_vufv

The "this wasted my time" comments are missing the point...

In addition to his great sense of humor, Steve is usually ahead of the curve in terms of trends. There's a lesson in this. LLMs have become incredible constraint solvers ("SAT-solvers for code"). Well-thought-out tests, types, specs, and docs are all incredibly valuable constraints. This has big implications - for example what happens to licenses when you can cheaply rewrite the codebase and therefore unencumber it.

You can add this as a bookmark in your browser, and just click it to toggle between x.com and xcancel.com

javascript:(function(){const p=['https://x.com','https://xcancel.com'],u=location.href,i=p.findIndex(x=>u.startsWith(x));if(i!==-1)location.href=p[(i+1)%p.length]+u.slice(p[i].length)})();

We're building a similar product at https://gitlip.com

We would love to speak to any Glitch users about their particular use case. Please reach out to natalie [at] gitlip.com

Name suggestion for the wall: "Hydrobit generator"

The cat runs, eats and has fur. The cat is a dog.

Other methods use heuristics to guess many filetypes and in the benchmark they show worse performance (in terms of precision). Assuming benchmarks are not biased, the fact that this approach uses AI heuristics instead of hard-coded heuristics shouldn't make it strictly worse.

In our previous startup, a data scientist accidentally destroyed a month’s work of his team by using the wrong Git command.

I'd like to hear about how this happened. No one in the team heard of reflog?

This one is funny: https://github.com/bagder/emails/blob/main/2016/2016-01-19.m...

... I came across this information using my Spotify which has also been hacked into and would love your help hacking out of Spotify. Also, I have yet to figure out how to unhack the hackers from my Instagram ...

Here are some benchmarks: https://bellard.org/quickjs/bench.html

I have the exactly opposite experience of yours. Cloudflare DX is by far the best among the cloud providers I've tried. Today, it's not that complicated to setup wrangler with credentials to your Cloudflare account in any mayor CI. If you have multiple services in your repo you can have multiple directories with each containing its own wrangler.toml. You can even connect these services with service bindings (beta feature still).

In my mind Cloudflare gets the big picture of DX exactly right. When deploying your service the deployment itself is not stateful, there's only one step to it: 'wrangler deploy'. Compare that to AWS Lambda: 1. build you code, 2. pack into a zip file, 3. make sure the S3 bucket exists, 4. upload the zip to the bucket, 5. deploy lambda, 6. update API gateway... And don't even get me started on Cloudfront - every change takes like 5min to apply.

Every so often I do encounter some rough edges, like service bindings binding to deployed services or workerd binary dynamically linking to some shared libraries so wrangler installed through npm doesn't work on Nixos etc. That said I respect the approach Cloudflare team is taking by focusing on the really important stuff first.

...

OP, you have garnered a lot of sympathy by the HN community which I believe in part contributed to your problem being resolved. I think it would be fair to provide more info about what the issue was in the end. It's not OK to be like "HN I had a bad experience with Company X" and then be like "k, thx @jgrahamc, bye" when your complaint gets resolved due to the attention it received.

There are so many questions this leaves unanswered:

- Was this a one-off error in Cloudflare's processes? (These things happen on a big enough scale.)

- Were you violating a specific clause of Cloudflare's T&C? How clear was the clause? What did you do to fix this?

- Was the issue that Cloudflare estimated that you're not paying enough given the bandwidth you're consuming? Did you end up signing up for the Enterprise plan?

Transparency would benefit both Cloudflare (in not making people unnecessarily apprehensive about becoming/remaining a customer) and you (in demonstrating that you're handling this issue in a professional and responsible manner).

Domain squatting should not be a thing. Domain name prices should be such that squatting is unprofitable.

Also, idempotency of a tool is a desired property that tool devs often invest a lot of effort in maintaining. Initializing default config on the first run is a trivial way to break it.

It's much better to just have a sane implicit default value for each setting when config is not present. Then you can list the default config in your docs or offer a CLI flag --print-default-config or --copy-default-config.

Don't be shocked. There are plenty of short domains left for grab, they're just expensivish for most people (usually $100 - $1000 but could be more). Glad that's the case, otherwise squatters would've "invested" into them already.

Since when are political comments like this one welcome on HN. I tend to share some of your views, but that's unimportant. HN can't be allowed to become a cesspool that the rest of the Web is.

Sure. If you need your software to be a process I think you should build it to be both: a library first and a process second. Libraries are so much easier to use, test and reason about.

I absolutely love this. I think so called n-tier architecture as a pattern should be aggressively battled in the attempt to reduce the n. Software is so much more reliable when the communication between different computational modules of the system are function calls as opposed to IPC calls. Why does everything that computes something or provides some data need to be a process? It doesn't.

Postgresql and every other server/process should have first class support for a single CLI command that: spins up the DB that slurps up the config and the data storage, takes the SQL command provided through the CLI arguments, runs it, returns results and terminates. Effectively, every server/process software should be a library first, since it's easy to make a server out of a library and the reverse is anything but.

After WW2 Europe learned its lesson...

From what I gather, there were no lessons learned in Europe. Huge majority of current European leaders seem to be itching to enhance the current conflict even with nuclear weapons being a thing.

We didn't evolve since WW2. I have no doubts that we're still as partisan, as greedy, as vengeful, as self-righteous as our predecessors of the 20th century.

Nuclear weapons likely prevented >100M deaths in the last 50 years. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only reason we didn't have another hot world war since 1945.

If there were no nuclear weapons now, you'd have a full scale NATO/Russia war today and a US/China war in a few months.

Very ironically, Mahnattan Project heads should receive a few Nobel Peace prizes posthoumously.

How arogant do you have to be to consider yourself to be the arbiter of Truth?

Do you really think that western media are propaganda free?

Do you think that the western propaganda is good and Russian one is bad?

If you're downranking disinformation from Russian side, shouldn't you also downrank western disinformation?

Does your assesment of truthfulness really boil-down to "in-group good / out-group bad"? If yes, why bother reading anything, you already know what your conclusion is going to be.

Excuse my presumption, but it seems that you arrive at the logical conclusion "it might be possible to simulate intelligence with a sufficiently big cheat sheet" - and then you disregard it because you're uncomfortable with it. We already know this is the case for specialized environments, so the "only" question left is how far does this generalize.

In my opinion, more ridiculous claims have already been proven by science (for example Quantum Mechanics).

Also you have to make a distinction between the optimizing process (evolution/training neural nets) and the intelligent agent itself (human/machine intelligence).

Not saying replit wasn't wrong in this (CEO apologized), but from my point of view the story is not that clear-cut.

With no disrespect to anyone, I think it'd be useful if people bashing Tailwind would briefly list what their day to day programming consists of.

My impression is that most of the negative comments are coming from people that don't code for Web often (I could be wrong). To those folks: I'm not saying you don't know your stuff or that you argue badly - since I was on that side myself a few months back.

What I am saying is that the elegance and pragmatism of Tailwind might not be easy to intuit just by reading about it. Try to implement a simple landing page using Tailwind+TailwindUI and see if any lightbulbs gets lit.

One aspect that I strongly dislike about "web3" is that it poisons the discourse with its incentives.

I don't believe that every person on Twitter with $BTC in their profile understands or can knowledgeably argue the benefits of Web3, but their crypto holdings make them a hard-lined crypto zealot in the hopes of multiplying few hundred dollars they've put in.

It's fairly widely known how laughable it is to look for unbiased opinion in the interviews of pundits talking finance. This is since it's become expected that none of their advice is going to be untethered to their investments, but given the opportunity they're talk their book all they long. I don't see that much wrong with talking your book, but desperately trying to cover it up under the guise of "knowing the tech is superior" while only having superficial understanding of what's going on - makes intelligent people reading your stuff distrust you immediately.

I know people on both sides of the fence. I know of only one person that's skeptical of Web3 but still hedges on its success. I'm surprised that there is no middle ground - there are either fervent advocates or fervent opposition, and with very few exceptions (!), the opposition seems to think more clearly and is better informed.

The VC connects wealthy investors to nerds. There are few alternatives. You can self-fund by consulting and by setting aside money for your venture. That doesn't work.

It would've been great if an explanation was given for this opinion. Why wouldn't this work? From my limited experience it works fairly well.

You should expect that "it's my opinion" is implied for these kind of blog posts.

The post is saying:

- don't drop the info gathered from checks while validating, but keep track of it

- if you do this, you'll effectively be parsing

- parsing is more powerful that validating

"Extra steps" would be keeping track of info gathered from checks.

Ethics in research matters. You don't see vaccine researchers shooting up random unconsenting people from the street with latest vaccine prototypes. Researchers have to come up with a reasonable research protocol. Just because the ethical way to do what UMN folks intended to do isn't immediately obvious to you - doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

They wanted to see how the review goes if they aren't aware that someone is testing them. You cant do this with consent.

Ridiculous. Does the same apply to pentesting a bank or a government agency. If you wanted to pentest these of course you'd get approval from an executive that has power to sanction this. Why would Linux development be an exception? Just ask GKH or someone to allow you to do this.