6,378 karma · joined October 22, 2017
And yes I have graying hair at mid-late 20s. Sometimes I'm astonished how people don't complain about their stress levels. I feel weak, child-like, immature, and feeble being unable to tolerate maybe 10% of what my wife can.
Oh no! What will these multi-billion dollar companies do? Who is there to protect them? I think maybe we should create a foundation of sorts that we can all invest our money in to advocate for the rights of Costco et al. It seems like otherwise the evil government will cause too much damage on them while trying not to kill people due to allergy attacks or medical insensitivities. I can't ever imagine a situation where saving at most one or perhaps two hypothetical human lives being worth the risk of causing a butter recall. Someone should protect shareholder profits no matter the consequences, and especially if the consequences are so minor (just a few possible deaths) compared to thousands of dollars in profits shareholders can make.
If you have 2 buddies and going on a $5500 3 bedroom in Boston, you'll likely be requested first rent + last rent + deposit + broker fee (=1 rent) = 4 * rent = $22k just to get the keys. That's $7300 per person. This is only to get the key, the next month you pay rent #2.
If you're going on a $4k 1 bedroom by yourself (or with your partner) you'll be hit with 4 * 4=$16k upfront cost, or $8k if you're lucky and have a partner.
Renting is extraordinarily expensive in big cities in the US right now. I'm sometimes surprised people can survive this market. I make ~$150k a year in a lucrative software engineering role, and rent is still too expensive for me. It's very difficult for e.g. teachers, researchers etc making ~$70k a year etc.
Some cities will be cheaper, some will be more expensive. E.g. I know that Philadelphia is particularly cheap when it comes to cost of living. Chicago is expensive, but seems to be slightly cheaper than NYC/Boston etc...
There is sqlfluff etc but I'm curious what people use.
[1] DuckDB SQL dialect is very close to Postgres, it's compatible in many ways but has some extra QOL features related to analytics, and lacks a few features like `vacuum full`;
But the way in which this phenomena is explained is via actual code. The code itself is besides the point of course, it's not like anyone will ever run or compile this specific code, but it's put there for humans to follow the discussion.
> These types of articles/pronouncement always tend to make a connection that is nearly never warranted. That is, the article quotes this tweet that says "The modern economy rests on a single road in Spruce Pine, North Carolina. The road runs to the two mines that is the sole supplier of the quartz required to make the crucibles needed to refine silicon wafers." But the first sentence doesn't really follow from the second.
> That is, even if all the silicon wafers are made from this quartz from NC today, it's not really because that is the only possible option, it's because that quartz is the highest quality that can be procured at a relatively low price. But if that factory and quarry went away tomorrow, I have no doubt that the worldwide semiconductor industry would quickly adjust to a different quartz supplier.
> I think it's still a very cool factoid, but the subtext that "the whole world economy 'hinges' on a teeny NC town" is false.
We'll see if they're right...
I haven't. Internet is nothing more than an addiction for me. Internet is dead and misanthropic nowadays. It's soulless and corporate. It used to be fun, artistic, creative, and educational. Now it's neither of those, with extremely few exceptions like Wikipedia.
> This site is one of them, but there are a bunch of federated platforms out there now too that are fun to explore.
I read reddit and HN constantly because I seem to have an unhealthy compulsion to keep up with the news, politics, tech, and the world, but other than that I wouldn't say I like either site, or that they're fun.
This is an extremely puzzling comment. I can think of thousands of such cases.
First, there are many reasons to split your program into processes instead of threads (e.g. look at browsers) so even if you have a monolith, you may need IPC between trusted parties simply because of software engineering practices. As a more extreme example, if you're writing code in a language like Python, where multi-threading is a huge liability due to GIL and the standard solution is to just use multi-processing, you'll need a channel between your processes (even if they're just fork()'d) and so you need to use something like filesystem, unix pipe, postgresql, redis, some ipc lib (e.g. TFA)... whatever as a way to communicate.
Second, your comment implies there is no scenario where implementing two separate programs is preferable to building a monolith. Even though you believe in general monoliths are better, it doesn't follow that they have to always be the right approach for every software. You may have a program that requires extremely different computational techniques, e.g. one part written in Prolog because it needs logical constraint satisfaction solving, or one part needs X language because you have to use a specialized library only available in language X, or you may need one part of your program to be in C/C++/Go/Rust for improved latency, or you may need part of your program in "slow" Y language because every other codebase in your company is written in Y. This language barrier is simply one reason. I can come up with many others. For example, parts of the software may be developed by two separate teams and the IPC is decided as the interface between them.
Long story short, it's pretty normal to have a monolithic codebase, but N processes running at the same. In such cases since all N processes are written by you, running in hopefully-trusted hardware, using an IPC framework like this is a good idea. This is not necessarily the most common problem in software engineering, but if you do enough systems programming you'll see that a need for IPC between trusted processes is hardly niche. I personally reach for tools like iceoryx quite frequently.
I'm finding it difficult to believe this. For me, your comment is accurate (and very insightful) except even a mostly vanilla continuation of the neoliberal capitalist system seems possible. I think we're literally talking about a "singularity" where by definition our fate is not dependent on our actions, and of something we don't have the full capacity to understand, and next to no capacity to influence. It needs tremendous amount of evidence to claim anything in such an indeterminate system. Maybe 100 rich people will own all the AI and the rest will be fixing bullshit that AI doesn't even bother fixing like roads, rusty farms etc, similar to Kurt Vonnegut's first novel "Player Piano". Not that the world described in that novel is particularly neoliberal capitalist (I suppose it's a bit more "socialistic" (whatever it means)) than that, but I don't think such a future can be ruled out.
My bias is that, of course, it's going to be a bleak future. Because when humanity loses all control, it seems unlikely to me a system that protects the interests of individual or collective humans will take place. So whether it's extinction, cyberpunk, techno-socialism, techno-capitalist libertarian anarchy, neoclassical capitalism... whatever it is, it will be something that'll protect the interest of something inhuman, so much more so than the current system. It goes without saying, I'm an extreme AI pessimist: just making my biases clear. AGI -- while it's unclear if it's technically feasible -- will be the death of humanity as we know it now, but perhaps something else humanity-like, something worse and more painful will follow.
I have a feeling -- not being a lawyer and not intimately knowing the US Law -- that the whole legal structure of the Federal Government will soon experience a tremendous shift. Alphabet agencies will stop having any kind of authority that the Judicial Branch never approved of. It will completely shatter everything we know about the feds, from drug regulations (FDA et al), to communications (FCC et al), to stock market (SEC et al), to worker/consumer rights (FTC et al), to immigration (USCIS et al)... There will be a period in the US history where no lawyer will be sure how anything can be relied on anymore because there will be this giant free real estate the Judiciary Branch can make precedents on whenever they want.
When congress passed laws to create these alphabet agencies, they thought they're assigning some amount of authority to them to "regulate", and they thoughts these unelected bureaucrats making up laws -- instead of the glacier slow Congress -- will let Congress off the hook. But they didn't realize that the Judicial Branch would ultimately see it as an existential threat to them -- because the authority to "interpret" law belongs to the Judicial Branch and not the Executive Branch -- and thus by doing so, they actually wrote a blank check to the Judicial Branch (ruled by another set of 9 unelected High Priests) to eventually determine all these things for the Congress. It's gonna take the Congress an unprecedented megaproject to take these powers from the Judiciary and exactly define each law as elected Congress sees fit.
I hope I'm tremendously wrong, but I'm expecting Armageddon-level legal change to soon follow in this country.
This is the problem with these kind of methods. It works, until it doesn't in an unknown way.