vouwfietsman

Malicious compliance is a result of incompetent drafting

Aha ok, so your judgement of an entire governmental apparatus, trying to influence and predict millions of people in hundreds of thousands of companies and across hundreds of industries, from the most sensitive to the most frivolous of activities, can be summarized in a one liner.

Don't you think these people got advice from people like you? Do you think you are smarter than whatever panel of experts was involved? Do you think maybe the panel of experts was confronted with some information that you do not have? Do you think maybe something you value was in conflict with something somebody else values?

I really cannot express how unlikely it is that you are right.

You are right, and this is why not everything should be a stock. Whatever they will cut to avoid emitting "a bad sign", may involve:

* firing people * making services worse * sacrificing their own future

Whether it actually does involve those things is effectively arbitrary, because the consideration of the "bad sign" is also arbitrary. If there is no objective value judgement of their operation there is no objective value judgement in their streamlining either, so all bets are off.

no percentage no good

"complex consideration"

pruning off failing things is not only good, it's the core of capitalism

It's quite serious that you see "being good" as something inferior to "the core of capitalism".

Also, the core of capitalism is making money for private individuals, nothing more, nothing less. Whether that's done with or without "failing things", is really beside the point.

I am eagerly awaiting your grassroots campaign to define legislation that would tackle such uses, and also eagerly awaiting it backfiring because of malicious compliance.

So you like the law, but don't like how it didn't actually solve the problem it was trying to solve?

(Not the person you replied to)

I'm not sure where all of this is coming from, the law is actually extremely obvious and useful: you want to track people, they have to be informed, and have to consent. The law says nothing about how, and the way it was implemented was entirely up to the corporations discretion, which of course opted for the most malicious terrible way to do it, but they did it.

The purpose of the law was that people should be informed about cookies being installed and consent to that happening.

Do you feel like people are now aware that cookies are being installed, more so than before the banner? Do people understand that they are consenting to this?

That is the law at work.

Everything above and beyond that is nice to have, and I'm sure the world would be better for it, but without the EU, people probably wouldn't even know what cookies were, let alone understand (or have control over) how they are being tracked.

If that's not a net positive in a world where net-negatives happen every week, I don't know.

DuckDB wouldn't really know what to do with a

Sure it would, you can attach a multi-table sqlite database in duckdb

that does not mean just because it came first

I agree with most of your points, I am not stating my opinion but my observations. I am the target audience here, I want to use this, but I don't really care too much about the file format itself, at least not as much as I care about the data inside.

That means access, which means compatibility with my tooling.

Compatibility is hard to beat.

This is the concorde of file formats.

except you need flatbuffers to access that blob

Not sure why this got so many upvotes, also the landing page is not great, its better to look at the paper (see link below).

Seems to be a columnar storage format that addresses some shortcomings in parquet. Thing is, though, that of all these formats the real winning feature is compatibility, which is (obviously) very hard to improve on, as anything new immediately loses.

Parquet is unfortunately very good just by virtue of being first, and so widely supported. The most widely used parquet version is the oldest version from 2013 (as per the paper itself), so parquet itself couldn't even supplant parquet. If you want to improve on it, you need to bring some serious results, which I don't think f3 does.

Also, my main gripe with parquet (single table per file) is not even addressed, so, also the name is a bit hyped up.

Also also, it seems to go out of its own way to include a compiled wasm binary for decoding, yet requires flatbuffers to parse that blob? Kind of defeats the purpose.

Its main result seems to be improved random access which, although certainly welcome, is not the point of columnar storage, as columnar storage was invented to exchange random access for something else: fast analytics. F3 seems to sacrifice fast analytics for the wasm decoder. I don't get it.

Maybe I'm being too cynical. Can someone help me out here?

https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3749163

I don't think you have encountered the problems that this class of formats solves. Try looking up columnar storage formats, the pros and cons are pretty well defined these days. It is not meant for video decoding, indeed.

Knowing little about cpp modules and nothing about Gabriel Dos Reis, I expect a more design-by-committee type explanation for the result: the module system was probably a victim of having to be backwards compatible, abi stable, idiomatic, zero cost abstraction, be compatible with all weird cpp features, not hurt compile time, etc etc etc

I don't think its fair to attribute it to lack of skills or bad intent, unless there's some proof to any of it.

Its not. Any interview question where you are looking for a specific answer is already suspect, but especially if you don't properly provide context for the question in what you would expect, things become a shit show.

If you would ask someone to write a piece of code, and a part of the problem is this conversion, then you would be right to expect they reach for a library, but even if they don't you would be giving them the opportunity to explain themselves, and judge the explanation, not the answer. Also, if your test is "does this person reach for a library at the right time", you could do a lot less esoteric and confusing by just asking them to add 10 days to a date. If you just ask this one specific problem, it is likely they assume you are looking for them to demonstrate the skills involved in actually solving the problem, i.e. leetcode.

This is also why some people give you the blabla answer, because it is indeed very unlikely that someone needs to do this legitimately. This is because its a toy problem. Someone's professional reaction to the problem in isolation should indeed be: this is weird, I've never been asked something like this, what's up?

Finally, even though the question is terrible, I would still rate the "whatsup?" response higher than the "leapyear" response. I would want a developer to triple check that this problem needs solving, before they would solve it themselves.

Finally finally, if there's one answer to one question that, when answered trivially in a way literally taught in most basic programming courses (use the standard library / a third party library), makes them a "guaranteed hire", I also have significant doubts about the level of talent you are bringing in, as any experienced interviewer will tell you that qualified people will get important questions wrong, and unqualified people will get important questions right.

I understand that this reaction might be quite harsh, and I know better than anyone that its hard and time consuming to do good interviews, but please consider that you are rejecting people who may be very confused and sad by this way of rejection.

So, removing one monster means removing that item from those 20 arrays.

Removing from an array is not the same as resizing, which is what I commented on. Resizing is a very deliberate, bad, choice.

If you need to support deletes, you can do this without resizing an array. Either by tracking object lifetimes and inserting tombstones, or by swapping to fill in deleted objects. Both of them retain good performance characteristics. Both of them are easy.

This is not "simple vs complex" this is "I misunderstand vs understand SoA"

"an", not "the" alternative.

Consciousness can be not-emergent but also not metaphysical, think sci-fi-type undiscovered physics or matter.

I'm not sure why anybody would at the same time be implementing SoA AND resizing 20 arrays for a single delete, those things seem to be on either ends of the "I care about performance" spectrum.

Again, you're not wrong, but none of those things are insurmountable. If the team is really so stressed it cannot spend 30 minutes, over the many year of the existence of that bug, that seems like a development environment close to hell.

Knowledge loss is precisely my point: there is very little a-priori knowledge needed to solve this, the guy who found the bug proves that.

Although this is possibly true, at any time the dev team could've gone: "loading is slow man, can we just profile it and see if there's anything obvious?". To someone with access to the source code and a debugger, that's probably less than 30 minutes of time to go from zero to hero.

I've done this kind of stuff many times, and something like a json array taking minutes to parse would likely be very very obvious when looking at a trace.

Hint: maybe they would if they would unionize themselves.

It would be prudent if you would dig a bit deeper into how unions came to be. Long story short, capitalism can easily create situations where you agree to be exploited to some degree, to avoid being exploited to another, worse, degree.

This is like saying most western thought traces back to people 165cm in height or lower. If everyone is forced to be catholic, all human output, including positive output, is done by catholics.

Guess what, all Chinese EVs are made by communists, maybe there's something to it after all!

Nice use of the inigo sdf shader. Too bad this is so hard, I was hoping it would help solve the problem.

do not acknowledge trade-offs when it comes to type systems

gives link to "limited evidence of benefits"

I'm not looking for absence of evidence, as absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The original post claims tradeoffs, where are they? What are we trading? Even the most dynamic-language friendly results in your linked post either claim: "look at what we did without types!" or "even though there's no types in ruby, devs think about them all the time", which I mean, come on.

The only real criticism or tradeoffs on types mentioned is a person getting stuck on a single static type check compilation error, but I can easily counter that with "undefined is not a property of null".

From the link:

if the strongest statement you can make for your position is that there's no empirical evidence against the position, that's not much of a position.

This is how hypotheses work. Maybe the problem is that we have a hard time proving anything about programming languages?

I think his point is: rather than "leaning into" it as in, masking through epsilons, he argues that tolerance is fundamental to the problem space, not a way to resolve edge cases.

Nice thanks, gotta love knowing a bit about a niche and then encountering someone who knows a great deal more. That's the beauty of HN.

Could you point to any literature/freely available resource that comes close to the SOTA for these kinds of operations? I would be greatly helped.

This explanation is relatively reductive when it comes to its criticism of computational geometry.

The thing with computational geometry is, that its usually someone else's geometry, i.e you have no control over its quality or intention. In other words, whether two points or planes or lines actually align or align within 1e-4 is no longer really mathematically interesting because its all about the intention of the user: does the user think these planes overlap?.

This is why most geometry kernels (see open cascade) sport things like "fuzzy boolean operations" [0]) that lean into epsilons. These epsilons mask the error-prone supply chain of these meshes that arrive in your program by allowing some tolerance.

Finally, the remark "There are many ways of solving this problem" is also overly reductive, everyone reading here should really understand that this is a topic that is being actively researched right now in 2026, hence there are currently no blessed solutions to this problem, otherwise this research would not be needed. Even more so, to some extent this problem is fundamentally unsolvable depending on what you mean by "solvable", because your input is inexact not all geometrical operations are topologically valid, hence an "exact" or let alone "correct along some dimension" result cannot be achieved for all (combination of) inputs.

[0] https://dev.opencascade.org/content/fuzzy-boolean-operations

do not acknowledge trade-offs when it comes to type systems

Could you elaborate?

Transpilation and bloat are orthogonal. Javascript being bloated or not is also a relative: consider Python, which is much slower than js, and much more memory hungry.

To further argue your original point: chrome & electron are the only reason desktop is still around, both Microsoft and Apple tried their very hardest to build a walled garden of GUI frameworks, rejecting the very idea of compatibility, good design, and ease of use, until they were surpassed by the web, and particularly Google, showing that delivering functioning applications to a computer does not require gigantic widget libraries, outdated looks or complicated downloads & install processes, but is in fact nothing more than a bit of standardization and a couple MBs of text.

All this electron & web hate is so incredibly misplaced I don't even know where to begin. Have you tried making a cross platform mac/win native app? I have, its like being catapulted into the stone age, but you're asked to build a skyscraper.

Do you have a source for that? Does your source imply that this is desired by the population?

My question is mostly rhetorical: it is obvious that government & safety institutions are themselves fanning the flames of this ridiculous movement away from privacy and towards a surveillance state of over-protectionism. The world has not significantly changed in 50 years in terms of terrorist threats, (except for, ironically, threats to your identity online), yet suddenly now that we can track people online, we must to combat this non-changing threat factor? It's all security theater.

All intelligence agencies benefit from more data, and will happily use lack of data as a scapegoat for their own incompetence. They instill fear to justify their existence, unlawful behavior, and lack of results.

distribute pornography to minors. which i think is something that a reasonable parent would have a problem with.

I'm sorry what?

This is not even close to consensus, as you present it.

Also, a thought exercise, just for you:

1. Should stabbing people be illegal? 2. Should we make it impossible to stab people?

Think about those things, and how they relate to eachother. What would the consequences be of #2?

I'm not sure what motivates you to write a comment like this, but maybe you should reflect on it.

The person you are replying to is consciously trying to make the world a better place, and probably succeeding in a small way. Are they perfect? No. But they are literally sacrificing something for the good of someone (or something) else. This is the definition of altruism.

For some reason, you felt the need to criticize them for not being more altruistic?

Finally, if you really want to live cruelty free and 100% sustainably, the only option is to throw yourself off of a bridge because any time you interact with modern society you are producing CO2 indirectly and potentially harming animals, no matter how careful you are.

I can't speak for proof of identity in the US, but please understand that digital privacy is a slippery slope we're already sliding down, it is not unreasonable to be critical of any privacy violating initiative, because privacy is never given back, only taken away.