foooorsyth

Android’s original offering was nothing like modern phones. They didn’t have multi touch and they expected physical keyboards. Android added multi-touch in 2.0 Eclair in 2009 as a clear response to iPhone’s popularity

Biggest killer of JetBrains IDEs has been simple: the “Switcher” now orders navigation destinations dynamically, whereas they used to be static. Destination keymap is not customizable. Ruins all of my muscle memory and makes me hate the IDE now. Someone at JetBrains please read this and make the Switcher destinations something I can customize in the keymap

The opposite, actually. Signal endlessly nags you to turn on notifications, and when you turn them on, previews and content are shown by default. You cannot opt out of the nags.

>The actual meaning of a "clean room implementation" is that it is derived from an API and not from an implementation

This is incorrect and thinking this can get you sued

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...

I wouldn’t take too much issue with the “cameras are enough” claim if cameras actually performed like eyes. Human eyes have high dynamic range and continuous autofocus performance that no camera can match. They also have lids with eyelashes that can dynamically block light and assist with aperture adjustment.

The appeal to human biology and argument against fusion between disparate sensors kinda falls flat when you’re building a world model by fusing feeds from cameras all around the car. Humans don’t have 8 eyes in a 360 array around their head. What they do have is two eyes (super cameras) on ~180 degree swiveling and ~180 degree tilting gimbal. With mics attached that help sense other vehicles via road noise. And equilibrioception, vibration detection, and more all in the same system, all fused. If someone were actually building this system to drive the car, the argument based on “how did you drive here today?” gets a lot stronger. One time I had some water blocking my ear and I drove myself to the hospital to get it fixed. That was a shockingly scary drive — your hearing is doing a lot of sensing while driving that you don’t value until it’s gone.

The reality that most encryption enthusiasts need to accept is that true E2EE where keys don’t leave on-device HSMs leads to terrible UX — your messages are bound to individual devices. You’re forced to do local backups. If you lose your phone, your important messages are gone. Lay users don’t like this and don’t want this, generally.

Everything regarding encrypted messaging is downstream of the reality that it’s better for UX for the app developer to own the keys. Once developers have the keys, they’re going to be compelled by governments to provide them when warrants are issued. Force and violence, not mathematical proofs, are the ultimate authority.

It’s fun to get into the “conspiratorial” discussions, like where the P-256 curve constants came from or whether the HSMs have backdoors. Ultimately, none of that stuff matters. Users don’t want their messages to go poof when their phone breaks, and governments will compel you to change whatever bulletproof architecture you have to better serve their warrants.

Had so many Boston cabs not show up for rides to the airport growing up. Uber was such a breath of fresh air…until it wasn’t anymore.

I’ve said several times before that notifications should be reportable as spam directly to Google/Apple, just like email spam reporting.

Google tried to tackle this with notification channels, but the onus falls on the developer to actually use them honestly. No company trying to draw attention back to their app with advertisement notifications will willingly name a notification channel “advertisements” or “user re-engagement” or similar — they’ll just interleave spam with all the non-spam. This API from G hasn’t worked.

Rockets?

Seoul is in artillery range of the border.

git by itself is often unsuitable for XL codebases. Facebook, Google, and many other companies / projects had to augment git to make it suitable or go with a custom solution.

AOSP with 50M LoC uses a manifest-based, depth=1 tool called repo to glue together a repository of repositories. If you’re thinking “why not just use git submodules?”, it’s because git submodules has a rough UX and would require so much wrangling that a custom tool is more favorable.

Meta uses a custom VCS. They recently released sapling: https://sapling-scm.com/docs/introduction/

In general, the philosophy of distributed VCS being better than centralized is actually quite questionable. I want to know what my coworkers are up to and what they’re working on to avoid merge conflicts. DVCS without constant out-of-VCS synchronization causes more merge hell. Git’s default packfile settings are nightmarish — most checkouts should be depth==1, and they should be dynamic only when that file is accessed locally. Deeper integrations of VCS with build systems and file systems can make things even better. I think there’s still tons of room for innovation in the VCS space. The domain naturally opposes change because people don’t want to break their core workflows.

>The biggest problem with Nix is its commit-based package versioning.

I am naive about Nix, but...

...isn't that like...the whole selling point of Nix? That it's specific about what you're getting, instead of allowing ticking time bombs like python:latest or npm-style glibc:^4.4.4

Odd to attach yourself to Nix then blog against its USP.

Does Lottie do no temporal compression? Is it just a sequence of p-frames with a json manifest?

It's really impressive. Technical content, GitHub repos that go along with the videos, set design, retro editing -- much higher quality than a lot of stuff out there from major studios

Unfortunately the cheats are way ahead of this. Most modern aimbots in shooters like Counter-Strike are (intentionally) not-obvious. They give minor advantages and do tiny corrections for an already-immensely-skilled player to gain a small edge. In a game where the difference between a great player and an elite player is small, they can be the invisible difference maker.

>I think many would quickly understand the value proposition

I think thousands of innocent teenagers without credit cards will be furious. Not to mention anyone that takes a game semi-seriously and cares about their reputation after getting banned. Also, with real-dollar values tied to skins, you’re not just nuking someone’s $50 account — accounts and their associated items can be worth a lot of money.

Anti-cheats should need to be certain. They should also, however, ban the hardware ID, which lots of games companies choose not to do (because they’d lose money).

So because China will steal it eventually, we should just give it away now? That’s your argument?

>clearly China is capable of catching up with ASML’s tooling

The only thing clear to me is precisely the opposite. Nobody has been able to catch up with ASML, including China. If China is capable of catching up on their own (without espionage), why would Taiwan even matter? Why would export controls on ASML tooling even matter?

They matter because ASML and TSMC are companies built on secret know-how that others can’t replicate. Do we really need to explain on HN that companies are built on secrets?

My situation: hardware company, over 100 years old. I’ve found useful usage examples of pieces of software I need to use, but only on an OS we no longer ship, from a supplier we no longer have a relationship with, that runs on hardware that we no longer have. The people that know how to get the dev environment up are retired.

In those cases, I’m grateful for mildly less concise languages that are more explicit at call and declaration sites.

Have you ever worked in a large organization with many environments? You may find yourself with a particular interface that you don’t know how to use. You search the central code search tool for usages. Some other team IS using the API, but in a completely different environment and programming language, and they require special hardware in their test loop, and they’re located in Shanghai. It will take you weeks to months to replicate their setup. But your goal is to just understand how to use your version of the same API. This is incredibly common in big companies. If you’re in a small org with limited environments it’s less of an issue.

I don’t particularly accept f(g()). I like languages that require argument labels (obj-c, swift). I would welcome a language that required them for return values as well. I’d even enjoy a compiler that injected omitted ones on each build, so you can opt to type quickly while leaning on the compiler for clarity beyond build time.

Not everyone reading your code will be using an IDE. People may be passively searching your code on GitHub/gerrit/codesearch.

val/var/let/auto declarations destroy the locality of understanding of a variable declaration without an IDE + a required jump-to-definition of a naive code reader. Also, a corollary of this problem also exists: if you don’t have an explicit type hint in a variable declaration, even readers that are using an IDE have to do TWO jump-to-definition actions to read the source of the variable type.

eg.

val foo = generateFoo()

Where generateFoo() has the signature fun generateFoo(): Foo

With the above code one would have to jump to definition on generateFoo, then jump to definition on Foo to understand what Foo is. In a language that requires the explicit type hint at declaration, this is only one step.

There’s a tradeoff here between pleasantries while writing the code vs less immediate local understanding of future readers / maintainers. It really bothers me when a ktlint plugin actually fails a compilation because a code author threw in an “unnecessary” type hint for clarity.

Related (but not directly addressing auto declarations): “Greppability is an underrated code metric”: https://morizbuesing.com/blog/greppability-code-metric/

If you’re going to attempt to be pedantic, can you at least work on basic reading comprehension?

The concept of a large and powerful entity allowing free speech is in the spirit of the Bill of Rights, whether the large and powerful entity is government or not.

The parent poster was taking the position that allowing speech is somehow a Musk-derived idea, which is absurd.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

Meta, as a large and powerful entity with the ability to censor as much or more than many governments, is opting to allow free speech on its platforms. So is X. That spirit is inspired by the Bill of Rights, not Elon Musk.

The ideas are from the Bill of Rights.

Just being able to hold a drink in your hand as social cover is part of what you’re buying. At a Christmas party, you just want to have what appears to be the peppermint Christmas-themed drink in your hand like everyone else, even if you’re pregnant or don’t drink for whatever reason. People will stop asking if they can get you a drink. Not everyone buying an NA drink cares about perfectly emulating the sensation of alcohol entering the body.

gotos can be used without shame. Dijkstra was wrong (in this rare case).

defer is cleaner, though.

Well in this case on the return flight I’m usually booked regular economy, and regular economy has no under seat space loss. I’m able to work the entire flight back from Europe on the cheaper ticket.

Premium economy to MUC out of CLT always annoys me because the legs that hold the seats up can possibly be right in the middle of your under-seat space, making putting a briefcase under the seat in front of you impossible (the legs are unevenly spaced throughout the row so not all seats lose the space). They also have those fold-down footrests that I never actually use and take up more space. Paying more for a seat in which I might not even be able to access my work laptop is a bit annoying.

Man, I sound like a diva.

I don’t think you should have to hold the entire canon of programming history in your head to avoid these types of footguns. Conventional design choices of the past that lead to bugs and security vulnerabilities should be replaced.

It’s the fastest product to 100m users ever. Even if they never update their models from here on out, they have an insanely popular and useful product. It’s better at search than Google. Students use it universally. And programmers are dependent on it. Inference is cheap — only training is expensive.

To say they don’t have PMF is nuts.

>You can’t tell me that someone couldn’t fine an awesome game using their maps and street view

Isn’t that just Niantic? They spun out of G and made Ingress and Pokemon Go