fiddlerwoaroof

Common Lisp has a bunch of features designed to enable migrating the system. e.g. update-instance-for-redefined-class ( https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_upd... ) lets you write code to update instance data between class versions when a class definition is reloaded.

It turns out, though, that making hot-code reloading work well is mainly a question of how you design your system: designing for hot code reloading isn't all that hard for 90% of cases once you figure out the relevant techniques.

They do have a somewhat maintained fork of the amarok 1.4 line that more or less works the way I liked: I've been using when I want to listen to music on my linux desktop. I think it's forked from a bit before the late amarok 1.4 releases.

EDIT: here's the latest changelog: https://wiki.trinitydesktop.org/Changelog_For_R14.1.3#amarok

If you let me pick the roads, I could easily drive 90 minutes at night with no intervention in the LA area: driving from Ventura, down the 126 to the 5 to LAX can be done basically with no interventions no problem today. It could be done with EAP two years ago too. But, FSD works well on essentially arbitrary roads and it didn't four years ago.

There’s no comparison between what was available when I bought my Tesla in 2020 and what I have today.

I think a lot of people do college too young: if you can find a reasonable “real” job, a gap year or two will give you some life experience and a chance to mature a bit, which puts you in a much better place for actually learning.

I don’t think you can prevent that without centralizing on a single server

I think you basically want a partial order for federated chat: messages should arrive after the messages that cause them but not necessarily after messages that didn’t cause them. In the case of a network partition, this allows people on either side of the partition to continue communicating at the cost of non-determinism when the partition is resolved.

Because, for most business applications I've worked on, React just complicates the frontend code compared to serving up simple HTML views and for no real benefit aside from "using React"

I spent a lot of time working on react applications of one kind or another and I think most businesses don’t have “problems that React solves” for their frontends. Somewhere that’s actually an application might, but most line of business applications would be better as something like Rails views rather than React

The other perspective on this is that, at some level of your system you are always doing a hot code reload: terraform, kubernetes, etc. are taking a new deployment description in and reconciling it with the existing state of the world. Wouldn’t it be nice if this process was just more code in your preferred programming language rather than YAML soup?

BEAM encourages you to structure your program as isolated interacting processes and so it’s not that far from a container runtime in itself.

Yeah, people underestimate the value of “finished” software: in an ecosystem with lots of stable dependencies, there’s very little reason for useful software to change constantly.

I try to avoid python in production code bases as much as possible: dependency management issues alone are a good reason to do so for anything that will last longer than a year or two.

This is a big reason why legacy production code bases are such a nightmare to work with: developers refuse to learn anything beyond the minimum necessary to pile on yet another band-aid fix and the code base turns into a disorganized ball of mud

Yeah, the two systemd components GP mentioned have given me no end of trouble.

There are a couple of edge cases I forget at the moment where react event handlers intentionally behave differently from the DOM handlers with the same name.

Ok, this makes sense, it’s been a while since I did a deep dive into these algorithms for a roguelike project.

This article I found really interesting at the time: https://roguebasin.com/?title=The_Incredible_Power_of_Dijkst...

Does this mean that Dijkstra’s algorithm can perform better than something like A*?

Flink does have a SQL join now that you can make work. Streaming joins remain a hard problem, though and, imo, SQL doesn’t map nicely onto streaming systems.

It’s fairly common in my experience for reports to initially be driven by a Postgres database until you hit data volumes Postgres cannot handle.

Clickhouse scales from a local tool like Duckdb to a database cluster that can back your reporting applications and other OLAP applications.

I’ve found that the best way to learn a new emacs package is incrementally: for something like Auctex, I initially just enable it for my latex documents and then I configure and learn features as I need them, never learning too much at once. Even with minimal configuration, it gives you some nice things like imenu entries for headings and a menu that surfaces some of the basic latex feature

Many of the additives people complain about aren’t particularly novel.

The definition given there is pretty useless, imo:

> In the Nova system, a food product is considered ultra-processed if at least one of its ingredients is a substance that home cooks generally don't use (such as high-fructose corn syrup or hydrolysed protein), or is an additive designed to increase the product's appeal (such as a thickener or emulsifier).

Whether or not home cooks use an ingredient has little to do with the health of that ingredient. And, at least from the abstract of the linked article, the additional details don’t inspire confidence that this is a meaningful category.

“Processed foods” is yet another example of the trend of giving something vague a name, attaching an emotional valence to the name and then using that anti-scientific emotional valence to influence public policy. (See also the politics of nuclear power)

Aside from supply issues due tot he pandemic and demand, I there’s a strong incentive to be conservative in how you roll out self-driving: Cruise and Uber both ran into serious issues because they rolled out self-driving cars too aggressively. It won’t take that many publicized incidents to cause significant financial, legal and reputational issues for Tesla. So, selling FSD as a level 2 system while they are training their networks and gathering performance data makes a lot of sense.

Human drivers use the bike lane, shoulder or oncoming traffic lane to drive around cars turning left and to avoid hazards all the time. It’s not unsafe if you check to make sure no one is there and my Tesla detects people around me basically as well as a human can.

On the other hand, FSD won’t try to pass me on winding mountain roads with a double yellow line.

For the record, you no longer have to keep your hands on the wheel at all times.

I think it’s a mistake to conflate the actual capabilities of the system with the user instructions for how the system is being used. SAE levels are primarily about the latter and about who takes liability for the operation of the vehicle. Conflating the two punishes car manufacturers who are cautious about the current state of their self-driving system.

It’s just differently unsafe because it assumes that “safely stopping” is possible which may not be true in every situation.

I use it every day, but HN says it doesn’t work

I have a personal 2020 M1 MBP and a work MBP with an M2 or M3 CPU. IMO, the difference isn’t worth an upgrade yet, especially if you compare it to the upgrade from intel to Apple silicon.

But this doesn’t really explain anything: ‘\010’ isn’t really any more primitive than ‘\x0a’: they’re just different representations of the same bit sequence