ajross
The fact that your mental model of running your foreign Ubuntu software is "in containers" tells me you're probably mostly running backend/cloudy stuff. And yeah, that's largely a solved problem thanks to Docker (and for the same reason, "Dockerfile" is now a standard platform that everyone integrates and documents for by default).
Again, it's not like this can't be done from other distros, it's that it's fiddly and the instructions and defaults are all going to be for Ubuntu LTS.
Exactly. There's room for considered differences of opinion, but that consideration requires discorse and explanation! The lack of communication here is just absolutely baffling. It's like they're deliberately trying to trash their own brand.
I mean, seriously what's going on? We know they have a process for emergency kernel updates, because of course they do. If they're not going to pull the trigger on this particular one (that everyone else is pulling the trigger on) at least make the case.
Are those fatal flaws? No. But lots of people just don't want to deal with it. And there's a market for that.
My gut says this is a sudden icing incident. Folks are pointing out that they appear to have flown straight into the center of a cell at altitude. A developing thunderstorm is MUCH warmer than the surrounding air, because the water condensing out of the rising/cooling mass buffers the temperature (due to heat of fusion). It can even be supersaturated ("higher than 100% humidity") if this happens fast enough. The water vapor is just desperate for a nucleation site to condense on.
So you have a situation where a metal jet body that is maybe 30C colder than the medium suddenly flies through this soup. It can ice over in seconds to minutes, and the plane ends up with bricks for wings and much more weight than it was designed for, and simply can't stay in the air. Then it dives inexorably.
I know decorum here disfavors talking about specific parties and actors, and this thread is 100% sideways. Nonetheless this kind of attitude is at best only a stepping stone to recovery. You can't both-sides your way through a constitutional crisis.
Not by Sam Altman, surely. Hypocrisy is an individual sin, you don't get out of it because everyone else thinks you're wrong.
To murder the humor: the joke is funny because the idea that we should centrally plan resource usage for the benefit of society as a whole and discourage/disallow individually driven use of those resources for individually popular but socially wasteful applications is... communism, basically.
You can repeat this analysis for pickup trucks or cross-continent travel or desert agriculture, ad nauseum. And we do. And people like Sam Altman tend very strongly to be on one side of the argument. Until they need more DRAM, then it's all "let's pull together comrades".
Yes, obviously, the subprime crisis was long in the making and has deep root causes. But the bank runs of 2008 and the frozen global financial system were 100% preventable, as they were a confidence shock (not a fundamentals thing) stemming from the sudden uncertainty due to Lehman.
A little assistance from the Bush administration in 2008 would have very plausibly produced a much softer landing and required a lot fewer bailouts overall. This really isn't controversial.
"Let them fail" is almost always the worst thing to do.
I'm lost, are you arguing against Binance or against freezable crypto? Both "control" you! There are like three billion dollars out there in presumably-north-Korean-hands that their owners thought they "controlled". They didn't.
So given the choice, yeah, I'd like some safety please.
There are no good answers here. But pointing fingers and assigning blame is for sure one of the worst ways to do the analysis.
The feature literally appears to have just saved over two billion USD from being stolen! I mean, fine, "disgusting" is subjective. But the need for the feature is real and quantifiable (and very large) and it did what it advertised.
Yeah, but again you don't reach for C when you have a string or hash-based logic problem, which is the reason that other platforms are favored. You reach for Python[1] to solve those problems, and it works fine.
You reach for C when you care about cache footprint or memory layout. You reach for C when you need SIMD parallelism. You reach for C when you care about doing the math in single precision or 32 bit integers and will handle the precision worries yourself.
You emphatically don't reach for python (or Lua) in those situations. But notably you can reach for numba, and implement your small core of performance code in python next to the other logic you already have. And there's value there.
Screaming about using Lua instead is just nonresponsive. Lua is arguably better at performance code than Python. Lua is absolutely not faster than numba, nor will it ever be (absent a numba-like translation layer) and repeatedly trying to argue so is very much missing the point.
[1] Or fine, Lua or JS or whatever. But I'm trying deeply not to let this turn into a frothing language flame, and this is after all a python discussion.
But no, that's silly. The folks running these protests are the same population that's been protesting law enforcement in other contexts forever, and ACAB is a founding principle. They know as a matter of unshakable faith that the fuzz will cheat and lie and commit atrocities, and the the paradigm of the protest is to catch them in the act.
So failing to apply that to your IT work is... bad praxis, sorry. The one argument I can see here is if they actually wanted to get caught to troll an article just like this one. Which would make the operator in question a martyr and not a dummy, I guess.
So here's a meta-benchmark: at what point does the act of choosing an LLM product for a reasoning task become less reliable (in the sense of "predictive of future success") than hiring a human being for that same task? Have we already cross that threshold? I think we might have.
And once we do... what happens then? Will the truly elite models be hidden in a sea of mediocrities simply because the goofball "managers" doing the hiring are too dumb to recognize their genius?
Isn't that basically what I said? Lua isn't "proper C speed", nor is PyPy, the cancelled Python JIT in question, nor even V8. That's a different problem area with different technologies. The fact that you like coding backend stuff in Lua or whatever isn't really saying much about whether numba is great.
But it is. Numba is great.
The upthread comment was about an idea for "inline Cython", which was then hijacked because that's largely what numba is. These are technologies aimed at optimized native code running over native types to do stuff like numerics and ML and other HPC tasks. Lua isn't any more responsive to this domain than Javascript has been, it's not really the subject under discussion.
So the way you treat that is by calling out and resisting the attempts to weaponize the government in new ways, not just throwing up your hands because it was "eventually" going to be used anyway. No, it's bad. You should say that it's bad and take action to oppose it.
You can argue the warrant was poorly justified (and I'd agree!), but I don't see a plausible world where "ISPs aren't allowed to do connection analysis on their own networks" is going to help anyone. Well, anyone except spammers. They'd love that.
Maybe, but the world is still waiting for the counterexample. Python is simply not a runtime well-suited to optimization.
In the meantime, those of us who actually enjoy real HPC problems are using numba and rolling our eyes about all the confuffery around JITs. Maybe one will arrive that proves us wrong, but numba is fast today.
Is it? An object field access in python is a dynamic hash lookup followed by a method call as a fallback (itself involving hashed lookups up the class hierarchy). That's not an "interpreter vs. native" kind of thing, that's just the semantics of the language that have to be preserved. And that's just not going to be "fast" in the way that the user of a JIT would want. Code dominated by Python datastructures is going to be "slow" in ways that JITs can't fix, ever.
Which is why Python appears to have given up on the effort in this space. PyPy too[1] really never delivered on the desired performance gains (like 5x or so on typical code) without forcing the user into careful optimization.
Numba, to its credit, doesn't even try. It falls back to python if it must for python stuff, but is quite clear that it's providing no benefit if that's what you're doing. And the stuff it does do is obvious and clean and extremely useful.
[1] PyPy is also looking pretty moribund recently.
Folks, numba is great. To first approximation: write your python function to "look like C"[1] and work over the numpy arrays you probably understand, put a "@jit" decorator on it, and you're done. It JITs and runs your code natively at native performance.
With some extra effort, there are features for SIMD vectorization and thread parallelism, and even GPU backends (that, full disclosure, I've been pretty frustrated by -- but they do work).
[1] Which is to say, don't touch Python interpreter data structures. No dicts or objects or lists or strings, etc... If you're bound by the interpreter[2] you're bound by the interpreter and nothing is going to help you.
[2] A corrolary here is that the kind of C code numba is NOT good for is "following pointers between structs", which is something that can't be expressed in either python or numpy.
The bottom line being that what you have amounts to a plausible security flaw. Which the market has been treating as such, reasonably effectively.
Yet you are all claiming that Google is literally offering "here's user data for sale at a price". Which they are not and never have. And that's not the same thing, and you know it.
It's one thing to claim a company's product is bad or insecure. It's quite another to lie about them. And fine, that produces a (sigh) "reactionary and emotional outburst". HN used to be so much better about rational discourse. Now it's all about who our enemies are.
Now, can you PLEASE try to restate your complaint in a way that isn't just a lie? Maybe construct it about how the "exploit" data that they hold internally? It can be done. But not like this. This is lying.
[1] I do note that you're the one caveating here, by trying to qualify "access" meaning "targeted adverts and content", which needless to say is not actually access to the data. Extensive attempts have been made over the years to try to deanonymize the ad feed (as often as not to get clicks at sites like this) and only a handful of holes have been found. There is no access to the data, period.
Then have that argument, please. If your argument is that "privacy impacts of advertising are bad and here's why Google's business model doesn't improve that" then that is one thing. Telling people that Google is selling your data is a lie.
It's fair to allege all kinds of externalities and privacy impacts and such around the advertiser-driven content economy. And HN is 100% here for that.
But this is stepping across the line into a simple lie. They don't sell data.
This is categorically false. I don't know what you're trying to allege here, but it's not that.
If you (an external entity in the example upthread, or just a random middle manager) walk up to Zuckerberg or Jassy with a proposal to tap their data for some comparatively small payment, they'd laugh in your face because they know how valuable what you're doing is and what the long term impact on their business will be. Samsung is far more likely to view that as "free money" and green light something awful.