslexis.io/ {#snippet row(name, url, desc)} <tr> <td class="text-left align-top" ><a class="font-semibold whitespace-nowrap" href={url}>{name}</a> </td> <td class="pl-4 align-top">{@html desc}</td> </tr> {/snippet} {@render row("unzip", "/unzip/", "unzip a file in the browser")} {@render row("wc", "/wc/", "like <tt>wc</tt>, but in the browser")} It saves me copy & paste of the same HTML and makes the structure more readable. snippets for recursive rendering Sometimes you need to render a recursive structure, like nested menus or file tree. In Svelte 4 you could use <svelte:self> but the downside of that is that you create multiple instances of the component. That means that the state is also split among multiple instances. That makes it harder to implement functionality that requires a global view of the structure, like keyboard navigation. With snippets you can render things recursively in a single instance of the component. I used it to implement nested context menus. snippets to customize rendering Let’s say you’re building a Menu component. Each menu item is a <div> with some non-trivial children. To allow the client of Menu customize how items are rendered, you could provide props for things like colors, padding etc. or you could allow ultimate flexibility by accepting an optional menuitem prop that is a snippet that renders the item. You can think of it as a headless UI i.e. you provide the necessary structure and difficult logic like keyboard navigation etc. and allow the client lots of control over how things are rendered. snippets for library of icons Before snippets every SVG Icon I used was a Svelte component. Many icons means many files. Now I have a single Icons.svelte file, like: <script module> export { IconMenu, IconSettings }; </script> {#snippet IconMenu(arg1, arg2, ...)} <svg>... icon svg</svg> {/snippet}} {#snippet IconSettings()} <svg>... icon svg</svg> {/snippet}}

I realize that for all I've talked about Logic for Programmers in this newsletter, I never once explained basic logical quantifiers. They're both simple and incredibly useful, so let's do that this week! Sets and quantifiers A set is a collection of unordered, unique elements. {1, 2, 3, …} is a set, as are "every programming language", "every programming language's Wikipedia page", and "every function ever defined in any programming language's standard library". You can put whatever you want in a set, with some very specific limitations to avoid certain paradoxes.2 Once we have a set, we can ask "is something true for all elements of the set" and "is something true for at least one element of the set?" IE, is it true that every programming language has a set collection type in the core language? We would write it like this: # all of them all l in ProgrammingLanguages: HasSetType(l) # at least one some l in ProgrammingLanguages: HasSetType(l) This is the notation I use in the book because it's easy to read, type, and search for. Mathematicians historically had a few different formats; the one I grew up with was ∀x ∈ set: P(x) to mean all x in set, and ∃ to mean some. I use these when writing for just myself, but find them confusing to programmers when communicating. "All" and "some" are respectively referred to as "universal" and "existential" quantifiers. Some cool properties We can simplify expressions with quantifiers, in the same way that we can simplify !(x && y) to !x || !y. First of all, quantifiers are commutative with themselves. some x: some y: P(x,y) is the same as some y: some x: P(x, y). For this reason we can write some x, y: P(x,y) as shorthand. We can even do this when quantifying over different sets, writing some x, x' in X, y in Y instead of some x, x' in X: some y in Y. We can not do this with "alternating quantifiers": all p in Person: some m in Person: Mother(m, p) says that every person has a mother. some m in Person: all p in Person: Mother(m, p) says that someone is every person's mother. Second, existentials distribute over || while universals distribute over &&. "There is some url which returns a 403 or 404" is the same as "there is some url which returns a 403 or some url that returns a 404", and "all PRs pass the linter and the test suites" is the same as "all PRs pass the linter and all PRs pass the test suites". Finally, some and all are duals: some x: P(x) == !(all x: !P(x)), and vice-versa. Intuitively: if some file is malicious, it's not true that all files are benign. All these rules together mean we can manipulate quantifiers almost as easily as we can manipulate regular booleans, putting them in whatever form is easiest to use in programming. Speaking of which, how do we use this in in programming? How we use this in programming First of all, people clearly have a need for directly using quantifiers in code. If we have something of the form: for x in list: if P(x): return true return false That's just some x in list: P(x). And this is a prevalent pattern, as you can see by using GitHub code search. It finds over 500k examples of this pattern in Python alone! That can be simplified via using the language's built-in quantifiers: the Python would be any(P(x) for x in list). (Note this is not quantifying over sets but iterables. But the idea translates cleanly enough.) More generally, quantifiers are a key way we express higher-level properties of software. What does it mean for a list to be sorted in ascending order? That all i, j in 0..<len(l): if i < j then l[i] <= l[j]. When should a ratchet test fail? When some f in functions - exceptions: Uses(f, bad_function). Should the image classifier work upside down? all i in images: classify(i) == classify(rotate(i, 180)). These are the properties we verify with tests and types and MISU and whatnot;1 it helps to be able to make them explicit! One cool use case that'll be in the book's next version: database invariants are universal statements over the set of all records, like all a in accounts: a.balance > 0. That's enforceable with a CHECK constraint. But what about something like all i, i' in intervals: NoOverlap(i, i')? That isn't covered by CHECK, since it spans two rows. Quantifier duality to the rescue! The invariant is equivalent to !(some i, i' in intervals: Overlap(i, i')), so is preserved if the query SELECT COUNT(*) FROM intervals CROSS JOIN intervals … returns 0 rows. This means we can test it via a database trigger.3 There are a lot more use cases for quantifiers, but this is enough to introduce the ideas! Next week's the one year anniversary of the book entering early access, so I'll be writing a bit about that experience and how the book changed. It's crazy how crude v0.1 was compared to the current version. MISU ("make illegal states unrepresentable") means using data representations that rule out invalid values. For example, if you have a location -> Optional(item) lookup and want to make sure that each item is in exactly one location, consider instead changing the map to item -> location. This is a means of implementing the property all i in item, l, l' in location: if ItemIn(i, l) && l != l' then !ItemIn(i, l'). ↩ Specifically, a set can't be an element of itself, which rules out constructing things like "the set of all sets" or "the set of sets that don't contain themselves". ↩ Though note that when you're inserting or updating an interval, you already have that row's fields in the trigger's NEW keyword. So you can just query !(some i in intervals: Overlap(new, i')), which is more efficient. ↩