afiori

Many CEOs are either paid by mythical "shareholder value" or beholden to it in the shape of a board, if they tried to go the valve route they would likely get replaced too soon for the benefits to materialize

> In most function vector spaces you encounter in mathematics, you can not say what the value of a function at a point is. They are not defined that way.

That is because they are not vector spaces of function but a quotient of one

also people expect smaller cars to cost far less so they have far lower per-unit profits

Unless the maintainers are incompetent or uncooperative this does not feel like a good strategy. It is a good strategy on Google's side because it is easier for them to manage

This is a fantastic argument for the universe where Google does not disclose vulnerability until the maintainers had had reasonable time to fix it.

In this world the user is left vulnerable because attackers can use published vulnerabilities that the maintainers are to overwhelmed to fix

> This is the same pattern as versioning

I guess we disagree on the reasonable interpretations of this sentence

Happy to have set my television to less than half saturation

:(

Things can have similarities without being the same. Also not being unique is not a moral failure.

I think I am failing to understand your stance.

That is a very reductionist view and not particularly useful either. It shares elements with versioning and you could likely implement this using explicit versioning, but it is completely independent of it.

The main difference I see is that of focus here the focus is to migrate a database without downtime or excessive global locks, keeping multiple versions of the schema is a detail.

I believe that current publicly available Ais are more intelligent than a non trivial fraction of adults.

It is funny to me how fractally perverse systems gets when a centralised authority refuses to directly solve a problem but rather decide have it solved by third party uncooperative players by creating an endless stream of byzantine rules to force the solution to be a twisted copy of what the centralised authority could have done by itself.

Of course there are failure modes in any approach but "oh no! Herding cats is hard. Who could have imagined!" is funny to me

Germany still does this, to a good fraction of incoming long distance busses (but not trains IIUC)

I guess they use something like sessionStorage to hold tab specific ids.

But something that can bite you with these solutions if that browsers allow you to duplicate tabs, so you also need some inter-tab mechanisms (like the broadcast API or local storage with polling) to resolve duplicate ids

You can see it another way: everyone wants to be the one that controls access to services; it is what search and news aggregators have in common.

Even if pizza hut wanted people to order pizza the most efficiently with no time wasted it would still want it to happen on their own platforms.

Because if people went to all-pizzas.com for their pizza need then each restaurant and chain would depend on them not to screw them up

Citing sources is not a magic that makes what you say true, it just makes statement more easily falsifiable.

LLMs can cite sources as well as any human, that is with a non-trivial error rate.

LLMs are shit for a lot of things but the problems are with the quality of the output whether they work by magic, soul-bending, matrix multiplication, or whatever is irrelevant.

You can reductionistically do the same to claim that the mesh of charged gel tubes in our brain is just spasming our muscles when humans type words in a computer.

Whether LLM are good or not, liars or not hardly depends on them being implemented on random black boxes algorithms becouse you could say the same of our brains.

I would guess that in reality they are either suspended and/or there is enough concrete at the bottom

My understanding is that reactor and waste pools are some of the least radioactive environments as they are constantly monitored for leakage.

I have often felt this doubt but the only two cases where my intuition was actually wrong was with `new` operators and php's ternary operator

Many applications simply use strings for that, like for dates

My understanding is that they cannot even really recognise a QUIC connection (maybe the first time, but not after ip roaming)

Is der the same as ASN.1?

with multiple cursors its easier than any alternatives

super ugly but they work just like inline comments and so are super easy to use/nest/visually detect and such.

for example in css which does not have inline comments vscode fails to reliably comment a block of text.

for strings it is even worse as usually they use the same tokens for opening and closing which make everything more ambiguos

The best multiline strings are those where you can have proper indentations without having to guess how indentation is handled. bonus points for making nesting easy and making copy-pasting work without breaking indentation.

To my knowledge only Zig's multiline strings work this way

    const hello_world_in_c =
        \\#include <stdio.h>
        \\
        \\int main(int argc, char **argv) {
        \\    printf("hello world\n");
        \\    return 0;
        \\}
    ;

> I'm not sure I can follow your logic of having smaller communities not being decentralized "at user level" whatever you mean by that.

I am making a parallel to how email works. With my own domain I can configure my DNS to use various different email providers and move however I like.

This is both decentralized and federated.

I can also use someone else's domain like gmail.com but then I lose portability for ease of use.

This is federated but not centralized.

Or I can host my own email server on my own domain and deal with spam fileters, bots, etc. directly

This is decentralized but less federated.

Mastodon is federated between instances but each instance is entirely centralized. Even account portability requires admin consent IIRC.

Bluesky is trying to create a space where users can own their own data like you can own your email AND aiming for widespread adoption.

I am not particularly focused on Mastodon, it is just the only part of the fediverse with a modicum of adoption.

But this is completely not decentralized at the user level (especially IIUC mastodon users cannot export/import their data)

Bluesky is trying to build something as decentralized as email where still few providers dominate the market and most use few common ip/domain blacklists.

Yet it is one of the most decentralized protocols on the internet.

I a not saying Bluesky is a masterpiece but I think it is naive to hold it to a higher standard than email as a protocol.

If it fails due to little adoption then it is a fail, if it succeed there is a possibility of it becoming a good decentralized protocol

To me it looks like there is an obvious solution: a package should be able to issue an update to change its name.

Something like

- maintainers of package com.foo.pkg want to transfer it to com.bar.pgk

- com.bar creates their own pgk clone and marks it as a successor to com.foo.pkg (with a specific version)

- com.foo.pkg pushes an update with that specific version marked as superseded by com.bar.pgk

- package managers warn users at update time that a change in namespace happened and ask for consent

This could be extended to multiple forks to let the user choose

I feel it would work fine

I feel like a better analogy is trying to rent a truck to move to a new apartment and after repeated failures of trucks not working they just hire a moving company for you to get you to leave

I believe that the solution here is to make crashes "safe" eg with a supervisor process that should either never crash or be resumed quickly and child processes that handle operations like user inputs.

This together with the fact that the main benefit of range types is on the consumption side (ie knowing that a PositiveInt is not 0) and it is doable to use try-catch or an equivalent operation at creation time