tail_exchange

It depends how it's applied. I like type inference when I'm defining a variable, for example. In Go, I can just write this:

    message := "hello world"

...and the compiler knows it's a string, and I know it's a string because I can just hover it with my mouse and my IDE will tell me that. That's good enough for me.

But when we are talking about functions..:

    # some fictional function I just came up with
    def install_requirements(dependencies, opts):
        run_setup(dependencies, opts)
        return assert_requirements_installed(dependencies)

Now I'm confused. What is the data type of "dependencies" and "opts"? Is the IDE smart enough to tell me that? What if I'm building a function that assumes "dependencies" to be of type A, but the compiler thinks it can also be type "B"?

I don't know enough about compilers and type inference to know whether this is actually a problem in Acton or not. I wish they explained more. My gripe against this kind of inference is that it's impossible for my IDE to tell me what is being passed around. In Java, for example, I can CTRL+Click on a data type and the IDE will show me the definition; can Acton do the same?

Trust.

Some people think that trust just means a someone blindly trusting another, but of course that's not how it works. People will be trusted to an extent that they can be trusted, and this goes for company-employee relations too. If people prove they cannot be trusted with remote interviews, companies will take remote interviews away. This was a luxury given to us during the pandemic, and it's now being rolled back because of tools like these.

I remember people here on HN complaining about CEOs mandating RTO without data to support it. Well, this certainly doesn't help.

This kind of tool is why companies will push back towards on-site interviews, and consequently RTO, given that the people who interviewed are the ones who could easily go to the office to be interviewed.

Honestly, it's hard to blame the company. If the employee is willing to lie and cheat even before they were hired, it's expected that companies will take away their tool to do it: remote calls and WFH. As always, the honest worker gets shafted.

They seemed to mind a lot by never shutting up about Biden's handling of inflation, which tariffs contributed to.

I think the word I'm looking for is explicit. It's not required to have explicit types in the functions, which I find disappointing.

I'm a bit confused. The documentation says it is static and strongly typed, but the example for functions is:

    def multiply(a, b):
        print("Multiplying", a, "with", b)
        return a*b

How is this strong and static? If I don't need to specify what my function takes, isn't that duck typing? Maybe I'm missing something?

It would be really nice to have strong, static types. It's the only thing keeping me from learning Elixir, so this could be a nice alternative.

The title is misleading. It implies that Telegram was not moderating content at all, but from the article:

> Telegram says that before becoming a member of IWF it removed hundreds of thousands of pieces of abuse material each month using its own systems. The IWF membership will strengthen its mechanisms, the company said.

They were already removing this kind of content. The decision was to partner with IWF.

It's kind of ironic the concept of a whole generation considering success as being part of the 1% and still being optimistic about it. By definition, the vast majority won't be successful.

I love Go, but they are not really interchangeable. If you do systems programming and you need a very low-level language, Go is not a good alternative. Though if we are talking about more high-level applications like web servers, then I totally agree.

It ruined pretty much all butterfly drawings for me. It's the kind of thing that is better not knowing lol

> 2000 products sounds like you made 2000 engineers learn kubernetes (a week, optimistically, 2000/52 = 38 engineer years, or roughly one wasted career).

Not really, they only had to use the tool to run the migration and then validate that it worked properly. As the other commenter said, a very basic setup for kubernetes is not that hard; the difficult set up is left to the devops team, while the service owners just need to see the basics.

But sure, we can estimate it at 38 engineering years. That's still 38 years for 2,000 microservices; it's way better than 1 year for 12 microservices like in OP's case. Savings that we got was enough to offset these 38 years of work, so this project is now paying dividends.

It largely depends how customized each microservice is, and how many people are working on this project.

I've seen migrations of thousands of microservices happening with the span of two years. Longer timeline, yes, but the number of microservices is orders of magnitude larger.

Though I suppose the organization works differently at this level. The Kubernetes team build a tool to migrate the microservices, and each owner was asked to perform the migration themselves. Small microservices could be migrated in less than three days, while the large and risk-critical ones took a couple weeks. This all happened in less than two years, but it took more than that in terms of engineer/weeks.

The project was very successful though. The company spends way less money now because of the autoscaling features, and the ability to run multiple microservices in the same node.

Regardless, if the company is running 12 microservices and this number is expected to grow, this is probably a good time to migrate. How did they account for the different shape of services (stateful, stateless, leader elected, cron, etc), networking settings, styles of deployment (blue-green, rolling updates, etc), secret management, load testing, bug bashing, gradual rollouts, dockerizing the containers, etc? If it's taking 4x longer than originally anticipated, it seems like there was a massive failure in project design.

My team has a meeting to hand off the on-call to the next person, and we discuss all pages we got during the week. Primarily two things: whether the page was for a good reason or not (good: our on-call person had an something actionable to fix. bad: non-actionable pages, pages because someone else's system was broken, false alarms, etc), and also whether there is something we can do so we never get paged for this again. I find it very effective at reducing pages.

I'm also not a php developer, but I agree. This seems like a huge footgun.

I've never been a fan of this kind of magic, and I wonder how other languages deal with this case.

For anyone interested, just search for "garden island james rose" on YouTube. The videos have a green title screen.

It's interesting to see how they improved over time. In the first videos, the man had some really bizarre hand gestures, and the woman's voice didn't fit her. They improved this later, and the latest versions didn't look bad, and maybe they would be able to fool me if I weren't paying attention.

The biggest problem was how unbelievably boring the reports were. AI content is completely devoid of emotion, and feels, for the lack of a better word, robotic. I loved how on episode 3, James describes how people in a church have been serving the community for 43 years with "that's fascinating", in a very monotonous voice. Not to mention the lack of gestures, with the AI almost frozen in place.

The more scary part is that, these flaws are much likely fixable. Maybe James and Rose didn't work out, but I don't think they will be the last ones.

We have very different experiences then. I used to open Twitter very once in a while, but a few months ago I completely stopped using it. It became a non-stop firehose of right-wing propaganda, ragebait, Trump, and bot spam. It's completely unusable.

You're right. It makes way more sense when you compare it to Numpy.

    # Does weird things with nested lists too
    > [1, [2, 3], 4, 5] <<+>> [10, 20]
    [11 [22 23] 14 25]

This article makes me feel like I'm watching a Nao Geo/Animal Planet documentary. Beautiful and interesting to see these creatures in the wild? Absolutely. Do I want to keep my distance? As far away as possible.

Going from Python to Go was very easy for me, and I do feel much more productive. I don't want to work with Python ever again.

Rust is a beast though, I tried picking it up several times, but lose interest quickly. The language is interesting, but the learning curve is a problem.

No, only if they tried a coup, filled his cabinet with yes-men, and have a following full of neo-nazis. Then you should be concerned.

Because no dictators are voted into power? Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Chavez...

Organic rice still has arsenic. The arsenic is not coming from pesticides, but from the soil and water, which naturally carry some arsenic.

No, because I'm not the only person writing code. If someone else chooses to use this feature, I will eventually have to interact with it and/or maintain it.

Platform engineering. Think toolchains, devops, cloud, infrastructure...

Minimalism is the biggest selling point, if you are comparing it to C#.

If you don't see a lot of people using it, maybe you're looking in the wrong place? I work with platforms, and Go is everywhere.

Telegram group chats and calls, mostly. I don't use any other social media app, except WhatsApp when they don't have Telegram.

It would be great to have a way to accurately identify AI-generated images, but is this even possible? It seems like a requirement like this would essentially outlaw the industry.

I think these can both be true. If AI makes people be 3% more productive overall, cumulatively that's a huge improvement, but on an individual level it may feel undeserving of hype.

Probably because not everybody is feeing this productivity boost. AI made me a bit more productive, yes, but not by that much. Seeing you call it a "new power" is not relatable, so it may reinforce ideas that it is a bubble.

I doubt it. They can try banning Telegram just like Russia did, but it clearly didn't work for the latter.