nikitaga
MacOS versions are more commonly found in the low end of the market, e.g. Fusion 360.
> So they don't have to share the AI profits with foreigners who hold shares in the AI companies.
They can do it now. They don't, because it's not worth it. It won't be worth it in the future either. They'll have yet more to lose. Especially in this hypothetical scenario where their massive AI exports are what's paying for their economy – good luck getting your counter-parties to pay for your exports after you have decimated their economies and soured relationships over a one-time boost that will cover what, a couple years of US government spending at best?
> The USA has managed to dominate software for decades now. Why would it change? Take a look at the current datacenter investments in the USA vs other countries. It looks very much like the USA will even extend its lead.
- Because USA managed to dominate other industries for decades as well, only to lose them for one reason or another?
- Because China has shown its ability to dominate in other complex modern industries like EVs and drones... and software is not special, and they're already starting to out-compete US with cheaper open-weight AI models?
- Because trust in America has already shaken, and work to get off US software in other countries has already started, even if it's slow and will take a long time?
- Because the contents of datacenters have a useful life of only a few years, and over-spending hundreds of billions on first-generation inefficient datacenters may sooner result in a financial crash wiping out most of the industry, than build a meaningful long term moat?
- Because US doesn't even produce the chips that power said datacenters, whereas China, their main geopolitical competitor, is working full time to develop their own chips, while militarily posturing against the island next door where all America-bound chips are made, at a time when US ability and will to do anything about that seem to be at an all-time low?
- Because after enough iterations, the AI race may eventually boil down to in large part to competition on the cost of electricity, in which US is at a disadvantage?
US is not going to willingly default on its debt or violate investors' property rights. That's just a fantasy that got nothing going for it.
And why would they want to default on their debts in this hypothetical future where they've "made it", raking in AI profits from everyone. They would work hard to preserve that world order and not shake things up unnecessarily.
Wonder if they include this lego set as a gift with their real machines? Or are they like – our commercial agreement is worth $400M and not a lego set above that.
Any actual evidence of the alleged scope of this problem, or just anecdotes from devs who are mad at AI, blown out of proportion?
Yes, for the vast majority of the internet, serving traffic is near zero marginal cost. Not for LLMs though – those requests are orders of magnitude more expensive.
This isn't controversial at all, it's a well understood fact, outside of this irrationally angry thread at least. I don't know, maybe you don't understand the economic term "marginal cost", thus not understanding the limited scope of my statement.
If such DDOSes as you mention were common, such a scraping strategy would not have worked for the scraper at all. But no, they're rare edge cases, from a combination of shoddy scrapers and shoddy website implementations, including the lack of even basic throttling for expensive-to-serve resources.
The vast majority of websites handle AI traffic fine though, either because they don't have expensive to serve resources, or because they properly protect such resources from abuse.
If you're an edge case who is harmed by overly aggressive scrapers, take countermeasures. Everyone with that problem should, that's neither new nor controversial.
The former relies on fairly controversial ideas about copyright and fair use to qualify as abuse, whereas the latter is direct financial damage – by your own direct competitors no less.
It's fun to poke at a seeming hypocrisy of the big bad, but the similarity in this case is quite superficial.
It's a great language, I've been working with it for 10 years now. Full stack Scala with Scala.js on the frontend is so very nice. My experience is mostly in fintech & healthcare startups where the language helped us get correctness, refactorability, clarity, and high velocity at the same time without blowing up the team size.
Initially I learned Scala on the job, but I've been writing open source Scala for years since then. It's a cool language to learn and explore ideas in, since it has lots of elegantly integrated features (especially FP + OOP).
Scala may not be the #1 most popular language, and that's fine. Popular stuff surely gets the benefits of funding and attention, and sometimes lacking such support is really annoying, like a few years ago when Scala 3 was first released, the IDEs took a looong time to catch up. But I still choose Scala despite those occasional annoyances, even though I also have years of experience in JS / TS and other languages. It's just a much better tool for my needs.
You don't need to buy a Windows Watch to get ads on Windows though. They'll be right there anyway, and more of them.
If you are choosing to use Apple online services, sure, you'll get upsells I guess, as with any other online service. I don't use any of Apple's online services, and never see those ads.
The things that are harming me are a lot more complicated than that, but people don't have the attention span to be educated about such complex issues. It's easier than ever to spread "education" now. The fact that it doesn't stick is not some grand conspiracy – most people simply don't care.
Example: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4230288
We haven't invented a governance structure yet that would be immune to this, although some are better than others. I'm sure the current social media algorithms are harmful as well. You can ban viral algorithms, but the hostile actors whose literal job it is to drive polarization / populism will just find other strategies to effectively deliver their message.
"Education" is nice and all, but millions of people keep smoking despite the obvious harm and decades of education, not to mention the many limitations, taxes, and bans. I mention smoking as an obviously-bad-thing that everyone knows is bad. Education succeeded, and yet, here we are, still puffing poison. But you can also look already-polarized political topics. There's been no shortage of education on those topics either, but if that worked well enough, we wouldn't be decrying populism right now.
When I append "reddit" to my google search query, I'm not looking for "disagreement and debate". I'm looking for specific information on non-political topics, such as repairing my car, finding a good product in the sea of garbage, or learning new techniques. Such topics are typically discussed cooperatively rather than adversarially. For this stuff, consensus-seeking is a feature not a bug, and where the consensus appears inadequate, I'm well capable of looking past the top post. Reddit's format is not perfect, but it's better than having to read through a 30-page thread in which most messages are irrelevant to most other messages. Such threads are linear only artificially through a UI that hides the structure of the underlying conversations.
If you don't like the upvotes aspect of reddit, we could settle on the same nested format but without sorting by upvotes. But with forums, we don't even have that.
Reddit's comments aren't one-liners because Reddit's format encourages that, it's because it's the most popular site where everyone goes. If forums were as widely popular, they would see the same people making the same comments there too.
20 years after Reddit started, the best that the forums can offer is perhaps discourse.org, which is barely any better than traditional forums – sleeker UI for sure, but it's still fundamentally the same unworkable linear format. It's like sticking to magnetic tapes in the age of SSDs.
Even Facebook, one of the dumbest discussion platforms, has nested comments. Terribly implemented of course, but how does the platform designed for the lowest-common-denominator kind of user have more advanced discussion features than forums made for discussion connoisseurs? It is utterly baffling.
I mean, yes, but you're the one making this comparison, saying that WCs lack reactivity etc.
Web Components are an extension of the DOM – a low level browser API. They are similarly low level. That's expected. I don't need or expect them to be something more.
I am happy that I can use any reactivity system I want to implement a Web Component. That's a feature, not a bug. Having implemented a reactivity system myself, I know that there isn't a perfect one, the design is full of tradeoffs, and I'd rather not have a blessed implementation in the browser, because it will inevitably turn out to be flawed, yet we won't be able to retire it because "we can't break the web". A blessed implementation like that would benefit from network effects just like React does, and would have all the same problems as React, plus the inability to rapidly innovate due to the browser's unique backwards compatibility concerns. I'd rather ship an extra 3KB and avoid all those problems.
Being able to use a different library with a component, instead of the component being tied to React, is the whole point.
React isn't 100x more popular because its reactivity system or any other feature is 100x better. Half the reason it's popular is network effects – too many frontend components / libraries are made React-only even though they don't need to be React-specific.
Those network effects are the trap, not the reactivity system that's as good as any other for the purpose of writing a Web Component. If you don't want to use simple and small tools like Lit.js, that's fine, but that's your choice, not a limitation of Web Components.
The point of Web Components is not to provide a blessed state management or virtual DOM implementation that will have to stay in JS stdlib forever, it's to make the components you author compatible with most / all UI libraries. For that goal, I don't know of a better solution.
Scala has two main camps, one is purist FP (cats / zio / etc.), another is plain Scala, banking on ergonomic OOP+FP fusion. Neither of those is the default. FP advocates are more vocal online but that's because they need a bunch of libraries (thus more OSS work) to make that approach work, whereas the other camp just uses plain Scala and simpler libraries that aren't reinvented every 5 years, so their online presence is not as apparent.
If you need to know category theory concepts like Monad / Semigroup / etc. in order to understand your code, you're not doing regular Scala, you're doing Haskell-style FP in Scala. Which is a popular choice that many people swear by, but is entirely optional. Personally I don't think the complexity of that approach is worth it, and we don't use any of that stuff at work, and still reap the benefits of Scala.
Scala is a true multi-paradigm language, it does not have a monoculture. Lots of people who use Scala don't use highly abstract FP libraries. I very much don't think that the OOP side of Scala is the language designers' concession for the sake of broad appeal. Seamless fusion of FP and OOP is the essence of Scala, and it works great for that without any third party libraries. The designers' attitude is evidenced by the libraries created by their companies (e.g. Play, Akka) and by the learning materials, both of which lean heavily on plain Scala without going off the deep end with FP libs.
Kotlin as a language is also closer to Java on the Haskell <---> Scala <---> Java spectrum. We just don't want to move in either direction on that spectrum, Scala sits perfectly where it makes sense to us.
It's interesting that some people here are saying that Java's recent improvements will eat into Scala's market, when actually, it seems that it will eat into Kotlin first.
In terms of talent there is definitely some self-selection as with any non-default tech stack. Scala is a sharp tool and there are both people who are attracted to it for the pragmatic utility of its sharpness, and people who are attracted to it for wanting to play with sharp things. Both types are smart but the latter group have given Scala a bad rep in the past for being too smart and thus writing code that was too clever for others to understand. But nowadays the general vibe in the talent pool is a lot more pragmatic.
Working in a single language across frontend and backend is amazing, especially when the language is so nice. Sharing models, codecs, validations, etc. And again – all of that in a very friendly language. Scala's expressive yet safe type system is very good at describing the business domain, encoding constraints, etc.
The only weakness of Scala.js I would say is it takes a bit more effort to integrate with JS libs. The mechanism is the same as with Typescript – just need the type definitions, but in practice it needs a bit of manual work. It's not a big deal though because with Scala.js you don't really do the 200-npm-dependencies thing that so many JS projects are cursed with. Lots of stuff comes with the language or from nice Scala libraries, including immutable data structures, powerful collections, validations, state management, etc.
Scala has somewhat of a reputation for being complex, but the language itself is ecstatic in its simplicity and elegance. The problem historically lied in certain functional programming libraries that require a certain formal / academic mindset to work with. They did become more ergonomic and better documented with time, but those are still very advanced concepts for most devs. I did work with such a codebase, and I have to admit it was not the easiest. But that was before AI – nowadays it's a lot easier for me to figure out these things. But I don't need to, at my current job we don't use them. So I would advise to learn Scala the language before going off the deep end into hardcore FP libraries. That's a completely optional destination that you don't need to force onto yourself if that kind of style doesn't jive with you.
Speaking of AI, I've been asking both ChatGPT and more recently Claude about Scala 3 and about functional programming libraries, and they're pretty good. I don't "vibe code" so don't know about that, just asking for code snippets or for explanations.
I don't know if I personally agree with that, I've had a better experience with Akka (even raw actors) than with FP libraries, but what I mentioned is definitely the general vibe in the publicly active part of the community that's I'm observing. We gotta keep in mind that there are lots of companies and devs that never talk about what they're doing in public, so of course my perception is biased by that.
My own expertise is shifting more and more to the frontend / Scala.js these days, so please forgive/correct any inaccuracies.
But akka aka pekko is still perfectly usable.
Scala is perhaps not going to replace Java in every old enterprise, but in my personal experience working for startups, it's been an awesome force multiplier for small teams who need to productively pump out safe and ergonomic code. Finance, health systems, etc. And yet it's also ergonomic and pleasant enough for me to eagerly use it in my non-mission-critical personal projects as well.
So, how do you suggest she managed to enter the US after November in order to have remained there illegally? Did the CBP, who have just revoked her visa a few days/weeks prior, just let her in on a tourist visa? That does not sound very believable, even for the previous US administration.
And what do you suggest her plan was? Previously she was on TN work visa. You seem to think that after having her TN visa revoked, she managed to get into the US on a 90-day tourist visa instead (thus working there illegally), which is why she needed to run for the border after 3 months, and why she was detained when trying to re-enter. But what kind of plan is that – to run for the border every 90 days after having your TN visa revoked. That is such an obvious recipe for failure, nobody who employs an immigration lawyer – like that lady – would have gone ahead with it.
I've definitely seen other headlines overselling similar detention stories for rage bait, but I don't see much wiggle room in this case.