I would not have guessed that iOS allows enough access to APIs to implement anything vpp-based. Very cool to see. I also enjoyed working with vpp (for the brief 6 months that I had with it).
I was thinking that's hard, but I noticed that vpp get ported to FreeBSD using epoll shim library, and I learnt apple Darwin use some some userland of FreeBSD to do POSIX compatibility, then after some tests and hacking, most related to minor POSIX API adaptation such as mmap and one major coroutine need add some assembly code, and it work! But I think most disappointed to me is that apple do lack some vectorized network IO unless do some kernel extension or other sort non standard ways.
>I strongly disagree. How is everything being called an object in any way "heavily OOP
Do I need to spell it out? The O in OOP stands for object.Everything is an object therefore it is Object Oriented.
It's not much more complex than that man.
And I don't mean that it supports users writing oop code, I mean that the lang, interpreter and library are themselves written with oop. Inheritance? Check. Classes? Check. Objects? Check. Even classes are an object of type MetaClass.
Don't know if you need to compile, you might want to but I think interpreting might seem reasonable if size/complexity is a concern.
Is the runtime really that large? I know with wasm 2.0 with garbage collection and exceptions is a bit of a beast but wasm 1.0? What's needed (I'm speaking from a place of ignorance here, I haven't implemented a WASM runtime)? Some contiguous memory, a stack machine, IEEE float math and some utf-8 operations. I think you can add some reasonable limitations like only a single module and a handful of available imports relevant to the domain.
I know that feature creep would almost inevitably follow, but if someone cares about minimizing complexity it seems possible.
Could you try to address the obvious point being made instead of trying to obfuscate?
There's plenty of bad outcomes besides death. Not all fentanyl users die. If some fent wholesaler were to provide unrefutable evidence that Noone died from his fent you wouldn't go "Oh alright then, nothing wrong with what you're doing".
Very appropriate as well because the machines are given a bunch of feed to digest multiple times and to spew it out the other end as a big steaming pile.
You can math that out pretty well.
If your code has a breakage chance of 50% and your dependencies all have a breakage chance of 1% then with 70 dependecies you get to 50.5% breakage chance from dependencies.
I don't think you're arguing against anything that was said in that post.
There was never an "at all cost". The author was hedging even in the headlines ("indiscriminately", "before you know you need one" and "always, always").
You make it sound like there isn't a very wide range of solutions between "just write html files" and "use a complete website framework". There's a space in there where a large percentage of web projects used to be located in.
You can already subscribe to projects or single issues/PRs on github and reply via email to post comments.
I can understand not wanting to use GitHub/GitLab/etc. for various reasons. But I don't understand how usability vs mailing lists is one.
How is a set of 9+ mailing lists any better? It has significantly worse discovery and search tools unless you download all the archives. So you're creating a hurdle for people there already.
Then you have people use all kinds of custom formatting in their email clients, so consistent readability is out the window.
People will keep top-posting (TOFU), transforming the inconsistent styles in the process. Creating an unnecessarily complicated problem for your email client to "detect quotes", or you have to keep reminding people.
Enforcing structure of any kind in email lists seems so tedious. I'm not advocating for bugzilla style "file out these 20 nonsensical fields before you can report anything" but some minimal structure enforced by some tooling as opposed to manual moderation seems very helpful to me.
It's not about usability for newcomers (a mailing list is really not ideal for them) but usability for regular contributors and especially for lengthy discussions.
Call me old fashioned but there is no better way of discussing stuff online in an asynchronous way (OTOH video calls are better, but face to face doesn't scale) than a threaded medium. We don't have a better tool to manage threaded discussions than what mail clients (or Usenet clients but they are almost identical in handling).
Linear discussion forums (which GitHub issues are) are just inferior.
I was looking for the current state of the art of component testing for angular. After reading a bunch of drama around playwright and component testing I stumbled across this unrelated blog post.
I liked the cute web page idea for the app under test. Was a neat diversion. I just liked the blog post and wanted to share.
It reeks of some navel-gazing self-aggrandizing. I bet not even half the people doing the hand-wringing over how some matrix multiplications might feel are vegan or regularly spare a thought about how their or their companies consumption behavior indirectly leads to real human suffering.
It's just so absurd how narrowly their focus on preventing suffering is. I almost can't imagine a world where their concern isn't coming from a disingenious place.
I'm not highly concerned but I think there is merit in at least contemplating this problem. I believe that it would be better to reduce suffering in animals, but I am not vegan because the weight of my moral concern for animals does not outweigh my other priorities.
I believe that it doesn't really matter whether consciousness comes from electronics or cells. If something seems identical to what we consider consciousness, I will likely believe it's better to not make that thing suffer. Though ultimately it's still just a consideration balanced among other concerns.
I too think there is merit in exploring to what degree conciousness can be approximated by or observed in computational systems of any kind. Including neural networks.
But I just can't get over how fake and manipulative the framing of "AI welfare" or concern over suffering feels.
That's reasonable, I certainly believe that there are many fake and manipulative people who say what's best for their personal gain, perhaps even the majority. But I still think it's reasonable to imagine that there are some people are genuinely concerned about this.
reply