jeltz

Not even that, it is just an off-topic rant about government censorship.

Pretty sure you could have said the same in 1986 and I know for sure you could have in 2006. Not sure why you think people having different tastes is new.

404 Not Found

Ok ... you know PostgreSQL supports hash tables in shared memory, right? PostgreSQL could in theory share those if we wanted to. The issue is just that coding anything which uses shared memory is a lot of work.

Additionally the reasons PostgreSQL does not offer Clickhouse performance has very little to do with parallelism. PostgreSQL plans to move to threading but the efforts around imporving OLAP performance are almost entirely unrelated.

I strongly disagree. The easiest way to shut down your business is to insist on being 100% secure because the only way to have perfect security is to do nothing.

Security is always about tradeoffs.

Funny story but in my experience hardware engineers produce some of the worst software of the industry. Of course there must be some hardware engineers out there who do hood software but generally what they build are disasters.

Some, but not that much. Switching PostgreSQL to a threaded model will not magically make spawning connections fast. PostgreSQL connections are quite heavyweight.

The reason to use threads is almost entirely about ease of development, not about performance. If you use shrared memory like PostgreSQL does you need to write your own allocators, etc. So much you get for free if you use threads.

Threads does not offer any major performance advantage, performance of processes vs threads is virtually the same. The reason the PostgreSQL project is moving towards threads is to make development easier.

They would need to be rewritten as there is no formal extension API. Extensions can call into almost any part of PostgreSQL.

It is not a requirement the PostgreSQL project wants to have. It would be a heavy burden and mostly pointless.

PostgreSQL's tests are mostly integration tests.

I think Opus 8.4 is a below average developer, but maybe I have just worked with good developers and have a skewed perspective of what the average is.

It is not like you typically can just ignore a court order so Google will need to convince Klarna that they have changed something or Klarna can just go back to the court.

Because if we don't then the rich can divide and conquer. We need to stand united, even with the Meta techbros.

I agree with your first part but your edit is a logic fallacy. I don't need to be able to hack something to say that it is insecure.

For example: I don't know how to exploit SAML but I know it is a terrible standard dur to making all of the XML parser an attack surface. I am not a security researcher so I dont know how to find exploits in XML parsers but I know having a huge attack surface is bad.

That is true for software engineering in general. If you have a manager like that nothing is fun. And the products you build are likely to be bad.

Other than coal gas being not very efficient use of coal what was so bad about it? Stockholm still had coal gas in the early 2000s and accidental carbon monoxide poisoning was very rare. Of course the alternatives are better, but only marginally so.

Mostly because MySQL development is slower.

It is also a bit tricky tradeoff. You do not want to be stuck with the same data format forever. So databases like MySQL and PostgreSQL need a downtime when doing a major version upgrade. They both try to keep it short, usually seconds, but minutes can happen in either database.

Yes. But for most workloads it is not much for PostgreSQL. You often will not have to shard at all.

Exactly, MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same here. Maybe one is a bit faster than the other at doing major version upgrades but the behaviours are quite similar.

I have not ran MySQL for some years but it at least used to have exactly the same issue. Upgrading a database with MySQL can take a long time if you have many tables. The main difference is only really that PostgreSQL does it with a separate tool, pg_upgrade, while MySQL does it as part of the main binary.

For both MySQL and PostgreSQL you will need to use some kind of logical upgrades if you want no downtime.

Sorry, I was unclear. With that I did not talk about this particular deal. This particular deal seems sane. XAI built more compute that they can use themselves since Grok is not very successful so to not just have the hardware standing there they rent it out to competitors. Makes total sense.

It is other things Musk has gone with Twitter and SpaceX which are shady.

If your dad had owned an emerald mine I am sure you could also have been that dumb.

But to be more serious: It is impossible to say if this is good or bad for XAI without more numbers. What if they bought their compute way over market price and sell it at a loss?

No, CoreWeave for example also rent compute to the big AI companies. This likely just means Grok has few users so they need to rent their extra capacity to their competitors.

Their satellite internet business is the only thing which makes them money, which is enabled by their orbital launch business which is as of right now not profitable and I have no idea of if it ever will be but without it they would not be able to launch enough satellites.

Their stupidity with AI and buying X mostly seems to be about scamming investors to make Musk even richer. Like this particular deal is just them doing what CoreWeave does at a SpaceX valuation.

And 200% within 2 years?

Yeah, I am employed by an open source company (to be clear not open core) and most of the external code contributions we get are a net cost for us. It takes more time to review than it would have taken for our team to code and review.

The real value we get from being open source is high quality bug reports and trust from our customers, not the external contributions. The only reason we welcome external contributors is marketing and generally being welcoming. If LLMs make this cost even higher for us then we might have to stop accepting external PRs.

Yeah, they are essentially praising price dumping.

But apparently trying to distinguish those from the 'one-shot' vibe coded PRs is too much work for the Ladybird team.

Yes, that is exactly what this announcement is about. That it was too much work for them to tell those two apart.