I don't think any C compiler has been single pass for the last 20 years. Typescript's analyses are also not that complicated, it's just that the typescript type checker is written in js. Iirc the actual ts -> js part is pretty fast with some of the more recent compilers.
The $50 million punishment feels so insubstantial to Microsoft that they probably wouldn't even think twice before doing similar things again or worse. Only things that could threaten the bottom line would actually make companies reconsider.
If this can't run full-local, isn't that basically a botnet? You're talking about installing a kernel-level driver that receives instructions on what to do from a cloud service.
If companies are already willing to obscure chat logs, what's to say they won't begin manufacturing artificial logs (or editing existing logs) under this kind of pressure?
This entire article feels like it was written by ChatGPT. For instance, it continuously makes vague claims about the value of open source without even citing the original bill.
Same experience here, React is actually very good about backwards compatibility, and for anything that is pervasive, codemods via jscodeshift works pretty well too.
I have had to make changes to the build system for the React system I maintain at work, but in no way would I consider it a "rewrite", as much as a "refactor" for a specific part of the codebase while leaving the rest relatively untouched.
In fact, JavaScript moving to ESM has broken MUCH more code than any of the React features listed in the article.
Without releasing source code and a transparent client build process this kind of claim is just kind of ...useless? If anything tells me they can't see my data and the client isn't completely in the open then I have 0 shred of confidence that they're trustworthy.
exciting to hear! I only wish i had more time to contribute.
Has there been any movement on migrating away from long polling (#475)? I didn't see anything about it in the announcements or comments despite such a big milestone
I wish that reputable reporting on this kind of topic would start putting accuracy next to what it can reportedly do. I remember visiting a machine learning poster session where many of the posters reported results with accuracy as low as 30%.
If a program is able to predict this once or twice it's not a miracle. If it's able to do so with 60% I'd raise some eyebrows. But I'd say it's only a turning point when it's able to beat false positive rates of human doctors. Without an accuracy score, this news is absolutely meaningless.
I think this article confuses "simplicity" with "less code". Often times when we talk about simplicity, it's about overall conceptual design, and on the note of dependencies, it's often _more_ simple to use something that does the job and brings in some more dependencies than it is to aggressively try to prune and end up costing more maintenance burden.
> A benefit of atproto users is that they are transferable without needing an active server
This is not exactly true, it just means the server that holds ur data (traditionally instance or home server) doesn't need to be involved in the transfer process. However, this has centralized identity resolution, which is not a good long term solution.
> For example, someone was able to get the AWS S3 domain as their handle!
This is easily hotfixable by requiring more stringent proof of ownership of the domain (like DNS records), rather than a problem with the protocol itself. But it's a valid concern
> But runs into the problem of algorithms being hijacked to show inappropriate/offensive/bigoted content.
I thought the whole point was that if you didn't like the algorithm you could swap it out for something simpler. This point puzzles me greatly
> that could’ve just been extensions to the ActivityPub protocol rather than a whole new protocol!
Not really. If you peel back the interface they're very different, since the transferability of accounts across servers is something baked deeply into how ActivityPub works and cannot be easily changed without rewriting the protocol. That being said, I personally hope there is some network that can solve the problem of untying resources from domains, since it is one of the big problems with any federated protocol
It seems to me that a lot of the problems discussed in this thread (it's using a new protocol that doesn't work with existing tools, it uses crypto, handles auth in the protocol, server can goes down) are just frustrations that don't have to do with the core innovation that Bluesky promises to deliver, and are instead confusing the AT protocol to be another ActivityPub-related protocol, rather than something completely different. In fact, it misses that having pull-based indexes is part of the idea of separating data publication vs. data curation. Yes, invite codes are kind of a weird thing to shove so deep into the protocol but sometimes these kinds of things are necessary to bootstrap a social network, and become relatively unimportant in the long term.
But on the other hand, the AT protocol is not all what it seems either. It's fundamentally not possible to do what they promise unless there is some kind of synchronization point where your most up-to-date identity can be searched. The documentation goes on extensively about the format of DIDs and the fact that there _is_ a resolution scheme, but it fails to mention that this resolution is being done by Bluesky themselves, and is not planned to expand into something that others can control. As a decentralized protocol, you would expect this to be something DNS-based, or if you really wanted something more peer-to-peer, DHT lookup, or at the worst case, a distributed blockchain. Seeing as this is a fundamental protocol-level change, the fact that they're rolling with the current approach makes me believe they will not be changing this in the near future. Bluesky is just converting one problem into another.
I know this isn't really related to the whole copying ethics debate, but I definitely feel like there's some sort of foul play happening here. For all of the unlicensed projects out there, the license that is automatically granted to Github includes:
> the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time
It's insane how vague this is. Is Copilot a "Service"? Sure, by its definition:
> The “Service” refers to the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub, including any Beta Previews.
And since much of the code was published before Copilot's inception, this means Github can just arbitrarily add more "services" and milk the code for whatever it wants. Automatically service-ify any public repository? Sure, pay us for quotas. It's like a legal loophole to let Github just bypass any license restrictions you put on it.
Yeah... looking at this it seems like there's still some gaping holes, for example specifying javascript in particular leaves WebAssembly open which is arguably worse than non-free javascript, and anything server-side is just ignored, like you said.
- JWT debugger: doesn't exist in browsers i suppose
- Base64 encode: btoa
- Base64 decode: atob
- Query string parser: (queryString) => new Map(new URLSearchParams(queryString).entries())
- HTML entity encode/decode: idk why u need this, should not be escaping html manually in webpages just use .innerText
- Backslash escape: not sure what specifically this is doing in the app but sounds like it's easy enough to do it with a regex
I feel like if u want a UI u should make one that can save scripts and turn them into forms so that users can add arbitrary functions themselves without having to wait for the application to add more functionality