Hey everyone, I've been doing AI related development, training and building at a mid-to-large enterprise company for the last year. I wrote this article to offer my perspective on the ever changing landscape in AI currently. I'm interested in having more discussions about where we're headed as an industry and how this is impacting everyone.
>No, we wouldn't magically have developed modern computer-controlled battery packs of lithium ion batteries in 1920 if we just wanted it hard enough.
That's not what the commenter said. Don't put your interpretation of the words into theirs.
It is very feasible that the investment of 100-some-odd years of battery research and a marked non-future invested as deeply into oil and gas as we have now would have rendered our entire world vastly different. This is not a claim that the future would have happened sooner, but rather the events that unfolded and the research would have been different.
You can't be a one man band, but if the organisation supports it, you can achieve both. In my experience, it doesn't need to be a trade off. We can get close to the users and program to your hearts content. We need the right company and environment to want to invest in that for us. There's a great loop we can get into by doing things like offering demos of new features to clients weekly or bi-weekly. What I've seen happen is that we don't need to code as much because we know the specific problems that need to be solved, rather than loads of guesswork and trying to write blanket solutions for misunderstood problems.
Can you explain any of the technical details around this perchance? I'm super curious. I know that SO_REUSEPORT[1] exists but is that the only little trick to make this work? From what I've read with SO_REUSEPORT it can open up that port to hijacking by rogue processes, so is that fine to rely on?
This article doesn't add up the points to anything that solves for the given problem. Owning identity isn't solved by saying "don't trust ${third party}! Come trust ${my preferred third party}, it's better!" Any blockchain is still a third party that all parties involved with need to place trust in. It isn't somehow more or less trustworthy just because it exists.
> Many people, including myself, believe that the individual should be able to own their own identity.
Yes, this is nice wishful thinking, but on a global scale it's not really possible or feasible.
> OAuth2 should be used for what it was intended to, which is for a web service to provide another web service with a user’s data given that user’s consent. It should not be used as a global digital identifier because that’s too important to be owned by anyone but the individual themselves.
So, instead of OAuth being in the hands of FAANG[1] it's in the hands of ${blockchain-of-the-year}? How does moving the trust from a centralized company to a centralized blockchain change MY ownership? If I move everything away from FAANG to someone's blockchain, I have no assurance that chain will continue existing. If there's a flaw found in it and everyone moves to another chain, now what? Sure, we can make the same claim about FAANG not continuing to exist, but the point is there's no inherent advantage here, they're equal. FAANG are supported by millions of individuals and companies that are all, together invested in their success. There's no unilateral agreement on blockchains and I doubt there ever will be.
>With social recovery, instead of having to trust Google, you can choose who you trust, and instead trust a given set of friends, family, and services.
Again with the trust this and not that. All of my friends, family and other services need to then agree that they're all going to trust ${chain} instead of FAANG. It doesn't fix the problem. "the blockchain" isn't just one thing. Who's chain do we all shift trust to and from and based on what security? At least with Google I can rely on their security because if they end up with a breach of trust it's going to have a massive, real impact on share prices and consumer trust around the globe. That's incentive enough for me to rely on it day-to-day.
This article has some interesting tidbits but overall seems like just a baseless rally against FAANG by someone who knows very little about complex authentication or trust and security in the real world.
I don't mind the article, but one of the main points links a study from 2017 on school safety. Schools have become less safe since 2017. Since 2017, school shootings in the USA have skyrocketed [1].
I don't think it's a problem. It's another symptom of the min/maxing culture this article is taking aim at. There's a culture shift that's taken place in the last few years which says no one's allowed to complain unless they have a better solution. Seen it rearing it's head more recently in very rigid ways. From my observations, it kills creativity in it's tracks and instead of making everyone carefully consider what they complain about and solve problems better, it quashes anyone's ambition to say anything for fear of becoming a target. I've seen the targeting happen in such childish ways too. "If YOU think it's so shit, then YOU fix it."
Sounds like you need to use the reflog more often. git reflog keeps track of all changed references (branch tips, etc) being changed in your repository. You can effectively check back out into any state you want, whenever you want.
I've always looked at it this way as well. Echoing some other commenters here, I don't understand why he's polarizing. I haven't heard he himself present a lot of polarizing views on things. His guests on the other hand, some are absolutely off the charts in terms of how polar their views are.
The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
I don't disagree that they're a major contributor to Linux itself, however RHEL usage is plummeting over the last 5 years as stated in the article. Being a contributor and owning RHEL is really no advantage at this point.
Agreed. I think the worst part is that I'm a long ways from SF, but it leaks all over the tech communities everywhere. I know enough people who've lived there, pass through, visit friends, etc and even I understand from the other side of the country having never been.
Checking out your profiles on other social media, looks like the only thing you ever do is code related, so of course this article goes over your head.
Nothing in this article says "look how tough we have it". It's a thought provoking piece on how broken an entire city is, and just how tone deaf people like you are to all of it. You're so busy worrying about code and lack any sort of empathy with others that you can't possibly understand the perspective of anyone else.
If you paid attention to what's going on you'd see that a "6 figure job" equates to much less buying power in SF than living in other parts of the country because the cost of living in SF is out of control.
Detroit and Bangladesh have different problems, in different severity and scale, but their existence does not discount the perspective of others in their own situations.
>"I really want Redis to be a set of orthogonal data structures that the user can put together, and not a set of tools that are ready to use."
This is why I fell in love with Redis right from the beginning. Having a data store that gets out of the way and just gives you the structures (a lot like programming data structures) to do what you need feels awesome. Picking up the commands and putting them to use feels as natural as reaching for any vector/list/whatever structures I use anyway in my programs.
Thanks so much for everything you're doing antirez.
I have the same issues. Combined with that I'm hypothyroid, which can then compound the PVC symptoms when my dosage of thyroxine is off.
I'm sitting here reading this article thinking "My gods, I wouldn't wish this on anyone, forget about your heartbeat before it drags you into panic attacks!"
Indeed! At minimum we would need the Mars Dragon or Orion with a long range trunk attached to carry supplies and repair pieces. It would be really interesting to see an orbital pairing (a-la the Lunar Module/Command Module) for an L2 repair mission.
I'm unsure why this is being downvoted. I think it's a completely fair assessment given what happened with Hubble. At that time we had the Shuttle to head up and actually fix things that were broken. I have doubts that SLS is going to be as quick as they want it to be, and crewed Dragon isn't operational yet either. By the time this thing launches we might see trials of both, but certainly there won't be something readily available for service operations on the JWT at the time it launches.
There's an interesting video I've seen before showing it being recreated in a lab. I do not, however, know the origin or reasoning behind why it happens.
> we are still a long way from reaching the depths that Apple can go to before Apple fans will seriously consider an alternative.
You're literally proving the point here. There's much, much more transparency on the Android side of things. Custom ROMs and the stock Google Android images have been combed over for almost the last decade by loads of different individuals and groups around the world. Now, we surely don't control the Samsung-esque bloatware that they slap on top of stock Android, but there's absolutely no way there's throttling code that lives in Android that we don't know about yet.
Anecdotal evidence of my own: I have a Nexus 5 that's nearly 5 years old now that my kids use daily. It's using a stock Lineage ROM. The battery certainly isn't the best anymore, but the phone doesn't feel different than the day I bought it, and it doesn't crash.