stusmall

I know it isn't the point you are trying to make, but I can't think of a better way to re-enforce OP's point of "mediocrity will be even more available" than a mid-00s style, pop country song about eating hamburgers. "Toby Keith but with less to say" might be the gold standard of mediocrity.

Nix might even make it worse. xz made it into unstable and it is part of stdenv. This means almost every package needs to be rebuilt which takes forever and limits the speed in which it can be reverted. They still have 5.6.1 in unstable and, to be honest, I'm not sure why. I don't know if they are still waiting for CI to chew through the tens of thousands package rebuild or there is something else.

As I understand it warrant canaries are controversial in the legal community or at least were last I looked. Some of the questions you are exactly what they've asked. I don't know if any of the theories have been properly tested in courts yet.

I'd be extremely skeptical of anything you read in this thread about contentious signing, dates or whateever. There are a lot of amateur lawyers with amateur opinions in here. If you are interested in ever using one, find a lawyer and check with them first.

But whatever the legal consensus is, I doubt a git commit that says "NSA wuz here" fits in with it.

I was really surprised to see that commit message. I wonder if they had that cleared? I'm guessing the committer didn't fully understand the concept.

The idea behind a canary is while they can tell you to keep it confidential, they can't compel your speech to lie and say you've never cooperated. Adding a wink wink nod nod code word defeats the idea.

In some use cases the company is paying for the encoding, but the client is doing the decoding. As long as the client can decode the handful of images on the page fast enough for the human to not notice, its fine. Meanwhile any percentage improvement for encoding can save real money.

This isn't one though. I think the issue he is talking about is around the CVEs that came out with the HTTP3 implementation. This is an area of very active and complex development.

Cargo run just builds and runs the produced binary. It doesn't even install it

Thank you for the source.

> There's still Garmin... but honestly, I don't understand why people insist on paying hundreds of dollars for a "name",

Another way of saying "paying for a name" is "paying for trust". When you run notifications through a smart watch you give it a lot of sensitive information. For example the contents of texts you receive. Depending on the device/implementation it can be a lot more. If it manages this data via a companion app then it's pretty easy for it to phone home too.

I don't turn notifications on my watch, I'm distracted enough as is, but if I did I'd be careful about the device I use. I suspect some of those bottom of the barrel devices aren't treating this sensitive level of access with the upmost care.

Have you looked at OpenCost? It's more k8s focused but of a similar idea

Check the end of the article for frame rates for different titles.

Seriously. Even worse there are things I want, I know the name and the brand but I can't order from Amazon because of the high risk of counterfeits. I hope they either get their house in order or someone eats their lunch.

The idea that reintroducing an animal is telling someone "how to live" is wild. They existed there long before us, raising livestock can still happen with them there, and ranching existed in Colorado along side wolves long before this discussion.

I live in rural Colorado and raise a small hobby amount of animals (currently a bit over 40 chickens, turkeys, and ducks but the number varies through the year). I've lost plenty of animals to predators. I've had neighbors call me out to their land to shoot others. This is part of rural life with a healthy and functioning ecosystem. Predators exist.

I personally abstained from the vote; I felt like this is something better handled by career biologists and not the uninformed public. But the idea that is this "America's 87% telling the 13% how they should live" its trying really hard to jam this into existing framing of how we view American culture war issues. It'll do us some good to calm down, take a breath and put the topic in proper context. Rural residents and ranchers can still maintain their lifestyle.

I think it is intuitive once you spend the time to read the docs. I think folks expect they can pick it up and hack at it like many other languages. It's one that is worth spending the time to work through the pills, understand what it is doing, why and how. A lot of the confusion and frustration I've seen people have with nix the language could have been avoided if they spent a little time to pick up at least the fundamentals.

> Not only that, they are impacting the actual languages people use. Why use some new / esoteric language that an LLM doesn't know much about, when you can get the same job done much faster using a language that the LLM knows well and can debug?

I don't see how this is anything new. Similar tension has always existed slowing adoption of new technology. I've resisted picking up new languages because I could implement something faster/better in languages I already know. I've been skeptical about some because the ecosystem just isn't there yet. You said "a language that the LLM knows well and can debug" when sometimes the resistance is that the new language does have as good of tooling/debugging support.

There is nothing new here and if anything LLMs could help. I've noticed the community seems pretty understanding/accepting of low quality outputs of some of these LLMs. The small corpus of a new/esoteric would mean even lower quality, but I don't think that'd be a deal breaker for some folks.

One possible explanation for this can be a mistake in caching. While it is tempting to log in and see if you can see other people's consoles... that just might put you in the cache for someone else to see.

There is no way for us to know what is causing the bug and what will help without official word for Ubiquiti but logging in can only possibly hurt and won't help.

Huh. It's really nice to see actual metrics. I live in a rural area and get my internet through a fixed wireless provider. For a while I'd been wondering if it was worth giving Starlink a try

While this is usually a bit more bandwidth than I get, that isn't consistent and the ping is much worse. I pretty consistently get 50/15 with 15ms ping at about $90/mo after tax+fees. Based on some of the hype and press Starlink gets I assumed it would have had much better bandwidth, even if the latency is about inline with my expectations. Thanks for gathering and sharing this.

>The way I see it, Rust is still fundamentally designed to work at a higher level of abstraction than C, and is still mostly dependent on C (even C++ really, due to LLVM/Clang).

I think this might touch on part of the problem. Rust can work on higher abstractions but rust doesn't have to. It is a matter of the code base. I've worked on some that felt very similar in abstraction to C code bases. One in particular was a high performance nginx module. Most of the rust code interfaced with nginx directly through zero cost FFI interfaces to the nginx structs.

I've also worked on extremely meta, high level code that was written by a former Haskell dev.

Like many languages that can serve dual roles, the styles tend to adapt to it. You see very different styles of Java when looking at spring web apps or embedded android systems. Every language you have to pick and chose parts of it that, build a coding standard and need to enforce it. C is exactly the same and also has several roles people pick it for. The style of code of embedded systems, high performance networking systems and codebases that prioritize highly portability tend to be different and use different idioms. I think any of of us who have worked in a C code base that falls in one of those camps can name banned idioms that are normal in the others.

>> It seems to me that Rust isn't even really intended to compete with C for the use cases in which C is dominant in 2023. Every indication is that for "serious Rust in production programming" it's mostly a C++ crowd.

My career before Rust was very C heavy. I've work from OS-less embedded systems, to device drivers, to Android porting. I've been doing Rust professionally since 2016. This just isn't my impression. A lot of folks I've known from college and internships who's careers went a similar direction ended up in rust independently. There is value in having a language that let's us get the job done that we used to do with C but with more high quality static code analysis. The business case and use case is very clear.

While I haven't done any bare metal development in Rust, in the areas I have worked I've found compiler, community and crate support to be great. I don't know where you are getting this impression. I think if I only read hackernews articles about Rust I would get the impressions that is Haskell that can work on bare metal. I've noticed articles that tend to get upvoted here tend to be either about 1) how quick adoption is 2) higher levels of abstraction like HKT or GATs 3) WASM 4) writing web services. This article is a great example of 1. 2 is catnip for this crowd. The majority of rust devs never need to know what a GAT is but if you used HN as a metric you'd think it was a daily problem. 4 is something that is easy to write, makes good content, approachable but isn't necessarily Rust's best use case. I'm not saying you've only been reading this site about Rust, just saying that it is easy to get a skewed impression of the language unless you really dive in.

I've introduced mypy to a project in the past. It was part of taking an older, low quality code base and stabilizing it into something useful. Sometimes you can't just throw it all away and start over and need a gradual approach that will start paying some dividends immediately. mypy fits that bill.

If they wanted to add a backdoor for feds there are better ways to do it. This is just stupid, lazy engineering. Not everything has to be some grand conspiracy.

A lot gets made of the inflation of CVSS scores but this is an interesting low ball of a score. It's a bit of a bold move to mark this one as a 9.8. If root access available to remote, unauthenticated users via the simplest means possible, unrevokable creds, isn't a perfect 10 then I don't know what is. I tried to find the mitigating factor that pushes it down that 0.2 but couldn't.

I feel that. I've worked in those environments. A previous job we had a C89 code base that very deliberately could only build with certain older compilers. It was made to be able to target ~20 year old OSes and embedded environments. We had to be extremely careful about new features used, and if we tried to update the tool chain.

> Telling all your users "just get the newer compiler" is rude.

With Rust you don't have the same things holding you back. Features and targets are extremely well supported and for a long time. This compatibility is a die hard sacred tenant. This a good thing! It should be celebrated and shouted from every roof top! It isn't rude that the level of engineering allows this to be a low drama affair. Without the use of RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP it is very rare to have something holding you back on an older, stable compiler. I can think of one major bump of supported OSes a while back and that's it.

You can stay on older versions of the compiler if you really want to, but don't expect to be able to build new code that uses new features.

That is the opposite problem from what the person mentioned, and not a real problem. Rust is extremely good about backwards compatibility. With only a few very extreme exceptions you can take anything written from 1.0 on and build it with a new compiler.

What the comment said was:

> can't compile something written by a rust dev today with a rustc compiler from 3 months ago

This is taking new code and using it with an old compiler. Because of how deadly seriously rust takes backward compatibility, it tends to not be an issue. Just get the newer compiler to build the newer code.

This also isn't a unique problem to rust. You can't use features in any language with compilers from before they were introduced. Funny enough, even with rust's rapid growth, I actually have less issues with it in rust because of the ease of upgrading.

Same. I used to really enjoy going to them. A few of my favorite local ones tried to become a global online only thing which just kills the point for me. I spent enough time on calls during the day, I don't want to do it for fun too.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that jump out to them. I don't think I've ever had any OS specific functionality with a keyboard. Looking at the USB HID scan code list I can't even think what I'd want out of a keyboard that isn't already covered.

I think they are referring to regular, scheduled, private standing meetings between a manager and their subordinate. They are often called "1 on 1s". Of course he talks to folks in private when needed.

I think the big improvement would be consistency. Either all servers would be correct or all servers would be incorrect. The step where "Since they were unable to determine what was causing the erroneous orders they reacted by uninstalling the new code from the servers it was deployed to correctly" wouldn't have had a negative impact. They could have even instantly rolled back. Also if they were using the same automated deployment processes for their test environment they might have even caught this in QA.

> That costs money? They're literally the revenue service, I'm sure we can find some money for them.

I completely agree but I think its worth pointing out the recent controversy over better funding the IRS. Better funding the system to catch tax cheats makes it more fair, helps the middle/lower classes and is revenue positive and somehow that caused outrage. Some folks just don't have any interest in a functional system. It's always been the case but sadly these days they seem to have moved from the fringe to the mainstream.

No offense, I appreciate the idea, but I'm not looking for suggestions. I only posted this here as an example of how the system is failing even for people with high quality insurance.