_flux

I thought though the idea is that you cannot learn anything from the ciphertext, how it is processed, or what the final result is?

Unless you are a participant of the computation and you have the key, that is.

I can see that it would be difficult to make changes to db schema types, if there are multiple separate applications with their own release schedule. But this affects schema structure as well, not just its types. I can't even describe how difficult it would be to write apps that work in that scenario—and test it against data that could be written into the db by any previous version of the app. If you truly have this kind of situation at hand, perhaps a document database would be a better fit.

Additionally, how often are there multiple apps with different release schedules written using Sqlite? I would expect overwhelmingly large number of its use cases would be a single application working on it.

The conversions seem to use (sometimes?) unsafe blocks.

Definitely mypy keeps my sanity in a relatively large Python project I'm working on :). But I don't believe Python actually assigns any meaning to them, and at times mypy and e.g. pyright may disagree on what the types actually are.

There's a school of thought that consider the term "types" reflect to the properties that exist in programs even before they are run, as in they are a property of the programs themselves, not their state at runtime. This thinking—which is also what type theory talks about—does consider Python untyped: reading a Python program along with its specification, you are not able to assign types to each expression.

But what Python does have is tagging: when you create an object you tag it, and then whenever you operate on those values, you check the tag and maybe raise an exception or not. This is happening at runtime.

Strongly typed and weakly typed do not seem to have good definitions. A good one I've read is that "strong typing describes the typing you like".

It is great though if people go to the same extent as you to define what they are talking about, as this reduces the chances of misunderstandings. But it should not be taken as fact that the definitions you have chosen are the universally accepted ones.

Could have used bigger font.

You might not be able to express the ownership in the way that can be checked statically, so quite possibly this would then be downgraded to a runtime error (that could be handled with a panic)—but not undefined behavior.

I wonder how many of the Linux the LPEs are related to drivers, which I understand there are more of..

On one hand it's nice how it's clean and commented, but on the other hand some golfing could have made the encoded block a lot more reasonable to actually manually enter.

It could use array microphone to detect that the sound originates from the driver's seat (in addition to using it for filtering out not-from-driver's-seat sounds).

Paraphrasing: if I don't write the codebase [but someone else does], I don't write the tests, and other team members are modifying it, what even is considered a messy codebase?

I actually don't see a connection between the mechanism used to create the code and the code messiness. Things like code repetition, incorrect level of abstractions, tests testing only tests themselves, using too smart optimizations for things that don't matter, .. These all can happen in both person- and machine -authored code.

I would be surprised if a professional software developer has never seen at least some aspects of messy codebase in most any large project. The difference can be whether this messiness ever managed, or just piled on.

Does Alibaba only have developers in the China?

Wouldn't it then be reasonable to focus on those many features, instead of storage? I would enjoy using with S3, as expanding S3 storage is easier than expanding the storage of a virtual machine: usually it happens automatically.

Of course this topic has been discussed: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/1683

You can't assign the copyright to Emacs either, yet it can be used to produce software.

Works for me (TM). Maybe you lost CDN-lottery?

Yes, but one only needs to write it once, and then everyone could use it. It could probably even be packaged as an official Debian package.

Hmm, I perhaps didn't quite catch this. I thought having a generator would let you be less committed to it, as you wouldn't need to manually write all the init scripts you need.. ?

My /usr/lib/systemd takes 6.4 megabytes, so I think I could live with that overhead. Or I suppose just delete them manually.

What would actually be useful would be a generic OpenRC wrapper that would ingest those service files and provide traditional start/stop interface for them.

Devuan us a separate Debian with its own repositories (and presumably many packages patched to improve systemd-less life), while this is just replacing Systemd with OpenRC on a Debian system, while keeping Debian repos etc.

So I let ChatGPT do the legwork for me, but it does seem the price difference between inference for GPT-5.5 and open-weight frontier models like DeepSeek V4 Pro and Kimi K2.6, which both are smaller models and thus cheaper to run inference on, is only 8x or so.

Sources https://openai.com/business/pricing/#api says for GPT-5.5:

  Input:$5.00 / 1M tokens Cached input:$0.50 / 1M tokens Output:$30.00 / 1M tokens

  Input: $1.74 / 1M tokens Cached input: $0.145 / 1M tokens Output: $3.48 / 

So as these numbers seem reasonably comparable to SOTA, and the SOTA vendors have additional overhead, then I think it is fair to deem that the alternative explanation offered here is not the explanation:

Why do you think that subscriptions are subsidized and not that enterprise tokens are sold at 3000% margin?

As it does seem like the GPT-5.5 API tokens do not have significant margin based on the overhead-free companies selling inference for smaller models at prices of the same scale, I think we can believe that the subscriptions must be heavily subsidized.

It should be noted though that DeepSeek itself sells this even cheaper, but they may also be in it for the getting market share.

So they do not train models, and in addition their models are expected to be smaller than SOTA models, although we cannot know for sure by how much.

So what's the price difference, 3000x?

I think this comes from the idea that serving these tokens without paying for training is already expensive, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46613887 self-hosted solution might give you only 10-100x more affordable solution at cost.

So, given the SOTA providers with even larger models also need to continously be using considerable resources for training their next models, to fund future data centers, and make profit, the token costs are more likely reflecting the real costs, rather than the subscription costs.

You too could have it easily accessible on your keyboard by using EurKEY: https://eurkey.steffen.bruentjen.eu/

Surely the most likely explanation is familiary from C?

But e.g. ml-family languages (like OCaml, F#, Haskell) and Rust just have the *if* expression that has a non-void value. If your language accepts expressions as statements (most do?), then I think that should just be compatible out of the box.

There is the Accept-Query header https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc10008/#appendix-A.3 that tells you can use QUERY. That's a bit different.

I believe that's exactly what the Steam Machine reservation does: limits to one per household, so I take that to mean the address without the name.

Although I think the language in the response dialog will be nicer than accusing of fraud.

I've also used 3d printer to straight up print on top of a greeting card (the print was 1 layer).

The print might not fare that well though the post system, though, so maybe it wouldn't be suitable for postcards. But it can be a nice touch.

Perhaps you would enjoy the rest of the tooling, that may be useful in scientific contexts or in books discussing programming languages. Or perhaps you would also want to publish in PDF, like for an actual print book.

What kind of issues did you expect to encounter in translating Typst documents to other languages?

Typst html support is already available as an experimental feature, so e.g. EPUB probably isn't too much work in addition to that (as I understand it, it's basically zipped HTML with some metadata). It's also in the roadmap: https://typst.app/docs/roadmap/#:~:text=EPUB%20export .

If the translator has access to a service like typst.app, then I don't see too many obstacles for translating. But I don't have any experience on doing translations.

I was under the impression MV3 is stricly less capable in terms of blocking ability than MV2?