throwaway7783

That's democracy and not communism?

Java now has FFM, that is far better and simpler than JNI, FWIW. and chatgpt says

Language/API | Call Overhead (no-op C) | Notes

Go (cgo) | ~40–60 ns | Stack switch + thread pinning

Java FFM | ~50 ns (downcall) | Similar to JNI, can be ~30 ns with isTrivial()

Java FFM (leaf) | ~30–40 ns | Optimized (isTrivial=true)

JNI | ~50–60 ns | Slightly slower than FFM

Rust (unsafe) | ~5–20 ns | Near-zero overhead

C# (P/Invoke) | ~20–50 ns | Depends on marshaling

Python (cffi) | 1000–10000 ns | Orders of magnitude slower |

Yeah. Warring people always say that if their side wins the outcome will be better, of course. Look at Israle/Hamas

I was responding to gp, maybe wrong part of the thread. << "Colonialism was great. It literally took continents out of pre history and brought them to the civilized world". If this is not justification for war, I don't know what is.

And how do they know in the absence of colonialism, but just trade, these countries couldn't/wouldn't become advanced? I can equally say colonialism is what has left many of these countries in poverty and border disputes.

I don't know. For me, I need

* a primary transactional DB that I can write fast, with ACID guarantees and a read-after-write guarantee, and allows failover

* one (or more) secondaries that are optimized for analytics and search. This should also tell me how caught up the system is, with the primary.

If they all can talk the same language (SQL) and can replicate from primary with no additional tools/technology (postgres replcation for example), I will take it any day.

It is about operational simplicity and not needing intimately to know multiple technologies. Granted, even if this is "just" postgresql, it really is not and all customizations will have their own tuning and whatnot, but the context is all still postgresql.

Yes, this will not magically solve the CAP theorem, but for most cases we don't need to care too much

I think I will respectfully disagree and stop at that. There are a lot of assumptions and statements mentioned as absolute truths in your response.

Children are celebrated. Rape is abhorred. I have no idea what you mean by IVF is rented wombs and profited by men. Are you confusing IVF to surrogacy?

It is going to be very hard to define what is objective truth and what is not. is "people deserve to have kids" objective truth or "the inversion - kids deserve parents" the objective truth? Everything is driven by or influenced by social norms, right or wrong. I was just listing a few reason - perhaps in this case religion?

Social norms are made when most people are okay with something.

It's got nothing to do with right or wrong.

Not agreeing with something maybe because of courage, cowardice, nonchalance or anything else.

By this logic all wars are justifiable. What a take!

Yeah, this is throwing the baby with the bathwater. I am with you, if you are talking about "designer babies" etc. A basic Google search will tell us about studies where vast majority of Americans are okay with even gene editing, to prevent diseases, but not for performance enhancements.

It is a tool, like guns, bombs and medicine.

If you are equating conceiving children with IVF to goods to be bought off the shelf, there is really nothing to talk about.

Having biological kids is a hard-wired instinct, and one of the very basic survival-of-the-genes things. I have no idea what you mean by kids deserving parents. There are no kids without parents to begin with.

That is the theory, but unlike taxes there is neither an obligation to spend nor a required threshold to spend.

So basically just hoping that billionaires spend and trickle down.

Oh, play. Yes, of course.

For production use, it will cost money one way or another.

Like what and like who? You don't think people who cannot naturally conceive deserve to have kids? Or something else?

For some reason this thread reminded me of the movie "The Perfume: story of a murderer"

Doesn't cost a dime to host n8n? Or is this only for personal use?

The definition of an agent is so vague now. What is the agentic promise and why wouldn't a workflow tool with LLM steps cannot deliver on this promise? Also what vulnerability are you referring to? I have no stakes in n8n or node red, but being able to embed LLMs in a workflow and conversing with a "workflow" seems to solve a lot of agentic/assistance problems (Make a report of revenue, and send an email report to these people,for example)

What is the completely different approach you are suggesting?

Out of curiosity, what is non-trivial in this context?

Sure, but that is broader than product analytics and applies to all data collection. The word I should have used is "pseudonymize". The goal for capturing product analytics is not to deanonimize but understand usage trends/bottlenecks.

Why?

Springboot is pretty good, if java/kotlin are your lang of preference.

Still not the same bells and whistles as Django, but really good otherwise. The database interactions are pretty good.

It is not an either or. Surveys are almost always ignored. Micro improvements cannot be done with just surveys and asking users. Often users do not know how to describe a problem. Product analytics, if anonymized with opt-out gives a pretty good picture of intent, especially in B2B software.

That is true.

Anonymizing data is the biggest part of such a workflow. Most prevalent use case that requires production data is for debugging. I guess there is some value in branching non-prod databases for feature development.

Most security teams do not allow prod data in non prod environments, anonymized or not l.

Aren't there data security concerns with this?

> Confusing contradictions aside...

Product is not the same as code. We code to build a product, sure, but I think the author means they are interested in designing the product to solve users problems (a.k.a UX)

I don't see anything supporting this in the text of OBBB, nor in the definition of domestic research expense (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/research_credit_basic_sec41...). Where did you see this?

Edit: Oh you mean costs in general, not in the context of section 147

Matter of time. It is trivial to overcome the current limitations.

This is the future of applications. Still not sure if model providers are the ones to do it. I think of LLM as infrastructure and I can build apps on it in a "general" way. Not the bespoke wrapper apps that are proliferating today, but LLM as a native interface to build(and use the app).

I agree. I don't know either company, schema builder is a very common feature in many data platforms. Nested or otherwise. Neither is claiming this is a big deal though.

Congratulations! Do you compete with unstructured.io? And how do you think about ever-improving models from Google etc? (The doc extract API, AWS has something as well)

I do not mean manifest physically, but manifest in our minds