> ? You managed to buy a router in 2024 that doesn't support IPv6?
I have a netgear Orbi at home that works just fine, but when I turn on IPv6 it loses internet connectivity after a few hours and takes minutes to reset. Not wanting to be bothered with it, and not having a need for IPv6 I just turned it off. That setup is about a year old.
One of the challenges I see in general is that languages don't have enough capabilities to express intent of lifetimes / control flow. What I mean by that is that there is a significant difference between spawning a thread with the intention of joining, allocating memory with the intention of only lasting to the end of the request etc. vs spawning a permanent background thread or stashing away an object into a global cache.
This is starting to really become a problem in the observability space and async locals. Node.js for instance currently will keep async locals around for too long of a time because they are propagated everywhere. For instance if you call `console.log` in a promise you will leak an async local forever.
Next.js famously keeps around way too many async locals past the request boundary for caching related reasons.
A solution would be to have a trampoline to call things through that make it explicit that everything happening past that point is supposed to "detach" from the current flow. An allocator or a context local system can then use that information to change behavior.
> Physical objects decay to the fundamental forces of nature, but that is a flaw, not something we should emulate.
That is explicitly called out in the article and I do not agree with you. Useful information is replicated, less useful information tends to die out. That we threw away that concept entirely in the digital world without a good replacement has some pretty strong downsides from my experience.
And if you read what I wrote in more detail you can see that I'm very open to the idea of soft deletes and intentional information hiding.
Information that is known to be useful is sometimes replicated. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone#Rediscovery was abused and damaged; only four incomplete copies were gradually found by luck after two millennia. There are entire academic fields trying to learn things about our history by digging up stuff that was thrown away or abandoned.
I don't see how the headline is "inflammatory". You might disagree with the headline and the content and that is fine, however both headline and content reflects what I believe a core capability of (at least a significant number) of software products should be.
You think a core capability of software should be that it loses your data? That's like saying a core capability of shoes should be tacks under the sole.
Of course you don't really think that. What software do you use that loses your data. Don't say something that cycles data out of a cache or lets you delete data, because that wouldn't be losing it.
No one forced them to write a comment without reading the article. And it’s not a small point that the author corrected them on; multiple paragraphs addressed thoughts like archiving to make searching old things intentional, and soft deletes.
Also I didn’t read a scolding tone in the author’s response. And calling it an “inflammatory headline” is quite a stretch: this is a post tagged “thoughts” in someone’s personal blog, not a headline in the New York Times.
Why would you not? Tesla is sending even the infortainment data stream through that bus. It's incredibly helpful having all data travel on a singular wire because you can tap in at one point and read it all out. Makes the entire system significantly easier to debug, understand and develop against.
> while I'm bottlenecked by a slow, unreliable Internet connection (and the lack of a good way to tell Pip not to check PyPI for new versions and only consider what's currently in the wheel cache).
Which is one of the reasons why uv is so fast. It reduces the total times it needs to go to PyPI! Not only does it cache really well, it also hits PyPI more efficiently and highly parallel. Once you resolved once, future resolutions will likely bypass PyPI for the most part entirely.
Oh, that's good to hear. The performance discourse around uv seems to revolve around "written in Rust! Statically compiled!" all the time, but an algorithmic change like that is something that could conceivably make its way back into Pip. (Or perhaps into future competing tools still written in Python. I happen to have a design of my own.)
> The F150 and the Cybertruck is so far apart in terms of the type of vehicle they are that I can't really understand how they are used in the same conversation. It makes 0 sense to me to say "I'm going with the F150 instead", because it's not the same class of vehicles.
Are they not both trucks? What am I missing in that they are not the same class of vehicle?
A truck is arguably a work machine for many people. It's a tool designed to be used as such. I dont think the Cybertruck is a tool in that regard, because it clearly fails at the most basic "truck things", if the general internet is to be believed.
Now, if aesthetic is the primary factor here, the CB probably trumps the F150, by a huge margin, and one would not even consider something like the F150 as a suitable replacement or equivalent.
The GP in my thread decided to replace their designer high heels fashion statement for some boring hiking boots, because the heels did not fare well when walking long distances.
> Now, if aesthetic is the primary factor here, the CB probably trumps the F150
there is no accounting for taste, and IMO all teslas are ugly as sin
it's an ugly, overweight, overpriced meme car hyped by tech bros and internet bots. it can't truck, in any meaningful sense, and can't even handle carwashes. like a 2017 Mazda 3 is more rugged and reliable.
I'm explicitly not buying an EV yet because there are no massive savings on gas where I am for the amount I drive. My current car cost like $12k used, and at the time a comparable electric used car would have been like $23k (and would have had like a 80-100 mile range, which I would have been fine with). But we spend like an average of $400/yr on gas and $75/yr on oil changes and extra maintenance above what an EV needs, so we'd be looking at 10++ years of difference to break. Even assuming free electricity and no higher licensing fees (which combined would be more like $200/yr). So actually more like 20++ years to break even there (which is basically not happening).
If I lived in an area where gas cost $20/gallon instead of $4/gallon, then it would change the math a little - it would be a net of more like $1300/yr, and I might actually spend less on an EV in the long run (7 years to break even, assuming 0 opportunity cost on the $9k).
If I spent $20/gallon on gas and also drove 12k miles / yr instead of 3k miles / yr, then it becomes a much better proposition.
I don't think EVs make sense yet for saving money unless you drive a lot; e.g. are doing Uber, and even then a Prius might make more sense. I bought mine for fun driving, they just simply drive better than ICEs, but it wasn't a financially beneficial decision.
The massive savings aren't always massive. If you use fast chargers frequently, it's going to cost you. In contrast if you use a slow charger regularly at home, then you'll save money. But that's not really an option for road trips.
And they did.
The question is though why only Netflix should benefit from that. It takes a lot of effort to recompile an entire Linux distribution.
reply