TehPers @ TehPers @beehaw.org

Posts

0

Comments

668

Joined

2 yr. ago

This seems to be localized to a single county in NY from what I could tell. Always good to go after real cases of election fraud, but the headline is a bit misleading if this really is just a single county.

While I doubt that would happen, my guess is either nothing happens, ot DJT is removed and the next successor (Vance) takes his place. I can't imagine them doing a new election for any reason without a new amendment.

Not a huge fan of the smell either, but I'll second hand weed over cigarettes any day.

According to cppreference:

Unless otherwise specified, all standard library objects that have been moved from are placed in a "valid but unspecified state", meaning the object's class invariants hold (so functions without preconditions, such as the assignment operator, can be safely used on the object after it was moved from)

I would expect this to be true of all types. An easy way to do this is to null an internal pointer, set an internal fd to a sentinel, etc and check for that when needed, but this could be an easy source of errors if someone's not paying attention.

Ideally it would be statically checked if a value is used after being moved, but that's just my Rust brain speaking.

I would expect it to use CRLF (on Windows) for all new newlines unless I tell it otherwise. It shouldn't try to be smart about it. It should just do exactly what I tell it to do and nothing more.

Where do you draw the line on "smart" features? Tab should not add indent spaces? Encoding or newline mechanisms? Determining EOF newline?

For a very basic default editor, I would expect it to include only what I typed, no "smart" features, no IDE features, nothing else, and use CRLF (on Windows) for newlines with at most a setting to configure it in the editor for that session.

Basically, I wouldn't expect anything more than what nano does. If I want a fancy CLI editor, I'll install one. At its core though, it should exist only to edit the text content of a text file and do nothing else. It should be as stable as possible, and have as little scope as possible, in my opinion.

With that said, basic text editing features, like undo/redo and cut/copy/paste would be nice. Bonus points if it even works with the system clipboard.

Edit: to add to the question of whether an automatic newline should be added, Windows has no requirement for terminating text documents with newlines, so I would not expect one. What happens in POSIX environments by tools written for those environments seems irrelevant here - if a valid text document in POSIX must be terminated by a newline, then a text editor there would naturally be expected to add one, or at least support adding one, but that has nothing to do with Windows.

The only part of this process I'd consider automating with a LLM is summarizing the changes, and even then I'd only be interested looking at a suggested changelog, not something fully automated.

It's amazing to me how far people will go to avoid writing a simple script. Thankfully determinism isn't a requirement for a release pipeline. You wouldn't want all of your releases to go smoothly. That would be no fun.

Notepad went from barely maintained and barely useable (it couldn't even handle undo/redo in a reasonable way) to surprisingly decent at basic text editing to now bloated with useless shit. They were so close.

This has been true for a very long time. There are entire generations that want to look in real life how face filters on Instagram and Snapchat made them and others look on social media.

This is just another step in that direction, and it's depressing how bad it is already.

Thank you for giving us a great example of how to appropriately use AI: turning a long comment with no line breaks into a blog post summarizing the comment.

Now I just need to pass your comment into ChatGPT to get a short summary.

Edit: I asked for a one-sentence summary of it and this is what I got:

The comment expresses deep frustration with modern technology, society, government, and politics, calling for radical change and greater individual skepticism.

I haven't used a LLM to help code in a while (yes I've tried), but I found them useful for repetitive configs, like asset files. Also sometimes it makes sense to just have 5 slightly different lines of code in a row instead of a new function.

In general though, reasonable use of DRY is a good idea. There will still be repetitive parts though where a LLM autocompleter lets you just hit tab 5 times.

But how can we then ensure that I am not adding/processing products which are already in the "final" table, when I have no knowledge about ALL the products which are in this final table?

Without knowledge about your schema, I don't know enough to answer this. However, the database doesn't need to scan all rows in a table to check if a value exists if you can build an index on the relevant columns. If your products have some unique ID (or tuple of columns), then you can usually build an index on those values, which means the DB builds what is basically a lookup table for those indexed columns.

Without going into too much detail, you can think of an index as a way for a DB to make a "contains" (or "retrieve") operation drop from O(n) (check all rows) to some much faster speed like O(log n) for example. The tradeoff is that you need more space for the index now.

This comes with an added benefit that uniqueness constraints can be easily enforced on indexed columns if needed. And yes, your PK is indexed by default.

Read more about index in Postgres's docs. It actually has pretty readable documentation from my experience. Or read a book on indexes, or a video, etc. The concept is universal.

May you elaborate what you mean with read replicas? Storage in memory?

This highly depends on your needs. I'll link PG's docs on replication though.

If you're migrating right now, I wouldn't think about this too much. Replicas basically are duplicates of your database hosted on different servers (ideally in different warehouses, or even different regions if possible). Replicas work together to stay in sync, but depending on the kind of replica and the kind of query, any replica may be able to handle an incoming query (rather than a single central database).

If all you need are backups though, then replicas could be overkill. Either way, you definitely don't want prod data all stored in a single machine, usually. I would talk to your management about backup requirements and potentially availability/uptime requirements.

Well our options would have been prostate cancer or dementia, and prostate cancer is somehow still a better choice.

Imagine the latency on a data center in space. Uplink/downlink every time your server gets an inferencing request? Lol.

I could see it being fine for longer running asynchronous requests, but that would be if the cost/benefit made any sense at all, and if the servers had any resources worth talking about.

I have a server at home built from old parts and some refurbished drives with nearly as much storage as the currently launched satellites. 2800 satellites like this would come out to around 230 of my servers, or ~7PB.

A single 2U server with 12 drives, each with 24TB storage, can hold 288TB. It would take ~24 of those to get to 7PB, which is a lot of servers, but not so many that someone with quite a lot of savings couldn't afford it.

Also, the servers on the ground can be cooled by, idk, air if needed. Or water. Or I guess liquid nitrogen if you want. Point is there's an atmosphere for the heat to dissipate to, unlike space.

Pronouns are pointers. "Let us (let's) move it over there." Both "us" and "it" indirectly refer to something else by a new name. Like pointers, the pointees are defined by some context external to that sentence/statement (usually earlier sentences/statements or some other actions). The meaning of "us" and "it" can change as well in different contexts, and as such, those words are not bound to one value (and "rebinding" those words by changing contexts does not change the values they were previously bound to).

No rules, just how I like my paper.

This seems like the same problem that lifetimes solve in Rust - tracking when values are no longer used and thus fall "out of scope". Automated tooling should really be doing lifetime analysis of these values, and that seems to me like it would fall well out of scope of what GenAI can be trusted to do.

If this is such a huge problem, are you able to create finalizers that close the resources instead, or better abstractions for managing the LTs of these resources? I don't write Java anymore, but this seems like a problem better solved by other tools.

On one hand, this feels very "thoughtcrime"-y. On the other, certain people should probably just not have a platform to spew their nonsense on. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

Nobody tell him about the Inflation Reduction Act.