TechNom (nobody)

Solid state physics.

That makes me wonder! All these new GPU uses are enormous energy hogs. Is gaming like that too?

While I understand your point, there’s a mistake that I see far too often in the industry. Using Relational DBs where the data model is better suited to other sorts of DBs. For example, JSON documents are better stored in document DBs like mongo. I realize that your use case doesn’t involve querying json - in which it can be simply stored as text. Similar mistakes are made for time series data, key-value data and directory type data.

I’m not particularly angry at such (ab)uses of RDB. But you’ll probably get better results with NoSQL DBs. Even in cases that involve multiple data models, you could combine multiple DB software to achieve the best results. Or even better, there are adaptors for RDBMS that make it behave like different types at the same time. For example, ferretdb makes it behave like mongodb, postgis for geographic db, etc.

Nobody ever learned from the solarwinds attack. If a massive amount of your infrastructure is backed by some obscure software, bad actors will either try to insert a backdoor or find a zero-day exploit. If people are going to neglect what just happened, crowdstrike will fall heals up, faster than solarwinds did.

I don’t think that rust would have prevented this one, since this isn’t a compile time error (for the code loader).The address dereferencing would have been inside an unsafe block. What was missing was a validity check of the CI build artifacts and payload check on the client side.

I do however, think that the ‘fingers-crossed’ approach to memory safety in C and C++ must stop. Rust is a great fit for this use case.

I wish there was something more interesting to do there.

You are not expected to remember a v6 address - or even v4 for that matter. They are designed for machines. DNS is designed for humans.

What do you do on the yggdrasil network?

Python decided to use a single convention (semantic whitespace) instead of two separate ones for machine decodeable scoping and manual/visual scoping. That’s part of Python’s design principle. The program should behave exactly like what people expect it to (without strenuous reasoning exercises).

But some people treat it as the original sin. Not surprised though. I’ve seen developers and engineers nurture weird irrational hatred towards all sorts of conventions. It’s like a phobia.

Similar views about yaml. It may not be the most elegant - it had to be the superset of JSON, after all. But Yaml is a semi-configuration language while JSON is a pure serialization language. Try writing a kubernetes manifest or a compose file in pure JSON without whitespace alignment or comments (which pure JSON doesn’t support anyway). Let’s see how pleasant you find it.

They aren’t talking about using recursion instead of loops. They are talking about the map method for iterators. For each element yielded by the iterator, map applies a specified function/closure and collects the results in a new iterator (usually a list). This is a functional programming pattern that’s common in many languages including Python and Rust.

This pattern has no risk of stack overflow since each invocation of the function is completed before the next invocation. The construct does expand to some sort of loop during execution. The only possible overhead is a single function call within the loop (whereas you could have written it as the loop body). However, that won’t be a problem if the compiler can inline the function.

The fact that this is functional programming creates additional avenues to optimize the program. For example, a chain of maps (or other iterator adaptors) can be intelligently combined into a single loop. In practice, this pattern is as fast as hand written loops.

People are quick to judge without considering the circumstances. Wasn’t the customer’s attitude equally wrong? Aren’t you implying that the service person should have let her bully him?

I’m yet to hear anyone saying that chatGPT can navigate the complex series of design decisions needed to create a cohesive app (unless of course, it was trained on something exactly the same). Many people report spending an inordinate amount of time rectifying the mistakes these LLMs make. It sounds like a glorified autofill (I haven’t used them yet). I shudder to think about the future of the software ecosystem if an entire generation is trained to rely entirely on them to create code.

Wow! You are so deluded, thinking of yourself as a cool new kid with cool new tech (Discord) fighting against old people. What you don’t get is that people are protesting the use of Discord for something it’s not suited to. There’s no generation gap in it. The best of the youngest developers I know have the same opinion. Perhaps it’s time for you to reflect on your own standing.