ori_b

17 ms·

361.
by ori_b 1y ago
It's a fucking chat. How many times a day do you need to ship an update?
362.
by ori_b 1y ago
It's like measuring how fast your car can go by counting how often you clean the upholstery. There's nothing wrong with doing it, but it's entirely unrelated to performance.
363.
by ori_b 1y ago
AI coding is the worst part of management without any of the rewards.
364.
by ori_b 1y ago
Maybe I should have said pre-react. I don't know what GitHub did specifically, but several years ago it used to be reasonably fast and relatively pleasant to use. It regressed a lot over the last few years, seemingly correlated with at
365.
by ori_b 1y ago
It's frustrating, because GitHub used to perform quite well, before it was a single page app.
366.
by ori_b 1y ago
Well, that's exactly what the kernel is doing when it swaps threads. When you block on I/O, you're voluntarily pausing your thread and doing concurrent I/O with another thread. Async and threads are a lot closer than mos
367.
by ori_b 1y ago
> Go: goroutines are not async Sure they are. The abstraction they provide is a synchronous API, but it's accomplished using an async runtime.
368.
by ori_b 1y ago
The parent poster was saying that it wasn't about cost savings, and yet all that you talked about was cost savings.
369.
by ori_b 1y ago
Sure, but GC's not the only upside.
370.
by ori_b 1y ago
If you're not treating it as a cost cutting exercise, how much are you spending per query on the chatbot, and what is that $10 budget per query going towards? Can you give some examples of complex queries that it's handled?
371.
by ori_b 1y ago
However, recursive locking is a bad idea overall, and the tracking needed to make it work on rwlock contexts isn't worth the overhead it imposes in the common case of non-recursive rwlocks. It would be better if the spec simply said it
372.
by ori_b 1y ago
If you overspecify, you close the door to better implementations. This is why, for example, C++ standard hash tables and regexes are an order of magnitude slower than third party ones. The standard didn't say "you must implement s
373.
by ori_b 1y ago
Decades isn't a long time.
374.
by ori_b 1y ago
Kinda. Here's an example: void mkclosure(int x) { int x; void fn(void){ return x + 1; } return fnheapify(fn); } void useclosure(void) { void (^fn)(void) = mkclos
375.
by ori_b 1y ago
You can also have some kind of heapify/free, with undefined behavior if you get it wrong. I think the C standards committee needs to figure out memory safety before adding any new features that are likely to interact with it.
376.
by ori_b 1y ago
I haven't yet found a way to hire someone find work interesting on my behalf.
377.
by ori_b 1y ago
> I wonder how far a compatibility layer for Linux drivers could go to help other UNIX kernels' usability This isn't very interesting. It means you're constrained to the Linux design decisions, and you're wasting ti
378.
by ori_b 1y ago
> Can you sketch out for me the benefit of a public-facing service deciding to require passkey attestation? What's the thought process? A misguided administrator is very likely to think "They can't use a malicious device t
379.
by ori_b 1y ago
As long as it required an extension and extra application. I should need to install an enterprise authenticator app, which speaks webpki-enterprise, if you want to enable that shit.
380.
by ori_b 1y ago
And I come back to: if it would never work, why not drop support? "We pinky promise" is just not good enough.
381.
by ori_b 1y ago
Yeah, so if you want me to trust them, the harmful parts need to get removed from specs used in public contexts. I would love to use public key cryptography to authenticate with websites, but enabling remote attestation is unacceptable. And
382.
by ori_b 1y ago
The fact that sites targeted at the general public are prompting me to use them. Should websites avoid using passkeys and webauthn? Would you like to tell them that they're doing it wrong?
383.
by ori_b 1y ago
Great, they can use standards that aren't targeted at running services for the general public. It seems like the requirements already diverged. Drop attestation from passkeys, and I become a promoter. Keep it, and I suggest people stay
384.
by ori_b 1y ago
If there's no intention of doing this, it should be removed from the protocol. "I promise we'll never use this feature, so long as you implement it" isn't very convincing.
385.
by ori_b 1y ago
It's the standards committees job to design standards that are difficult to misuse.
386.
by ori_b 1y ago
Yes. One of the best features of png is that I don't have to wonder if it's going to work somewhere. Throwing that away in favor of a bit of premature optimization seems like a big loss. Especially as this wouldn't be the onl
387.
by ori_b 1y ago
Those effectively exist. They're called slices.
388.
by ori_b 1y ago
And after being exposed, deciding they enjoy it, but would rather make a living elsewhere -- does that mean the hobby was a failure? There's nothing wrong with turning something into a career, but turning every action into career chasi
389.
by ori_b 1y ago
I suppose you're right. And in a similar vein, the problem with toasting s'mores around a campfire is that while kids like it a lot, it doesn't necessarily translate to park ranger careers. We should really reform camping to
390.
by ori_b 1y ago
> But the problem is that while kids like it a lot, it doesn't translate to engineering careers. Gross. Maybe people should be able to enjoy doing things. Not every moment of child rearing needs to be dedicated to maximizing share

More ›