HN user
I guess I am officially old and no longer know what the cool "it" is any more. The C++17 example seems much more clear to me. It is more typing, but so what? It is not that much more typing, and it looks like code that people have written for 40 years.
Ah! Thank you for the more in depth explanation. I was not aware that codeberg had such a system. As others pointed out, it is probably iocaine.
Thank you. I went and looked at what else it could do and it does have a much larger feature set.
Is your complaint about Anubis? I see the "checking if you are human" kind of text too when going to codeberg, but it is usually only a second or two. It is because I run a bit of obfuscation and resistance to browser finger printing.
But you find seeing the text for a couple of seconds too annoying to use codeberg? Maybe it is more than 2 seconds for you?
Everyone has their views on what is acceptable in the world and what they will put up with. Just, to my point of view, I think codeberg is trying to fight the good fight in keeping llms from crawling their website.
Question for mermaid users out there. I have not used mermaid more than just superficially looking at it but it looks to me like a re-implementation of graphviz? Which has been around forever. Is there something it does that makes it more appealing?
I am not knocking this Free Mermaid Diagram Editor either. Seems decent. But, similarly, edotor has been around forever.
When news broke about the affair, I remembered, 6 months prior, watching an episode of the Daily Show where Jon Stewart interviewed Paula Broadwell and they even made jokes about if her husband was jealous of her spending so much time interviewing David Petraeus.
https://archive.org/details/COM_20120127_020000_The_Daily_Sh...
I sort of agree with the idea that LLMs are great (sometimes) at distilling all the quantifiable things they have churned through into something similar or, perhaps, putting together things that someone has not thought of putting together yet. And not so great at the intangible things, like good taste.
But, quoting "We've reached a dangerous moment. This moment threatens to convince too many of us that our lived experiences do not matter."
I think that "moment" was long before AI LLMs came around. I can only speak from my lived experiences, and I would say the tech industry and capitalism already put a low, low value on "lived experiences". Take game development, it seems to me, that big game studios rely on "a new fresh crop of college grads" will appear every year. We can push them as hard as we can. Hopefully, they will quit, and we can hire another batch.
I see it too, with lower wage jobs. No point in trying to keep our burger flippers happy. They are going to quit. Might as well factor that into the equation and just make a system with a revolving work force. No commitment. No retirement plan.
Agreed. The best time to form a union was 20 years ago (Especially because Tech Workers had leverage because they were in demand). The second best time to form a union is today.
I jumped to a similar conclusion right away and popped over here to comment only to find you have beaten me to the punch. I use to keep a work wiki page of common problems the team encounters over and over again.
Years ago, I stumbled upon the "idea" was already debated in other fields long before programming. Lumpers and Splitters.
It is a tale as old as time (in the industry)
I wrote a while back, Most of the executives I have met really have no clue. They just go with what is being promoted in the space because it offers a safety net. Look, we are "not behind the curve!". We are innovating along with the rest of the industry.
I love fossil. Something about it's opinionated workflow that matches what I think. But
network effects. I just can not bring my team to use fossil. They have to share code with others. Other departments. And everyone (99%+) uses git. It just feels like a disservice to force them to use fossil. It is a catch-22.
It is similar to so many other things in the tech space. Trying to get fellow developers to use functional style idioms. Trying to enforce immutability. It is like something big (like a facebook or google project) has to force the community to get on board.
I prefer the full quote by Douglas Adams.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
Many years ago. Maybe 2005 to 2015? I had a friend who used cpanel to run a web hosting company. He made quite a bit of money doing that. He was not a programmer, but he could setup up wordpress and install plugins. I remember asking him once if he was worried he would get hacked and then lose control of his servers? Lose his customers?
He said he was worried but he had backups upon backups. I saw him restore a bunch of websites once, using cpanel, and I thought it is an amazing little bit of software with all of the click a button to setup many different things (like WAF). A real time saver and provides some guidance if you are not a unix-internet guru.
I always liked looking at the maps different people have made over the years. It is interesting how they can come out looking different but represent the same latent space.
https://www.vaultofculture.com/vault/nst/2023/02/13/zorkmaps
Something about it reminds me of force directed graphs, where you only care about the nodes and edges (the rooms and connections).
You wrote "I don't understand what is missing"
ipv6 was standardized in 1995 6to4 was standardized in 2001
6to4 is not used in any meaningful way today.
What was missing was ipv6 should have had 6to4 (but better) in it, in 1995.
Now, I could go on about what is wrong with 6to4, but every new topic is just another surface area for ipv6 proponents to launch another question (I sometimes suspect in bad faith).
The embedding I believe you are referring to is not a part of the global routing model. (maybe I am wrong?) What I am describing is making that kind of declaration central to the system in a deterministic, network wide mapping of ipv4 to the larger ipv6 space. The translation in ipv6 ended up being handled by a mix of mechanisms after the fact, rather than a single, uniform mapping model that tied directly to the address structure. I think part of the problem is they did not put that front and center, at the beginning, when doing the initial specification.
Opening a dual stack ipv4 and ipv6 does allow the service to accept both ipv4 and ipv6 connections. But I do not think that is what zadikian is getting at?
It does not address the network level identity and reachability. There is no default, globally routable mapping where owning a ipv4 automatically gives you an equivalent identity in ipv6 that others can reach without translation infrastructure. The transition mechanisms are not uniform or canonical, and that increases complexity.
6to4 was an attempt at that kind of embedding and I do not think it succeeded?
The original specification of ipv6 did not directly address a translation mechanism? It seemed to rely on, well, everyone will go dual stack and we will shut down the old ipv4 stack. I think it should have addressed that in the beginning and provided the one canonical way of doing it, perhaps with guides on timelines to get the ISP and backbone providers to get on board.
I remember reading about that a long time ago. I wonder why it never really caught on?
I think part of the problem is not so much a technical one, as a coordination issue. Who are you more likely to get on board? ISP and backbone providers. What is the path forward? Here is the recommended path forward, kind of thing.
I went and re-read point 3B. I agree that some hypothetical ipv42 faces a translation problem.
But it does not follow that address design is irrelevant. The structure of the address space directly determines whether translation can be stateless and alogrithmic.
In a hypothetical ipv42 design that preserves a deterministic embedding relationship between old and new addresses, translation at the edges could be largely stateless and mechanically reversible, to reduce coordiation overhead between operators and it makes reachability more predictable.
In our world ipv6, the transition seems to require a mix of dual stack, nat64, dns64, tunneling aproaches. The mapping between ipv4 and ipv6 is not uniformly deterministic across all deployment contexts.
Also, there is just a human factor. The mental gymnastics that go on. The perception of what is the way forward? With ipv6, it feels like everyone has to go get their ipv6 stack in order. With a hypothetical ipv42, where the ISPs and backbone providers can throw in the translation layers, it feels like, to me, they would have gotten on board much more quickly. Yeah, I know, it is just a feeling.
You are right that a 32 bit ipv4 stack can not understand a 64 bit packet format. The thing I am trying to get at is not native compatibility, it is operational compatibility via translation. I know, I know, you will probably say that is what ipv6 bridges do.
But in an ipv42 type setup, you would have determnistic embedding so that every ipv4 address is represented inside the larger address space. This would allow translation at network boundaries and let old systems continue to operate unchanged. Then the routers and systems would be upgraded incrementally. I think that is why it would have been upgraded more quickly.
I think this is the kind of the topic that can be endlessly debated because you can not easily go back in time and test out alternate hypothesis. I will say that I do not like ipv6 because it tried to fix multiple accumulated problems. I know! How contrarian! How can you be against trying to fix things. But all of those issues made ipv6 a dual stack solution that replaced ipv4.
Address exhaustion, Routing table scalability, restore end to end routability, autoconfiguration, header simplification, mulitcast + anycast, security standardization.
Whereas, I think a lot of those things could have been solved in other ways, or more slowly. I would have preferred a ipv4.2 64 style because it would have prioritized
Address exhaustion, keeping backward operational compatibility, fewer changes to institutional knowledge, and still had incremental rollout (that I think would have occurred much more quickly than ipv6).
Yeah, but most* companies hire for just whatever X programming language they use, and do not care if you know how to program and do not care that you could pick up whatever X is in a couple of weeks. (Anecdotally for "most", I am sure there are exceptions)
It is my understanding that the US Government set up a system, long, long ago, where the British would spy on Americans and then the British would supply the information to the NSA, thereby the NSA is not technically spying on American citizens.
Words mean nothing. They can be interpreted how ever they need to be interpreted by those in power.
I, perhaps, owe my career to DOS. As a kid, everyone relied on me to get their games, soundcard, and disk drives to work. Juggling IRQs HIMEM and CHKDSK. Soundblaster 16 forever!
That is sort of the inferred conclusion of the podcast, it is a bit of a racket by the big players.
I am not sure I agree with everything stated in the post. Although it is plausible.
From the places I have worked, I would say the reason there is so much bad code at big companies is nobody really cares. It is just a job. You could bust your butt and clean up a code base, or fix a 10 year old bug that has been costing the company a half a million dollars a year, and it will not increase your salary in the slightest (Well, maybe a kudos and a pat on the back but that is not guaranteed).
Office Space had it right in the scene where Peter is being interviewed by the two bobs.
My memory is a bit hazy, but I thought what you are describing is very common with people who flatline and come back? I have vague memories that a new anesthetic drug was developed and used on soldiers undergoing surgery in the Vietnam war, and there was something about it that caused the same kind of reaction in those who were put under. Again, my memory is very hazy on the subject. I should go do some research and update this comment (and I just might).
EDIT I did a little searching. I think it might have been an old report about Ketamine before it became more wide known. Apparently it was used during the Vietnam War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine#Near-death_experience
I find the topic of the morality or effectiveness of having a H-1B a little bit intractable to reason about rationally. Consider a simplified model of the system.
You have 2 countries, C1 and C2.
Scenario 1: C1 has enough demand for 100 tech jobs. C1 only has 50 qualified natives for 100 tech jobs.
The wages of C1 go up because there is more demand than supply.
Scenario 2: C1 has enough demand for 100 tech jobs. C1 only has 50 qualified natives for 100 tech jobs.
Now you put in a H1-B visa program that will pay the same as the prevalent wage as a local native. C2 has enough candidates to fill the other 50 positions.
The wages of C1 will NOT go up because now supply matches demand.
Is Scenario 2 fair? Who gets to decide what fair is? Given the above system, I think I would argue that H1-B visa programs cause wage deflation in C1, even if it is filling jobs that would not be filled and even if the jobs paid the exact same as someone working in the native country.
I am not dogmatic about that though. Willing to hear a counterpoint to scenario 2.
"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." -- John Maynard Keynes
But what if your codebase has to interact with leads, customers, and another 3rd party system called Metrica with leads, customers?
When you write a loop, do you now name the variable
OurPerson.Age MetricaPerson.Age
?
What if, 3 years from now, you include another 3rd party vendor into the system and have to write code against that data and in the data they name their stuff OurPerson.Age?
Not saying you are wrong at all. Just naming things is hard and context dependent. I think that is why it is endlessly argued.