joshribakoff

I used it in the past and really disliked how it encouraged things like defining which functions to call by specifying a string with the function name. I would have much rather had it be more opinionated and require passing a reference to the function so it forces you to write code that benefits from typescript

I think this is solved more generally with a discriminated union in typescript.

A state machine is the wrong solution unless you also need to restrict transitions themselves in my opinion

> Bugs like inter-dependencies in your data and code should be caught by unit tests

Why write a ton of unit tests for what a static check can just do “for free?”. Not sure i follow your logic. I agree React can feel like a nuisance, but the lint rule itself is not the issue i think you have, it sounds like your issue is just with hooks.

Yea because your “fact” is literally a reproduction of the creative work with superfluous additions. Instead, if you publish a list of books and their unique word count it would be a collection of facts - and someone can copy your list (including mistakes) because your list isnt covered by copyright.

You can measure the duration, key, BPM etc and publish that which are all facts.

A recording of a song (even if it falls under fair use) is not a “fact”, it’s information that took creativity to produce, multiple people working independently would not produce the same exact song - unlike going around and measuring the height of bridges where if multiple people did it they would arrive at the same measurement

Disagree, if you need to connect to a network to run the project locally your DX is the worst of the worst. You should be able to run the project locally with docker containers if not on the host machine, the only caveat is if you work at a company like Google where you’d need to spinup thousands of services, but even then you should be able to run the service youre working on locally, at least with unit tests or in isolation, your DX indeed is bad if not. If you cant even use your editor locally thats super cumbersome

> It’s arguably an extreme option and one that doesn’t even exist today

How is it blatantly arguing for this thing when it literally calls it extreme and something that doesn’t exist? I think a more fair criticism would be the fact they don’t call out vendor lock-in as a tradeoff

> to throw Kubernetes into the mix just to run some controllers that deploy those services will pointlessly add to your monthly bill.

I think you have a valid point it may be dubious but the article does outline purported reasons it could make sense for some people. I dont think there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” here, rather there is the way “you would do it” and “the way they’re proposing as an option”

So what? Nothing here is sufficient to conclude it has anything to do with k8 whatsoever.

For example “users cannot resume code spaces created before the incident” sounds a lot more like an application level problem.

One of the reasons is sanctions.

Might want to be careful entering into an employment contract if the other party is located in a country your government doesnt legally allow doing business with.

Some low performing employees just wont leave on their own. Sometimes its the higher performers who feel they deserve more compensation and leave. With your proposal the company could end up with only the low performers which is the opposite intent of a layoff

Not true. Companies share material non public information internally. What they do is they have blackout periods where you cant trade the stock, and constant reminders not to trade based upon material non public information (insider trading)

Tl;DR = possessing insider info != insider trading

Generally speaking, with a layoff, they want all employees to hear it from official sources and not internal rumors.

18,000 is 18,000. Restating it as a single digit percentage of the headcount is itself a distortion.

> They are also able to do it optimistically, refunding people and then adjusting policies if it turns out the policies are being abused. This stuff is very hard to encode into a decentralized protocol.

Whats the nexus between centralization and ability to refund? Regardless of centralization i can cancel my credit card to stop you from clawing back an optimistic refund, regardless of centralization the protocol could force a waiting period before withdrawing optimistically refunded monies, etc.

Because were not at risk of being eaten by saber tooth tigers? By the same logic, we should just give in to our sweet tooth that evolved naturally and ignore our “unnatural” scientific knowledge of diabetes and obesity

The same is true in redux, every action calls every reducer, every connected component renders. Thats why with and without redux you need performance optimizations like memoizing components and/or selectors

Not that with just react contexts, you can chose to split them up instead of or in addition to employing memoization

The counter argument is lidar isn’t strictly necessary (case in point humans use vision, and roads are designed for visual drivers). Furthermore, there is potential added complexity in fusing lidar and video data. When lidar says the path is blocked and video says it is not, you essentially have to either trust lidar and stop unnecessarily or just ignore lidar and go anyway (and then what was the point of the lidar?). Having to make a decision like this is a form of complexity and addressing that complexity potentially takes resources away from iterating on the vision part of the stack.

Leaving a passenger in a stopped car in the middle of an intersection is not safe. And your logic is circular, the car hypothetically fails and calls for remote assistance, and the link gets cut, the car “safe stops” and youre right back at square one and need to send someone out still. I dont think its as easy as youre characterizing

> 50ms glass to glass latency.

You are potentially overlooking application level latency, just because the packets arrive in 50ms time does not mean the video latency is upper bounded to that. I think 100-200ms is more realistic.

If your one way network latency is 50ms, it takes 150ms minimum to send a packet on 1.5x round trips which is necessary to confirm round trip connectivity and notify the other party. If you can assume clocks are synchronized you can send packets one way in 50ms to confirm connectivity and latency.

> Usually that will involve either slamming the brakes on hard or gently, depending if there is an obstacle ahead or someone following behind.

you’re specifically in a situation in which the car has failed, so im not sure how you can assume the car will make these kinds of decisions correctly.

> I personally think they should just update the stack so they can do realtime control.

Lets assume video latency of 100-200ms can be achieved, its still potentially dangerous. There are however some companies i am aware of in certain countries that are doing it anyway!

Even if glass to glass latency was 1ms, perhaps its not a technological issue but a PR issue. Maybe they don’t want news headlines about people driving cars with mario kart steering wheels or it’s easier to get regulatory approval by reassuring the public they will do the safest thing possibly.

The issue i speculate is the tradeoffs are more imposing than with a human. Sure i accept that the car can drive more safely than a human (all it has to do is never exceed 1mph) but as safety increases i speculate it involves accepting tradeoffs like cars getting stuck, driving slowly, blocking traffic, hard braking when not necessary, or even restricting the operating domain.

I don’t get the nexus between the release of chatGPT and rising interest rates. Are you implying the former somehow caused the latter?

I have my money parked at various (legitimate) financial institutions, and I don’t personally know any individuals who work there. The marks do not think they are giving money to strangers, they think they are depositing it into their own account and assume the app corresponds to a real brokerage because it is listed on the Apple App Store (per article)

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think the number of engineers needs to scale with the servers. You can scale out servers without scaling out your number of engineers. As far as moderation, Twitter is already poorly moderated and moderation can be outsourced.

The types of things that require scaling out engineers is supporting video embeds from 100s of different video hosting platforms.

Sounds like they won’t be passively backfilling, but will still actively recruit for select projects.

When I bought FSD it stated clearly it depended on technological and regulatory advances, so I’m not sure I get the argument that I was a victim of fraud.

Also, I haven’t seen it mentioned here, but the tech does exist and currently you have to demonstrate “safe” (according to their heuristics) driving to get access. I have access, and it more or less does the things they promised, far from perfect (in fact it makes lots of mistakes where I take over for safety), but I fail to see how they promised perfection. My interpretation of the “full” in full self driving was that it handles the full list of maneuvers they enumerated like obeying traffic control and making turns, which it does do today.

When did cops say they don’t “go after” theft? I believe they don’t prioritize investigating it, but they can’t refuse to take a report

The HTML spec says it is required, even if you don’t think it should be required it is. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#alt

Blocking traffic isn’t something I’d like to see when I or someone else needs emergency vehicles to get to them. It is also unnecessary if the companies have a safety driver who can take over, or more robust teleoperation for a human to remotely assist

Concurrent react actually makes your app less concurrent: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/21668

5yrs in progress, it’s still not documented let alone fixed. I tried to look at the code, and they make giant PRs and are experimenting with priority queues and bitmasks, which seemed pretty off in the weeds to me.

> opponents argue is cruel

I have lived in SF for several years and done a complete 180. The status quo is not “compassionate”, there are people who turn down help. These same individuals quite literally destroy the city. For instance, we have people sleeping and overdosing (dying) in our buildings entryway. The other week, one person defecated and smeared it on our door, lit our awning on fire, and uprooted all the landscaping and burned it. At the same time, people are selling drugs nearby and individuals are literally lined up with backpacks. There is constantly broken glass, feces, and trash spewed everywhere. Something has to change, and again lots of these people are turning down help. Right now the police state they send out the HOT (homeless outreach team) which is basically older individuals who volunteer to distribute pamphlets. If there is a crime, usually no arrest is made if the police are even able to respond. The penalties are often a misdemeanor and a fine, and not showing up to court often only results in more (effectively unenforceable) fines

It’s a fine line between “compassion” and “enabling”.

Yes the part at the end is the case. Furthermore, the human operators are a “crutch” necessary to develop full autonomy. The alternative is to send someone out to retrieve the robot if it gets stuck (which will continue to for years as the technology is refined)