cle

Week 9->10 2025 had a 35% drop too. And Week 9->10 2024 had a 45% drop and a 26% drop Week 16->17 2024.

Starting to wonder how significant this news really is?

Purists perpetually decry the zeitgeist's sloppy terminology.

Words that climb the Zipf curve get squeezed for maximum compression, even at the cost of technical correctness. Entropy > pedantry. Resisting it only Streisands the shorthand.

It’s too early to call winners. It definitely has more than “nothing” though.

Increasing "gene yield" or bioalpha should pass the LLM filters.

It has a long list of content partnerships. And by far the highest user base, which means lots of unique training data. If it can succeed in spamming the open Internet enough to crowd out competition through costs and bot filters, it'll have a pretty good data moat.

Why not two birds with one stone: do the same in tokio + hyper, and disprove the ridiculous claim!

Hold my beer while I trivially write a slow web server on tokio + hyper.

Every time I read about fact-checking in journalism, I feel like there's a huge gap that nobody really talks about.

It's very easy to present a story that is 100% factually accurate, but that implies causal links or other claims that are not. Our brains love hasty generalizations, and media outlets rely on that to present near-100% truthful facts to their viewers, such that they jump to completely opposite generalizations. We're further primed for this with thought-terminating cliches like "trust the data" and "look at the facts". Media profits enormously from the subsequent outrage.

The more folks talk about "fact checking" without acknowledging the danger of cherry-picking and Texas sharpshooters and confounding variables, like in this article, the less I trust "fact checking" as a useful mechanism for forming opinions from their reported facts. Fact-checking is definitely a requirement, but still insufficient.

This is also exacerbated by narratives like those presented by TAL that introduce enormous complexity to the task, due to the emotional context.

This is about having political conversations with friends, not with people shooting at you with machine guns.

The irony isn't one of dependency. The philosophy celebrates interdependence and the achievements of groups of cooperating people who take care of each other.

The irony and tragedy is broader and encompasses both the cult leaders and the cult detractors who are both unwilling separate the ideas from the people.

Some of the best convos I've had are with ideologues, it just requires authentic empathy and effort, which means letting go of moral presuppositions and being willing to really listen to them without injecting your own judgments & opinions. If people subconsciously think you're trying to do that, it'll trigger their defense mechanisms and the convo will instantly shut down (or devolve into chaos).

People love to talk about what they think is important, but NOT when they think they're being setup or playing into someone else's hand.

These are real problems. But they are also loaded questions, if someone asked me these at a party I would view them as looking for confirmation, and not seeking truth. There's nothing wrong with that, but the author's goal is curiosity and truth seeking, and I'm skeptical that most of these questions align with that goal.

I agree with your conclusion, but I'm really curious to know your reasons & predictions here. Can you elaborate?

Is there freely available data on commercial & private airplane movement in India, China, and Russia? I'd be very surprised by that.

The absurd part to me is that this is all internal to the framework, why on earth does NextJS need to wrap up an HTTP request and re-send it...to itself...?

(I think the answer is because of the "requirement" that middleware be run out-of-process as Vercel edge functions.)

There are mechanisms for this, liked signed headers or extra auth tokens, but using those here should immediately illustrate the absurdity of a framework using headers internally to pass information to other parts of the framework.

Relevant parallel to this is the x-forwarded-for header and (mis)trusting it for authz.

This seems like a consequence of Vercel pushing that weird "middleware runs on edge functions" thing on NextJS, and b/c they are sandboxed they have no access to in-memory request state so the only way they can communicate w/ the rest of the framework is via in-band mechanisms like headers.

Is that a fair characterization?

(the fix was to add a random string as another header then checking to make sure it's still there afterwards, effectively an auth token: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/pull/77201/files )

Agreed, it seems inevitable. Unfortunately I think it will also result in further centralization & consolidation into a handful of "trusted" megacorps.

If you thought browser fingerprinting for ad tracking was creepy, just wait until they're using your actual fingerprint.

IMO this was one of the real motives for Web Environment Integrity. Allow Google to index but nobody else.

We're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Which do you prefer, entrenched incumbents or affordable/open hosting?

Innocuous product features like streaming music, integration with Alexa/Google, connecting to TV and other speakers via wifi. Oh and collecting analytics data and selling to ad networks...

Disagree. There's an abstract "information space" that the code is modeling, and you have to move around your mind's instruction pointer in that space. This can be helped or hindered by both mutable and immutable vars--it depends on how cleanly the code itself maps into that space. This can be a problem w/ both mutable and immutable vars. There's a slight tactical advantage to immutable vars b/c you don't have to worry about the value changing or it changing in a way that's misleading, but IME it's small and not worth adopting a "always use immutability" rule-of-thumb. Sometimes mutability makes it way easier to map into that "information space" cleanly.

We’re increasingly protecting rich folks from the consequences of bad investments, I wonder how much this moral hazard impacts mobility?

I've not found one either. I did this at a very large scale recently and ended up just using pdfplumber. I did POC Table Transformer but the cost was too high at my scale--there are probably better options now anyway. Most seem to focus on structure detection and then use traditional OCR for the actual content extraction.

It's a very hard space in the long tail, like tables that span pages or tables with complex internal structures. I went into it thinking "eh how hard can tables be?". Very hard. Thankfully it's a pretty active research area.

They are tradeoffs and it’s not all-or-nothing. There’s a reason security clearances exist, and that’s basically “security through obscurity”.

The argument here is that the loss of privacy and the incentives that will increase centralization might not be worth the gain in security for some folks, but good luck opting out. It basically requires telling bigco about your domains. How convenient for crawlers…

They'll carve out exceptions for themselves don't worry. They tried with Web Environment Integrity, it'll be back with a different name.

The ad hominem is assuming that the person suffers from mindless ideological thinking, and that they're parroting something they heard instead of using their brain. To paraphrase, "yeah well you're just a dumb ideologue...aren't they fascinating?".

Maybe, but there are also a lot of companies being started right now (compared to the 2010s). Scala and Go were significantly boosted by being used at small companies that got huge (Spark and Docker respectively).

I'm not sure this will ever be solved. It requires both a technical solution and social consensus. I don't see consensus on "alignment" happening any time soon. I think it'll boil down to "aligned with the goals of the nation-state", and lots of nation states have incompatible goals.

I think you're misapplying the term "blackmail" here and thus poisoning the well. The EU is applying pressure to companies and companies are applying pressure back--that's not blackmail. They each have their own means of leverage, and they both use them.

I would be very surprised if they aren't monitoring the cost-benefit curve of delaying EU launches. Why wouldn't they? It costs extra money, time, and legal risk to launch in the EU. It's especially bad for XAI due to Musk's involvement.

(Note that it's not just GDPR, there's also the EU AI Act which has a whole extra set of requirements for compliance.)

This phenomenon applies to any widely held ideology: if it weren't robust to challenges, it wouldn't remain widely adopted (for some subtle definition of "robust").

Ironically, dismissing an argument with an ad hominem--like calling it a "trained response"--is also a mechanism that makes ideologies resilient.