chipdart

36 ms·

481.
by chipdart 2y ago
> What is the virtual thread / event loop pattern seeking to optimize? Is it context switching? Throughput. Some workloads are not CPU-bound or memory-bound, and spend the bulk of their time waiting for external processes to make da
482.
by chipdart 2y ago
You're commenting on services provided by a cloud provider. I think it's obvious this is about which services are being used by clients of cloud providers, and not how your grandma stopped using a kettle to instead make tea by inv
483.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Yet another Mercurial-stan convinced of their "rightness" in the face of the overwhelming popularity of the alternative. Just blame "Github" and the "cool kids" for picking the "wrong thing". Any
484.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I don't think being too good is the reason it didn't beat git. I think Mercurial didn't beat git because it's only marginally better. I don't really agree. Mercurial was missing some critical features that were
485.
by chipdart 2y ago
That's specious reasoning at best, and for multiple reasons. The bulk of software development platforms standardized and uniformly built their services on FLOSS, and version control ends up being a tiny version of the whole offering. I
486.
by chipdart 2y ago
This blog post has a bunch of misconceptions. To start off, cookies are not files. HTTP Cookies is the umbrella term for a feature where the user agent (i.e., browser) is expected to not only store the data that servers include in responses
487.
by chipdart 2y ago
> A couple of years ago it was "$foo, but on Kubernetes". Before that it was "$foo, but Serverless". They're just pushing where the profit and interest is, and pretty much always have done. I don't think th
488.
by chipdart 2y ago
> AWS is way too bandwagonny these days. Back when it was all engineers they built things on the basis of "this is cool technology". I don't agree. I think AWS has always been extremely customer-focused, and they scramble
489.
by chipdart 2y ago
> To me it’s more like, if I have to carefully craft English language prompts in a conversational back-and-forth to get things done, then I am not really interested in doing that job, which sounds like being a manager or a teacher, and i
490.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I think that calling it "prompt engineering" is what made it fail to catch on. I don't think so. I mean, clearly calling it "engineering" threw some people off, in the same blend as some gatekeepers cringe at c
491.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Another big area of hype is "prompt engineering." That one seems to have calmed down slightly, but for a while, there were large swaths of the Internet who were amazed that the set intersection of "talk like a decent hum
492.
by chipdart 2y ago
> (...) but the idea that it’s especially undemocratic is pretty weird. Based on the Russia disinformation campaign plaguing Brexit, and how this brand of bullshit was a pervasive aspect of the propaganda effort and a constant on extremi
493.
by chipdart 2y ago
> As you said, he did not voted for those guys: Not really. That's not how it works, and it's a very puerile and cynical take that can't be taken seriously. Just because you didn't held a referendum to pick what brand
494.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Musk accepts many secret censorship deals from many countries, including EU countries. This news article is interesting because it underlines the hypocrisy of these self-described paladins of free speech and makes it clear these compla
495.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I am so glad that the European Union wants to protect me from bad words. You're making it sound like disinformation campaigns driven by hostile state actors are free from any negative impact. In the meantime, false advertisement i
496.
by chipdart 2y ago
> However, if I had to bet, I don't think Nordstream 2 was Russia. Sweden and Denmark just concluded their investigations after almost 2 years and if Russia had done it there would've been some implicating evidence. You should
497.
by chipdart 2y ago
> They did not. There was all sorts of speculation and enough circumstantial evidence to implicate either Russia or (...) depending on what your threshold is. There was circunstancial evidence implicating Russia, and there is Russia&#x27
498.
by chipdart 2y ago
> What works and makes sense to one group of people might not work or make sense to another group of people. I find that more literal-minded people are frustrated by what they see as unnecessary abstraction and are fine with duplicated c
499.
by chipdart 2y ago
> The article is describing, in a less clear way than they could, a clear separation of concerns in code. My take is a bit harsher. The article tries to reinvent the wheel -- poorly -- and fails to do the faintest and most superficial re
500.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Is this real? It can't be real. Nobody can be this stupid. Having worked in an org with an official in-house genius who was terribly tight with a tech-illiterate leadership and faked his way into his status, I can't really te
501.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Yes, I agree. I don't see much practical use in this. Me too. The best example I can come up with is loading test data in automated tests, but even then I wouldn't use this sort of approach.
502.
by chipdart 2y ago
> There is another scenario where this is an issue: if this code ends up in a header which is included in a lot of places. This is all on itself a sign that your project is fundamentally broken, but this is already covered by scenario b)
503.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I am afraid of the compile-time cost. Even though compilation time is the bane of C++, I think this concern regarding this specific usage is grossly overblown. I'm going to tell you why. With incremental builds you only rebuild wh
504.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Man I really hate the idea of "Let's make a thing that works shittier so that people switch to the new thing". You're conflating sunsetting old services with forced upgrades. Degrading services when preparing for su
505.
by chipdart 2y ago
> In the real world if you insist on breaking your paying customers' processes and products over and over again, (...) You do not break anyone's experience by releasing a new version that's voluntarily adopted by your payi
506.
by chipdart 2y ago
> If your intention is to remove features and fire the customers who are relying on them, that's a different matter. No. That is not a different matter. That's basically the whole problem being discussed, and the topic of the b
507.
by chipdart 2y ago
> That's a reason not to make fundamental changes to your flows (...) You're somehow assuming the engineering teams involved in making these decisions don't think through these issues and just jumpstart changes to critical
508.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Surely you can keep it backwards compatible AND give people access to the new good stuff? New API versions are not rolled out lightly. You roll them out only when you cannot give access to the new stuff while preserving compatibility.
509.
by chipdart 2y ago
I don't think you figured out the point I presented you. The whole point is that new API versions are rolled out because the changes that need to be introduced are incompatible with old APIs. Otherwise there won't be a need for a
510.
by chipdart 2y ago
> The presumption would be that there is a mapping from the old parameters to the new? "Presumption" is a funny word when used to say you didn't considered the part which happens to be the cornerstone of the whole proposal

More ›