tacitusarc

Even if the executives care, they are pressured by the board.

Even if the board cares, they are pressured by the investors.

Even if the investors care, they are pressured by the pension fund administrators.

Even if the pension fund administrators care, that far removed, they care about their pensioners more.

Does this result in millions of micro-businesses? All on the verge on bankruptcy, all continuously going out of business as new ones are invested in by VCs hoping to make a quick buck

Broken window is different from the mowing lawns hypothetical

Perfectly fine to disagree with someone but the personal attack is unnecessary

Posts like this remind me of a story:

A young Thomas Carlyle was attending church with his mother. Upon returning home, after a lengthy sermon by the minister, Thomas turned to his mother and exclaimed, “If I were the minister, I would simply say: good people, you know what to do, now go and do it!”

His mother replied, “Aye Thomas, but would you tell them how?”

Are there any privacy focused, non profit alternatives?

There was a noticeable degradation after the introduction of “liquid glass”. Of course I’m still on my 13 mini so I don’t think they really care about how changes impact the performance and battery life of my phone.

I feel like a picture of rolling hills with spring wheat and a blue sky wouldn’t go amiss

Do proper maintenance so they don’t have engine issues, and carry insurance to compensate passengers in case they do?

I have broadly good feelings about Cloudflare but this warrants a response.

Not affiliated with them, just thought it looks interesting. Wish more smart device companies would do this sort of thing

This is wonderful. Does it support complex types of joinery?

I think part of the issue is that they didn’t explain what is gained by adding generics on methods. You’re right that a few examples here are useful.

Without generics:

‘’’

type Stream[T any] struct{ ... }

func (s Stream[T]) MapInt(f func(T) int) Stream[int] { ... }

func (s Stream[T]) MapString(f func(T) string) Stream[string] { ... }

‘’’

Then later you need to map floats:

‘’’

func (s Stream[T]) MapFloat64(f func(T) float64) Stream[float64] { ... }

‘’’

Then later someone outside the package wants to map a custom type. Too bad! They’ll need to make some custom wrapper that doesn’t follow the pattern.

With the genetics approach the semantics are defined once and usable in all scenarios. You don’t need to keep adding methods; instead the caller can provide the mapping function. Common mapping functions could be pre defined for convenience.

I have written Go for the past decade and completely, fundamentally disagree with this take. Go has always had a tendency towards limited exressivity, which created a strong dependence on interface{}, type assertions, and runtime bug’s that should have been compiler errors.

When I read these grumbling takes about how Go use to be so simple etc I imagine devs who would revel in all the features they were unable to implement because it would be too difficult in the language. Or devs who love typing and re-typing the same code over and over again, littering their code with switch cases and conditional logic while passing themselves on the back for avoiding “abstraction”.

Note that MoE is a sparsification mechanism and doesn’t actually have to do with expertise or what would commonly be considered areas of expertise.

A more concrete example may be useful to explain what I’m thinking. A company has you click to agree to their TOS. They link a doc, which is of course quite long. That doc has a footnote which links to another doc. You do not read the secondary doc, and it is the contents of that doc that allows the company to sell you data/prevent you from suing them/harvest your organs/abduct your family/whatever. My point is that “I did not read the document” should be a valid defense, such that if it is not I believe the law around this is wrong.

I suppose you can claim I am wrong to believe that, but it is accurate for me to state that I _do_ believe it, which is why I didn’t list me being wrong as one of the possibilities. Practically speaking, that is the first possibility I enumerated.

I should note that in my example, imagine neither doc is any more inscrutable than all the TOS we encounter in the wild, instead it is the construction (the fact it is a footnote link) that makes it easy to miss the additional doc.

I think that means one of three things: the court system is broken, you are wrong, or I failed to be clear and you misunderstood me. So, to be clear, if a company buries or obscures terms while making it seem like they have presented them, so you agree without reading the actual terms, you cannot defend yourself by explaining that situation?

But it is complicated, no? Even if you click you agree, if the you thought you were agreeing to one thing but actually agreed to another because they buried the lede, “I didn’t read it” is a reasonable defense.

But attention/KV cache is the heavy bit in long context lengths which is what everyone needs…

This is the “eating yogurt with a hammer” argument. Yes, of course you can do that. Yes, the yogurt gets eaten. It’s just… you see someone eating yogurt with a hammer and it’s hard not to wonder wtf is going on.

I thought this was lovely, and was surprised by the date: https://www.artic.edu/artworks/196937/summer-moon-at-miyajim...

I like this construction, but I don’t think you take it far enough.

If you have a multi dimensional space, and you are trying to compute which points lie “inside” some boundary, there are large areas that will be bounded by some dimensions but not others. This is interesting because it means if you have a section bounded by dimensions A, B, and C but not D, you could still place a point in D, and doing so then changes your overall bounds.

I think this is how much of human knowledge has progressed (maybe all non-observational knowledge). We make observations that create points, and then we derive points within the created space, and that changes the derivable space, and we derive more points.

I don’t see why AI could do the same (other than technical limitations related to learning and memory).

This too is not spec compliant. 204 means the request was successful but no body is being returned in the response.

Of course it is technically possible, but doing so would violate the spec.

> The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists.

In the above case, the server _is_ returning a representation.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110#name-404-not-f...

I wonder if a successful, albeit slower, approach would be to walk the git commit history in lockstep, applying the behavioral intent behind each commit. If they did this, I would be interested in knowing if they were able to skip certain bug fix commits because the Rust implementation sidestepped the problem.

These are also two of my primary gripes.

There has been substantial improvement, but the search and symbol follow UX is really bad. Hoping the fix that.

For a relatively small set of dimensions this is true. But the more abstractions the code needs to accommodate, the trickier and more prone to leaky abstractions it becomes. Removing one axis of complexity can be incredibly helpful.

I don’t believe Hacker News is social media, it’s news aggregator/message board.

Social media requires social network effects, where a large part of the draw is the network effect, and that just isn’t a part of HN.

The Snopes article is useful. For those who don’t want to read it, here is what Grossman says about that quotation:

> That clip took my entire, full day presentation, and took it completely out of context.

-They left out the part where I say that this is a normal biological, hormonal backlash from fight-or-flight (sympathetic nervous system arousal) to feed-and-breed (parasympathetic nervous system arousal) that can happen to anyone in a traumatic event.

-They left out the part where I say that there is nothing wrong if it doesn’t happen, and absolutely nothing wrong if it does happen.

-They left out the part where I say it happens to fire, EMS and even victims of violent crime.

-They left out where I say that it scares the hell out of people.

-They left out where I talk about it (and remember it is common in survivors of violent crime), as kind of a beautiful affirmation of life in the face of death; a grasping for closeness and intimate reassurance in the face of tragedy.

This is absolutely true for many topics. There is a threshold of expertise where opinion that does not meet that threshold has no value. There is also a large gray area where there is sufficient expertise such that the opinion might have value. And then there is some point quite bit after that where someone has sufficient expertise such that it is very important to take what they say on the subject seriously. I occupy the first two regions in almost all areas, possibly all. High school students occupy the first area almost exclusively.