mkleczek

Network protocol designers know better and by default embed protocol version number in message format spec.

I guess you can assign 3-4 bits for identifier version number as well.

And yes - for long living data dealing with compatibility issues is inevitable so you have to take that into account from the very beginning.

Preferably, you would design you APIs and services to be idempotent (ie. use PUT not POST etc.)

Using idempotency identifier is the last resort in my book.

That's really an important deficiency of Postgres.

Hash index is ideally suited for UUIDs but for some reason Postgres hash indexes cannot be unique.

This is actually a very deep and interesting topic. Stripping information from an identifier disconnects a piece of data from the real world which means we no longer can match them. But such connection is the sole purpose of keeping the data in the first place. So, what happens next is that the real world tries to adjust and the "data-less" identifier becomes a real world artifact. The situation becomes the same but worse (eg. you don't exist if you don't remember your social security id). In extreme cases people are tattooed with their numbers.

The solution is not to come up with yet another artificial identifier but to come up with better means of identification taking into account the fact that things change.

git merge --no-ff

git log --first-parent

git bisect --first-parent

The above gives you clean PR history in the main branch while retaining detailed work history in (merged) feature branches.

I really don't understand why would I squash having git merge --no-ff at my disposal...

No, they are only for HA. Only one cluster node is serving clients.

While TigerBeetle way is very interesting I find lack of multicore processing support (or any kind of horizontal scaling) a blocker in terms real world deployment.

It is just too risky as there is a hard limit to scalability and while it might look it is high enough for foreseeable future, what am I supposed to do once I reach this limit? Financial database has to be planned with at least 15-20 years of growth in mind.

> Tackle the real problem instead of removing the most fundamental of rights so you can suppress speech and dissent you dislike, which is all this is.

But the real problem is oppressive government. My government is not oppressive - my government is here to help me and help the society to maintain civil rights.

The view that it is the government that is against civil rights is anarchistic and... wrong. In reality it is the opposite: the only way to maintain civil rights is to have the rule of law and the government that protects them.

What's more: anonymity itself has to be guarded by... the government (and that's what you require). So your logic is twisted: you trust your government to protect anonymity while at the same time you don't trust it to protect freedom of speech.

> In any case, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, dude. Isn't that the line?

I have nothing to worry about from my government - that's the important difference.

I’m sure you know the difference between publication of your personal data and making it accessible for trusted government officials.

I don’t know about any deaths (or imprisonment) of government dissenters in Poland (where I come from). Do you know any?

Maybe oppressive government and lack of freedom of speech is a problem in your country, I don’t know that and I’m sorry for you. My suggestion would be though, that you try to fix your government instead of anonymously requiring online anonymity because you’re afraid of your own government.

I guess here in Poland trying to protect people from theft and violence is more pressing issue than freedom of speech.

> This is a cliche "think of the children" argument. Stripping away anonymity is a gargantuan problem, and enables authoritarian regimes to punish dissent.

So we agree: authoritarian regimes are a gargantuan problem, not stripping away anonymity.

> Trolls are a very minor problem comparatively.

Online predator almost killed my child - this is not a "very minor problem". At least not for me.

> This is essentially saying "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions when you do things I don't like". It's an oxymoron.

It is not bout things _I_ don't like but things that _we (society)_ don't like. In my country nazi symbols are forbidden in public space and I think it is a good thing. So yes - "freedom needs to come with punishments and restrictions".

> The responsibilities a free populace have are moral and civil, they aren't about giving away anonymity to governments.

Why not? There are countries which governments are elected by citizens and are _trusted_ by citizens. Why would I want to be anonymous if I _trust_ people I elected?

Democracy for quite some time thrived in US (and for some shorter time in other western countries) even though there was no anonymity while free speech was guaranteed by the state. In other words: anonymity is not a solution for lack of free speech. I should be free to say whatever I want without being forced to hide behind a nickname.

Secondly: I think you are happy to not being the target of online violence. I have experience with teens on the brink of suicide caused by it.

Anonymity is not a prerequisite to freedom of speech.

Broken lives of people harassed by anonymous trolls on social media are the dark side of anonymity.

Freedom must be accompanied by responsibility and accountability.

I think this is missing mentioning:

Object algebras: https://i.cs.hku.hk/~bruno/oa/

Tagless final: https://okmij.org/ftp/tagless-final/course/lecture.pdf

and Data types a’la carte: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~swier004/publications/2008-j...

Thanks for your great work.

I can't find clear information about how re-rendering and stateful third-party components interact.

Let's say I have a stateful data table web component that I use in the template. Is it going to be re-created every time the template is re-rendered (loosing its internal state)?

That way you increase contention and harm scalability. In sqlite it does not matter as writes are single-threaded anyway. But in other DBMSes it does. What's more: in PostgreSQL you increase bloat as every update creates a new row version.

Most of the times the solution is not pre-aggregation but proper indexes on foreign key columns (missing fk indexes is one of the most common mistakes in RDB design).

No, it is not possible, not only in practice but - more importantly - in theory as well:

https://pron.github.io/posts/correctness-and-complexity

I've always used self-hosted https://scm-manager.org for personal stuff and never felt any need to move to anything else. It is a surprisingly good and for some reason not very popular, piece of software.

Java had its world changing moment when Ron Pressler gave this talk at Curry On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=449j7oKQVkc&t=1s.

Sure - you can (and probably should) outsource your non-core business like accounting, accounts receivables etc. but it is not payment processing.

Bitcoin adoption is a chicken and egg problem. But my guess is that censoring porn creates a very big incentive for people to start using it.

I am not sure why any middle man is needed to "effectively" handle Bitcoin.

It is a very liquid asset - easy to move and easy to sell.

Bitcoin does not require any payment processor. That's its whole point: censorship-resistant, permissionless, p2p payment system.

Yet another case for Bitcoin: permissionless, censorship resistant, peer-to-peer payment system.

I wonder if (when?) we reach a tipping point when people massively start using it. Censoring porn like this looks like a very strong incentive.

Neil Mitchell is also an author of Shake which is based on this paper.

Buck and Buck2 from Meta are descendants. Buck2 is an excellent piece of software. Too bad it is still niche.

More and more people claim this system of stimulated growth is actually wrong and the root cause for global warming.

> What about ML (Machine Learning) as a whole? I kind of wrote ML instead of LLMs just to avoid this specific tangent. Are you feelings about that field the same?

No - I only expressed my thoughts about using natural language for computing.

> Would you say that ML isn't a successful discipline? ML is basically balancing between "formal language" (papers/algorithms) and "non-deterministic outcomes" (weights/inference) yet it seems useful in a wide range of applications

Usefulness of LLMs has yet to be proven. So far there is more marketing in it than actual, real world results. Especially comparing to civil and mechanical engineering, maths, electrical engineering and plethora of disciplines and methods that bring real world results.

This is why I call all this AI stuff BS.

Using a formal language is a feature, not a bug. It is a cornerstone of all human engineering and scientific activity and is the _reason_ why these disciplines are successful.

What you are describing (ie. ditching formal and using natural language) is moving humanity back towards magical thinking, shamanism and witchcraft.

> how well you described it in the prompt, and how well you crafted your system queries.

This part is the most frustrating in discussions about LLMs. Since there are no criteria to measure the quality of your prompting there is really no way to learn the skill. Assessing prompting skills based on the actual results is wrong as it does not isolate the model capabilities.

Hence the whole thing looks a lot like an ancient shamanism.