Was curious how they get such performance with a FUSE based design. It seems that they sort of cheat, FUSE is used to manage metadata but to get high performance you have to link in the C++ client library and do all your reads and writes through that. So it isn't general purpose, you have to modify your application to take advantage of it. Still, that's a clever trick, and makes me wonder if there's a LD_PRELOAD strategy that could generalize.
A big fuck you to rssDaemon on Android which came out with a 3.x to 4.0 update that nuked all my feeds (this was a few years ago. I switched to Feedly and it's been great.
I've driven between Boston and Montreal in a 2018 Prius Prime and got something like 60 mpg despite a large part of the trip being through the mountains of Vermont. Hybrids are a fantastic technology that, in a rational world, should have completely taken over the mainstream car market 15 years ago. Momentum seems to be slowly going towards PHEVs, which actually benefit even more from ubiquitous charging infrastructure than long-range BEVs. Unfortunately having owned a PHEV for the last 5 years, charger availability does not feel like has expanded at all, despite there being 10x as many EVs on the roads as 5 years ago. So if you can even find a charger, it is probably occupied.
"Manager" is a broad category, but in my case I am deeply involved in product design and technical architecture (with lots of input from my team) so I find that being able to plan a feature together, hand if off to one of my developers to implement it, and then see them successfully execute our vision to be just as exciting as if I had written it myself.
This is possible because I have exhaustive knowledge of the product, having worked on it for many years as an IC (and watched several other people struggle to manage it before I took the wheel). I imagine I'm a scenario where a manager and team are more disconnected, and nobody is really passionate about the product, that milestones would feel a lot more muted.
Yes, my recollection of the books is that it isn't about the need to keep consuming resources, it is about the premise that it is impossible to judge if another civilization is hostile or going to turn hostile
If your civilization can annihilated in a single strike, the only civilizations that survive have the strategy to a) avoid being detected and b) destroy anyone who has detected them (which results in destroying everyone, to eliminate uncertainty).
The idea being that assuming the actual survival of your species is at the top of your moral pyramid, all kinds of atrocities in its defense are justifiable.
Been checking the #roblox hashtag on Twitter and the two main themes are addicts going through withdrawal and devs saying how they wouldn't have their llama appreciation fan site be down this long let alone your core business.
CWL is intended for stringing together other programs. It is useful for reproducibility in that it attempts to provide a fairly specific description of the runtime environment needed to execute a program, and also abstracts site-specific details such as file system layout or batch system in use. CWL platforms such as Arvados also generate comprehensive provenance traces which are vital for going back and reviewing how a data result was produced.
Leibniz seems to be a numerical computing language for describing equations, which is more similar to something like NumPy or R. It seems like an apples-and-oranges comparison.
The original call-out is weird, because CWL did not exist 10 years ago so you can't yet answer the question yet of whether it facilitates running 10 year old workflows.
I use RssDaemon on Android, which had been around forever (8-9 years maybe?) is apparently so dead that the author just released a new version with major UI update.
My most used been apps on my phone are RssDaemon and Twitter. I read Hackers news though RSS. Twitter on the other hand has been getting worse.
The backlash against centralized social media platforms is building, but it is hard to say what comes next.
The Pacifica plug-in hybrid is a fantastic minivan that can go up to 30 miles all electric before needing to engage the ICE, and in hybrid mode it still gets significantly better milage than a conventional ICE minivan.
I don't know if I can change your mind, or if anyone else is reading this thread, but CWL was designed to solve a particular set of problems, if you don't have those problems, you might not need it, but it doesn't mean those problems don't exist.
> the project doesn’t even provide you a dispatcher component but instead tells everyone to take a spec and write their own.
Close...
Software that supports CWL are SaaS vendors, FOSS projects, and various HPC schedulers that all have their own incompatible data management and dispatch/scheduling systems. If you want to write an analysis that runs on more than one of these platforms, you need some abstraction for it. CWL is one such an abstraction.
This matters because maybe you've developed a research pipeline that integrates a bunch of different tools written in different languages and want to run it on somebody else's data, and you need to run it on their infrastructure because copying 12 terabytes of HIPAA-restricted data from their LSF cluster to your Google cloud instance isn't an option.
"Just use bash" is what people who adopt CWL are trying to get away from. It is nearly impossible to write portable parallel / distributed analysis in bash, and the result is brittle scripts with more coordination code than code that actually does scientific work. Because CWL is declarative, the CWL engine handles all the coordination, scheduling and data staging for your particular infrastructure.
You may not have any of these needs, but suggesting that we're just bored developers creating castles in the sky is really unhelpful.
CWL is a declarative/functional language for describing how to execute command line tools (staging input files, mapping arguments, collecting outputs) and how to connect the outputs of one tool to the inputs of the next. It is HPC and cloud agnostic. The same workflow description can run on a laptop or on 1000 cloud compute nodes. Lots of people are already using it to solve their problems, for some examples see https://github.com/search?q=extension%3Acwl+cwlVersion
CWL project co-founder here. It's funny, I have been trying to start a discussion of CWL on HN for years, obviously someone else had to do it.
The goal is to provide a way to describe dataflow processes that is highly portable, auditable, and reproducible. This is incredibly important in research, clinical, and regulatory domains where you need to be able to show how you came up with a result.
It's not a general purpose language on purpose, and operational concerns like notifications are the domain of specific implementations (engines).
I agree the syntax is horrible (and I designed most of it) but it also makes it easy to write programs that read and write CWL, enabling an ecosystem. For example, here is a transpiled languages that emits CWL: