scottlamb

You're never going to get promoted with that attitude!

I'm joking...but not entirely. It sounds impressive on a promo packet when you say you've saved 100 TB of RAM / $$$ through whatever technique. But it sounds a lot less impressive when you say if this system grows to this size in x years, I will have saved 100 TB, especially when no one yet knows how large the system will really be in that time or what the cost of RAM will be. I dunno, maybe if you say that x years ago, I made a decision that now is saving us 100 TB, that's kinda impressive, but you're also getting credit for it x years after you did the work. It also doesn't have the implication that it must be inherently complex/hard because some other smart person chose the other way. And there is a bias to care more about recent accomplishments. So I don't really think it'd be valued the same at all.

Also, in general big tech (at least Google) prefers growing the userbase over improving efficiency. Periodically efficiency is rewarded, e.g. when RAM cost suddenly balloons or some big must-have feature has suddenly used up capacity planned for something else. You get rewarded for doing efficiency work on demand, not eagerly.

I once got a $100 peer bonus for finding 100,000 cores that were essentially stranded by an accounting error in another team's migration script.

> Now they're run based on the data, and the data says they have enough loyal-to-a-fault customers like the author that chronically understaffing is more profitable than providing a good experience.

If they are indeed saying understaffing doesn't matter because their current customers don't care, their loyalty numbers will only go up because of that sampling bias. Relatively upscale fast casual places (e.g. Chipotle) will replace McDonalds for the customers they lose. The circle of service industry life.

> They cherrypicked 15 countries.

The "world" chart shows an increase from 19% renewal to 34%. Did they cherry-pick that? (Also, "European Union" is more than one country.)

> I don't doubt that it's economical for individuals when the govt is subsidizing it.

Does that distinguish renewables from fossil fuels? Haven't governments been essentially subsidizing fossil fuels (not least by allowing environmental externalities to be ignored) for as long as they've been in use?

Agree with your broader point, but out of curiosity:

> It cost her nearly $10k to have a _used_ aluminum ramp installed for her house.

Why so expensive? I did a quick search, and the only way I could get a (new) aluminum ramp up to $10k was by selecting the 30-foot platform model, [1] which I'd guess would be excessive in most cases. I'm not counting installation fees but it looks like something I could do myself in an hour, and I'm not that handy.

[1] https://reliableramps.com/collections/aluminum-wheelchair-ra...

Some people actually care, but they can't always win the battle at their own companies when there are other priorities, much less go fix all the other websites, pour concrete at other businesses, etc. Is the solution for everyone to care? If, so how do you accomplish that? ("Americans with Disability Act" v2?)

The author is seeing that it's easier for one team to get backing (VC money, course credit, design awards, TED talk applause, etc.) for "solving" an accessibility problem than for us to enforce that entire industries follow good accessibility practices in new work and retrofit existing work. In theory industry-wide enforcement is the sort of thing legislation like the ADA solves, but obviously that hasn't been completely effective. Not sure how to fix it.

There was a subthread recently complaining about password managers and their UX problems. These aren't aimed specifically at "disabled" users, but I think it's a similar situation. We can't reliably enforce good standards for sign-in (whether that's just setting the autofill attribute correctly and choosing the correct event handlers for Javascript validators or something far more ambitious), so we expect a password manager to just deal with the web as it is. IMHO they work remarkably well given that constraint, but it's not optimal overall.

> I'm pretty sure doing janky things to the AC you don't own is a lease violation.

Why? Not all "janky" things are the same:

* Sloppy changes to the internal 240V wiring: yeah probably a violation of the lease, and legitimately likely to burn the place down, with associated liability.

* Temporarily mounting to the exterior this mechanism that turns the knob shaft, with no changes to the wiring, no holes, no nothing. I can't think what grounds they'd have for considering this a lease violation or a reason to keep any of the security deposit, as long as you pop the original knob back on when you move out. And as inigyou pointed out, how would they even know?

Nice. I don't have any ESPHome thermostats right now, but I have an ESPHome fridge/freezer temperature monitor. I adopted the same idea: it should integrate with HA when HA is available, but it should be useful even when HA is down. So in addition to exporting the raw temperature to HA, the alert threshold is kept on the device rather than in HA so it can locally compute the alert state. This triggers a directly wired piezo buzzer, in addition to an HA phone notification.

You do have to set the "api: reboot_timeout: 0" if you don't want it to reboot itself every 15 minutes while HA is down. I persisted the alert threshold to flash though so even if it does reboot it comes right back up and works fine.

> The rest of this blog post is a walkthrough of a software engineer’s approach to home automation and building custom hardware, and let me tell you: both the final product, and the journey to get there, are hella jank.

IMHO it's not that bad? With the disclaimer that I'm also a software engineer who dabbles very very lightly with electronics and has no mechanical engineering expertise. But the overall approach of doing this by stepper motor seems quite defensible given the security deposit constraint. The only part that seems really janky to me is that it's not physically held in place that well as noted in this paragraph:

> Ultimately, the biggest issue is that binder clips and cardboard aren’t quite as robust of a mounting mechanism as I’d hoped they’d be… and over time, the stepper motor tends to “sag” a bit, resulting in a bit too much friction between the motor, the coupler, and the underlying knob, causing the mechanism to stall out until someone manually goes and reseats it…

Involving MQTT and HA can sometimes get frustrating too; having your AC not working properly if there's a problem on a Linux machine can suck. If this becomes a problem in practice, iirc ESPHome also has a thermostat component, and temperature sensors are really cheap and easy to wire in, so you could do it all on the microcontroller pretty easily in a low-code way. But if this part is working, no need to mess with it.

> Honestly, back when the 737 MAX debacle happened, a lot of consumers claimed that they would stop flying aircrafts if they ran into 737 MAXs. And I don't think it happened in enough numbers - or even enough to make news. Sales went through the roof, everything kept working.

Is this kind of consumer revolt even really possible?

If you feel strongly enough that you refuse to fly altogether, then of course you can avoid flying on a 737 MAX. But I think most people did not feel the risk was that high. They just want to select "guarantee no 737 MAX" when booking a flight, and as far as I can tell that option doesn't exist.

Even if the flight is not a 737 MAX when you book, they can and sometimes do change aircraft, and as far as I know there's no option to get your money back when they do. If you show up and see it's a 737 MAX...you either get on or you lose your money, and have to find some other way to get where you're going, right?

I read ryandrake's comment as saying this accidental sharing is a rare opportunity for wired to audit actual video of (some) drone use, and they might yet review it more and find some drone use policy violation not obvious from flight logs alone. I agree that if that happens, it'd be very interesting to see how the violation is handled.

But since you brought it up, SFPD should also have a policy on when they share drone footage, and I'm going to assume they violated that. In this case I think it's reasonable to take them at their word that it was accidental and they are learning from it. And I'd be a lot more concerned anyway if it were ubiquitous surveillance of ordinary citizens, not just incidental captures during scoped, presumed legitimate operations.

> In its statement, the SFPD notes that it adheres to a “strict policy” around drone use, and that “drones can only be used to assist with active criminal investigations, to assist with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits, and for training exercises.”

In principle I think this is good. These are useful tools as shown in the first video, helping them safely arrest a suspected thief. And having a policy like this is a good step to ensure they aren't used for ubiquitous surveillance that enables the sort of post-hoc warrantless (and unjustifiable) invasions of privacy we've seen with Flock cameras.

That said, I hope the official policy is more air-tight than this one-sentence version. "with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits" is tautological, only constraining the target to be a vehicle [edit: or does it require they follow a vehicle pursuit policy specified elsewhere? unclear to me]. And can anything be a "training exercise"? What would the consequences be anyway if an officer violates the policy? [edit: I'm also wondering now how tight their policy on an "active criminal investigation" is. When there's significant officer time involved, there's some inherent limit on how silly/vindictive/... they can get, but with enough drones, that could go away.]

I'd be interested to hear the author's answer to your question, but I see it as an interesting proof-of-concept. It's testing the viability of not only rewriting PostgreSQL in Rust (and their choice of deps) but also in switching the threading model and other architectural changes. LLMs shine at pumping out prototypes insanely fast, and a working prototype can put an end to a lot of speculation.

I likely wouldn't use a rewrite of such a huge project if it doesn't have the backing of the original team (or a significant fraction thereof) and a believable story for having matched/exceeded the original code quality and maintenance. I also think in general using an LLM for license-laundering is legally and morally hard to defend, although this case is different in that they chose a more restrictive license. Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you can just download PostgreSQL, do s/MIT/AGPL/ and release it, legally. (The original MIT-licensed version still exists, so no reason anyone would prefer yours until you make another release with some compelling new feature.)

> Disclaimer: An earlier version of this post claimed the structure is wait-free, this is incorrect. Being wait-free requires that failure or suspension of any thread can’t cause failure or suspension of another thread. This queue in fact does not fulfill that requirement. The main section which discusses the wait bounds of queue operations has been amended to reflect this, but other parts of this article have not been. As such there may parts of the text which refer to this as a wait-free queue, which it is not. I chose to keep those sections to avoid rewriting chunks of this post after it was already posted. Thanks for the correction Reddit user matthieum!

Classy disclaimer! matthieum's (long) reddit comment is also an informative read: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1up0uhg/girls_just_wa...

> I mean I might not know what a strawman is, but I thought it was claiming people were making an argument that in fact they were not.

What I mean is: I expect you originally heard a version of this that was more nuanced and supported by data than what you presented. Your paraphrased form is weaker, which I call a strawman. (The "duh, QED" was kind of a give-away.)

Wikipedia lists (among other things) "Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version." and "Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version." as characteristics of a strawman.

btw the opposite is sometimes called a "steelman": arguing against the most solid version of the opponent's argument that you can imagine.

> I mean, sure. I've long argued that the US strategy of printing money and giving it to asset owners is bad. I doubt a wealth tax would help, IMO the real issue is the welfare for wealthy people. Seems kinda dumb and the people claiming that the economy would collapse without it appear to be making up their principles as they go along.

As in Quantitative Easing? I confess I don't understand it as well as I probably should, but I think it's cyclical? and inequality is increasing even when it is not happening? Would a pinky-promise that we will stop and never do it again achieve start reducing inequality, as opposed to just lessening the increase? If not, I don't think that's radical enough on its own. What serious alternative is there to a wealth tax or going back to 70+% highest marginal tax rate?

> But we should all want to encourage wealth. It makes people wealthy.

To the extent anyone and everyone can become wealthy, I agree. What policies would you suggest to achieve that meaningfully (obviously inflation doesn't count)? What I see in these charts is instead a zero-sum game in which the most wealthy become even more so at the expense of the least wealthy.

> Going from "predominantly what happens" to "it's theoretically possible occasionally" is a question of magnitude rather than direction.

Okay, fair enough. I took "without adding any new buyers" literally but yes, I can imagine this creating some downward pressure on stock prices.

> Or their spending it on food and rent results in an increase in rents, even for the people who didn't get any, which rents go in part to foreign investors who remove it from the jurisdiction, and then domestic people have even less to invest than before. ... Compare this to the thing where you e.g. relax zoning rules to reduce housing scarcity so that rents come down and then domestic people have that money to invest.

Are these mutually exclusive? I concede that people being unable to afford rent limits rent to some extent, but it's not my preferred price control. Giving them more money that they could use on rent might make it more clear we need to make other changes, and I can live with that.

> you've now created a preference for spending rather than saving/investing while increasing your reliance on the taxation of saving/investing.

Yes. Is that worse than the status quo? There's a lot of spending now that should be happening and is not—people literally dying from inability to afford medical treatment. You'll probably say—just as with the rent example—that people being more able to pay will cause medical costs to increase further, and I agree that should be addressed, but again I think people being flat-out unable to afford it is not the best way to control medical spending.

> [...pointless wars are a massive overall net loss...]

I think you understand this, but just to be clear in case anyone was wondering: I also hate pointless wars, just was making the point that even in the stupidest use of the tax money I can imagine there's still someone getting money to buy Apple stock, even though as a whole we're worse off.

>> Even your straw man version of this argument is pretty convincing to me...

> Wouldn't that make it not a straw man argument?

I think the "even" and "..." are doing a lot of work in my sentence. You presented a less strong version of the argument than that given by people who support it, thus it is a straw man, period.

> an assumption that voting or committee can be better at allocating resources than a free market

Would you say we had a free market in the 1970s, when the chart I linked showed the top .01% by wealth's share of taxes exceeded their share of wealth? That's essentially what I'd like to go back to, perhaps by a wealth tax. I would say we had a free market then, showing progressive taxation and free markets are absolutely compatible. This isn't Soviet-style central planning.

> Increasing inequality is bad

I'm not at all sure everyone in these discussions agrees on this point!

I agree with you not only that this is bad but also that wealth taxes are not the only way to address it. They are a way that is getting momentum right now, AFAICT more than the other things you mentioned, and we may have to choose between voting for a wealth tax (or candidates who support one) or doing nothing.

fwiw, I'm really not sure which approach(es) I'd choose if I could single-handedly decide how to reduce wealth inequality.

> The high marginal rates in the mid-20th century were fake.

I think "federal receipts as a percent of GDP" isn't the right chart to answer this question. Overall tax rate != how progressive the tax is or how high the "effective" marginal tax rate is. On https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/ the "The Top .01% Don't Pay Their Fair Share as They Hoard More Wealth" shows a clear cross-over point where before about 1980 the top .01%'s share of tax was greater than their share of wealth, and after it reversed. That's consistent with the 1981 change I mentioned.

I agree: there is no precise, objective way to compare the utility of two arbitrary wealth distributions, and redistribution does not always maximize the total well-being of society.

Yet I assert it's useful to ask if the status quo—one person has >$1T and many others don't have enough for basic needs like shelter, medicine, and food—is optimal or if it'd be better to redistribute some of this.

* We don't need the ability to quantify or rank all wealth distributions, just compare some of immediate relevance. That's much easier, in the same way that even though the halting problem is undecidable, we can prove some realistic program A will halt and some realistic program B may not.

* We don't need objectivity. Democracies decide many subjective things by majority vote (sometimes 2/3rds or whatever), directly or through representatives. I don't always agree with the outcome, but it's the system we have here in the US/California, and I assert it's better than a dictatorship or requiring 100% consensus to take any action.

> The people behind wealth taxes generally handwave explaining how their system will be better at allocating than the people who make a living of allocating wealth effectively because it is all just obvious that it doesn't need to be justified. Poor people will get more money if rich people have less, duh, QED.

Even your straw man version of this argument is pretty convincing to me alongside graphs showing the extent to which our inequality is growing. https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/ see the "The Top .01% Don't Pay Their Fair Share as They Hoard More Wealth" graph in particular.

This is more a disagreement of values than facts, I think. Some people see the richest man's net worth go from $100B to >$1T and think he deserves that for starting these companies, and taking any of it from him is class warfare. Others think that rich people's pissing contests and lifestyles would be essentially the same if their wealth capped out at say $100B instead, we're morally obligated to use that money to try to meet Americans' basic needs, and using other's taxpayer dollars to allow him to reach those heights (see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that>) is class warfare.

High marginal income taxes (it was 91% in 1963, 70% until 1981, there's your compelling case where they turned out to be right, inequality was not growing then like it is now) or a wealth tax are not the same as Soviet style socialism. They still give an incentive for entrepreneurs, innovators, and hard workers.

> The annual turnover for e.g. Apple stock is ~0.4%, so a 0.8%/year wealth tax would triple the number of sellers without adding any new buyers.

Is that assuming the tax money is going into the void? I agree it might force roughly 0.8% of shares to be sold in a given year. But as to not adding any new buyers: no one's being forced to buy stock in the same way, but shouldn't someone be getting the money and potentially using it to buy Apple stock?

Let's imagine for a second the wealth tax money is simply given to people who are below the threshold. Most of them may waste it on silly things like food and rent, but some might end up with a surplus and become investors. Same effect if say the income tax is lowered to make the wealth tax revenue-neutral. Or if say it's used to expand Medicare. It's hard to for me to imagine a way to spend taxes that doesn't help someone. Even if the money is used on war—a net destruction of value and lives—there are some people selling missiles better off a result.

Well, I qualified with "here in California", and I don't know if that's where tancop lives.

I think the current situation is not great, but I'd want to fix it by investigating why we're seemingly unable/unwilling to impose the punishment currently on the books. I think it would be plenty if we did—to me, more than six months jail time for stealing <$950 would be excessive. We could increase the fines and decrease / take away the jail option, but does it matter? It's not happening anyway.

> What do you think the chances of being caught shoplifting is? If it's less than 50-33%, then you have the same problem as the OP where it makes sense to shoplift.

Don't we already? Police and DAs at least here in California are not serious about punishing shoplifters AFAICT. I hear people say this is specifically because of the 2014 Proposition 47 (raising the threshold for felony theft from $400 to $950). Not sure that's true (misdemeanor theft can still be punished by up to six months of jail time and/or up to a $1,000 fine, and California's current thresholds are similar to other states) but there was a federal mandate to address prison overcrowding, and California chose to do that by not having as many prisoners instead of building a ton more prisons. Prop 47, and perhaps some policy changes made with far less fanfare, were intended to achieve that.

There's still more deterrent for misdemeanor shoplifting than for nationwide egg price-fixing though!

> I'd love to look into the Quick Access placement. It is supposed to appear on all spaces and sets an NSWindow property to do so. Is there anything particular that you think triggers it (multi-monitor, full screen apps, etc)?

Thanks! I haven't seen it in a while, so maybe it's been fixed by either a 1Password or macOS update or is specific to a setting I since changed. But I'll keep my eyes out for if it happens again. I do have a multi-monitor setup.

I do see right now that if I'm on a full-screen app, 1Password's quick access window doesn't show up; if I move to the next space over I see it for a moment and then it disappears. In contrast, Spotlight search will actually pop up directly over my full-screen app, though knowing Apple they could be using some private API for this behavior.

> These are tiny paper cuts that add up to pain, like the ones you mentioned that affect me/a tiny portion of the user base so they aren't worth fixing. Is the justification I'm sure that's being made.

I think it's not only that but also that making site-specific changes (as I did with a TamperMonkey script) is fragile and could get them into trouble if their changes do the wrong thing (immediately for everyone, for some users, or after some site change). Might be better from their perspective to honor the site's stated intent even if that intent is questionable. In my top example, the "password" field actually is a password if the user hasn't enabled 2FA, so the changes I made wouldn't work for 1Password to apply to everyone. They could detect the label "PIN + Token" to gate it, but what if that text changes in a redesign or is sometimes localized into another language? and so on.

In the broadest sense, I agree there are big UX problems, but how much should we expect the password manager to do unilaterally? fwiw even when a bunch of players got together to make broader changes, we ended up with passkeys, which are far from perfect in many ways. (The flows about scanning a QR code from one device to another, without necessarily even knowing which device has a working passkey for that site... the simultaneous confusing offers of different ways of signing in... try talking your vision-impaired father through that over the phone.)

> if the editor is on a different workspace on mac you have to go to the application space/desktop than three finger swipe back to the browser space/desktop and then back to the application space/desktop and then back-and-forth to fill in four different security questions.

Yeah, that sounds similar to my own complaint about quick access opening on the wrong Space, just applied to the main window instead. And of course when you have to use the security questions something else has gone really wrong, like the main password having changed on the site without having changed in your password manager.

* One way I've seen this is when people have overlapped usage in two different password managers (1Password vs either Google Passwords or Apple Passwords). They have import and export (except for passkeys), but it'd be nice if they had an incremental version to help you get out of this mess if you weren't disciplined in switching over all at once.

* Another is that when you change the site's password even while using the password manager, the actual site change and recording it in the password manager's database is hardly transactional. You can click the password manager's update pop-up even if it failed, or not notice it even if it succeeded. Again not really sure how they would address this unilaterally.

> I just hit one. Creating a new document in 1Password, the name of the document isn't preselected, so I have to hit delete to name it. Lots of little tiny shit like that.

Yeah, that's 100% on them.

Can you give me an example of a UX problem that you attribute to the password manager? That'd help me understand.

I often hit problems with 1Password's autofill on particular websites, but by and large I blame the website. Few examples:

* one website expects me to type the PIN then a Symantec VIP OTP token into a single field called "password". That's a (possibly deliberately) password manager-hostile design. I finally got annoyed with it enough to use an open source project called `python-vipaccess` to create a proper `otpauth://totp/...` URL I could add into 1Password and wrote a TamperMonkey script that added separate autofillable fields that would get concatenated automatically. Now 1Password works fine.

* frequently websites will complain about needing a valid credit card number after autofill. I have to go to the field, delete the last digit, add it back, tab away, then it works. I think they have just used the wrong event handlers and never tested it with autofill.

* they often will skip `autocomplete="new-password"` attributes, so my password manager will look for a (nonexistent) current password rather than prompting me for a new one, and/or they won't have the username and new password fields ever in the DOM at the same time so the password manager doesn't save it properly. (Even if it makes sense in terms of user-visible flow to do these in sequence, they can still leave the username in as a hidden form element for the benefit of the password manager.)

I've also hit UX problems in 1Password itself, for example the "quick access" pop-up doesn't reliably appear on the current Space in macOS. (Confusing and annoying to have to switch to another to see it.) But they seem less common.

ceejayoz> You want to let every merchant I swipe my card at know my age? To improve privacy?

Remember the site guidelines:

SG> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

The obvious solution is instead of "every transaction comes with the user's birthday", the vendor can in some way set a minimum age enum of say (13, 15, 18, 21, 25) — a handful of ages that are significant with respect to some law or regulation. Then the transaction succeeds or fails.

As I understand it, Hawaii had environmental concerns with ferries (requiring a review that was never completed), specifically whale/ship strikes and the risk of car-carrying ferries transporting invasive species between the islands. [1] I'm unsure if other islands would have similar concerns about cargo ships or not or if the environmental review would have been satisfactory if they'd just done it on time.

I'd expect ferries and/or small cargo ships to be an attractive option if allowed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Superferry

I don't think people are upvoting this for the fact at the top of "say something surprising" [1], but it indeed surprised me:

> I can write 500MB/s to a hard drive? that's so much!

Turns out a Seagate 2X18 can write at 528 MiB/s according to its spec sheet. [2] My rule of thumb was that HDDs could do like 100MB/s (aka 800 Mbps) but I guess between density improvements and this new "dual-actuator" class, it's gotten a lot faster. HDD seek time has basically been stuck for 30+ years and probably will remain so but capacity has increased a lot, and the throughput for sequential access probably should scale with capacity [edit: times rpm, thanks Retr0id]. For a while I think it wasn't increasing, but I guess they decided to fix that?

SSDs of course can do way more than 500 MB/s, and you can do better by compressing as you write (depending on your data), and you can stripe across multiple HDDs, but it turns out none of those are necessary.

[1] as I write this, the title "no feigning surprise" suggests <https://wizardzines.com/comics/no-feigning-surprise/> but the link points to "say something surprising" <https://wizardzines.com/comics/surprise/>.

[2] https://www.seagate.com/www-content/datasheets/pdfs/exos-2x1...

> Or is this a building permitting issue where for some reason the bureaucracy surrounding a permanent structure is expected to drag on for years but somehow they got the tents permitted rapidly?

Good point; some permit loophole might make sense.

It occurs to me this also could still turn out to be a giant failure: these may all still be unpowered, empty tents. They might end up taking two to three years to turn on, might never get a critical permit at all, etc. I'm vaguely recalling some story from Google's past. They had an experimental datacenter (`pq` maybe?) built out of shipping containers. There was some way they had hoped this would be cheaper that (iirc) didn't work out at all because the local fire marshal declared each shipping container to be a full structure and thus an unexpected set of regulations applied. and/or each may also have been required to have an emergency power-off button for the entire facility, which were hit by accident more than one might hope. They never built a second datacenter with that design.

Also remembering that for a long while Google's Dalles, Oregon site had building 1, building 3, and an empty concrete slab between them called building 2. I suppose Meta could have done something similar and had the slabs ready to go long ago.