4,193 karma · joined May 26, 2013
My current venture is Semi-Decent, a software consultancy that helps businesses grow through intensely pragmatic software. https://www.semi-decent.com/
I also run a side business making bespoke, sustainable craft cocktails for events: https://www.theminimalmixologist.com/
Please get in touch! I'd love to chat.
sasha+hn@chedygov.com
I'm not sure how much free usage they give you with Auto mode.
Every few years I convince myself I'll create a better email client for Linux, and I always start the project enthusiastically and stop soon after, when I get just far enough to be reminded of how complicated email is. Maybe someday I'll take a sabatical and actually do it...
And also, it's not necessarily apples to apples. It would be nice to be able to drop a compiled WASM module into your codebase and use it from just about any language on the backend. You could reuse a lot of code that way across different services without the overhead of spinning up yet another container. And you could potentially even run untrusted code in a sandboxed way.
$50/month for 100W continuous usage isn't totally mad, and that could climb even higher over the rest of the decade.
There really is no good solution other than to reduce the surface area for vulnerabilities by reducing the total amount of code you depend on (including third-party code). In practice, this means using as few dependencies as possible. If you only use one or two functions from lodash or some other helper library, you're probably better off writing or pulling in those functions directly instead.
* Two-way data binding spaghetti
* Boilerplate-heavy reactivity
* Opaque, framework-specific magic
* Manual state updates/transitions
React didn't win "by default" (whatever that means), it won because it was better than most of the other options at the time.
I agree that, on purely technical grounds, it isn't as strong of a framework as other competitors anymore, but React is and has always been Good Enough™ for most companies, to the point that it's not worth reaching for anything else most of the time. And I say this as someone who doesn't like most things about modern React.
Zed feels significantly faster than VS Code, but it also doesn't feel as polished and "complete" as an IDE, so I'm going to stick to VS Code for now for the same reason I stuck to JetBrains IDEs for so long.
Because the types of customers that make them the most money don't care about any of this stuff. They'll happily pay whatever AWS (or other cloud provider) charges them, either because "scale" or because the decision makers don't realize there are better options for them. (And depending on the use case, sometimes there aren't.)
I have to do this already with practically all software I write, so the comexity is already baked in. Sure, if you don't already have a database or cache, maybe a proxy is simpler, but otherwise it's just extra infrastructure you need to manage.
> The proxy server is the right design decision if you are truly trying to build something production worthy and you want it to scale.
I've been doing stuff like the above (not for LLMs but similar use cases) for years "at scale" without issues. But in any case, you need to store state the moment you scale beyond a single proxy server anyway. Plus, most products never achieve a scale where this discussion matters.
I think you're vastly overestimating customers' willingness to listen and care about whose fault it is. In practice, if Netflix (or whatever other app) suddenly stopped working on Android phones, people using Android would complain about their phones being broken whilst their iPhone-using friends continue to use the app just fine.
The media companies know that they will win that game of chicken every time. It would take a concerted effort across tech companies to really take them down, and nobody is interested in waging that war because the cost of simply implementing DRM is too low for it to be worth the struggle and the risk.
I don't mean to dismiss your comment at all, but I'm surprised that such a low overhead would be the primary reason holding you back from switching. The difference between, say, 100 FPS and 91 FPS seems so negligible in my mind that it would be pretty near the bottom on the list of reasons not to switch to Linux.
This is a nice fantasy, but realistically it means you shouldn't use probably 90% of services out there, which isn't reasonable for most people. Plus, there are plenty of companies with treasure troves full of data on you that have equally questionable data security/privacy practices that you've never even directly interacted with.
We need regulation. There is no other alternative. And we need to stop blaming victims of data breaches for companies not putting basic security measures in place. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every company you interact with to securely store your sensitive data. If a place was physically making people ill like in your thought experiment, they wouldn't be around for very long; I think we should demand the same for our data.
I don't think anybody is suggesting this. But if the models can gleam information/insights that humans can't, that's still valuable, even if it's wrong some percentage of the time.