You're right, of course, but there's little practical difference from doing `npm install` unless you're actually auditing the supply chain. It just automates a step.
Which isn't really a problem for simple one-file 'shell scripts'. For bigger projects, Deno already suggested to maintain all external imports in a central file.
I didn't think this would be quite so contentious. It's been great for me. I manage very distributed teams across multiple time zones, multiple language barriers, and heterogeneous platforms. It's difficult. Bun makes it easier because the features in the distribution are virtually guaranteed to work together and obviate the tooling version hell. I have fewer 1:1 setup meetings. I haven't had cross-platform issues. Finally, the speed is actually important on lower-tier hardware.
It's for the same reasons that I switched to biome. It's faster and reduces total dependencies. I very happy with this combo.
Is there more code tooling (linting, formatting, etc.) on the roadmap for bun, or are you focusing on the runtime features?
Can't just dismiss his 17 films as a grift. Even accepting all the valid criticisms where he misled audiences, his shockumentaries did try to educate, somewhat, but also stretched facts and went for a personalized narrative, Michael-Moore-style. He did leave a legacy of nearly single-handedly reviving documentary as a film genre relevant to nutrition, one that mainstream audiences would watch.
His sequel "Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken!" (2017) had fewer distortions and was pretty watchable and educational. Here's a review from
https://www.agdaily.com/livestock/poultry/super-size-me-2-mo...
which among other things covered in depth: "Many food labels, such as organic, natural, non-GMO, gluten-free, no added hormones, free range, green, artisan, antibiotic-free, are indeed quite misleading" and how those branding terms are misused in marketing to restaurant customers. I haven't seen any industry criticism of the segment with the two branding consultants.
That's pretty much the only legislation I'd support, i.e., a compulsory setting for chronological ordering of events, which effectively disables "the algorithm." Seems like it would be agreeable to media companies and pure libertarians alike.
I love this question. I was just thinking last night: do kids still carry around books? I have no clue what modern American primary education is like. I expect that I'll be surprised.
We get it, you don't like LLMs, but nothing of what you mentioned pertains to the point I made initially, which is that locking down one's own account does not prevent someone else from making their own.
Yes, I agree with you on the first point, but on the second, it's not always so easy to lock down devices, kids will always find a way around them if they want to, in my experience.
I mean, that's just shifting goal posts at this point; no one said anything about only using the free version. And anyway, Altman said they're losing money on the paid versions too, so I expect OpenAI to go under sometime in the next few years. They'll be like Xerox or Kodak, pioneering a novel innovation but ultimately failing to other bigger companies.
>ambitious young people thinking if they push for implementing those things they will be „real professionals”
This is a real problem. It can destroy a successful operation. I don't specifically want to blame "young" or any other particular attribute, but it's common in that ambitious corporate type. Hiring managers, especially in startups, should really think about a newcomer's background. If someone comes from services where the name of the game is billable hours, it is going to be ingrained that there are processes that exist to justify those hours. That fails when your client is your company.
"Let's just sync the data" is the reason why rough days exist, as far as I'm concerned. I've run into so many systems that were designed for "internet scale" or whatever that add queues, event processing, etc., when the natural range is so far below that threshold. These teams are either naive or, at worst, taking advantage of non-engineering management and funneling money toward playing with these problems for the fun of it.
That's sort of the point. The operative word is "just." In reality, it adds a huge subsystem that needs more resources than the overall system does. Rather than solve the underlying problem directly, they introduce (more interesting) problems to solve transitively via these complexities.
Ah, ok, I'm failing to communicate my point. The underlying problem in this scenario is something basic which doesn't require replication/sync at all. I'll use an actual example that fell on me a while back. There was an app that displayed a news feed. The theoretical upper limit of the volume, due to the size of audience, was hundreds of posts per day, while the practical number was dozens. The architecture was:
* postgresql as the system of record
* firestore as the upstream source for clients
* ES for full-text search
* client-side store for actual client-side reads
* http api for mutations
That required three sync systems: pg->firestore, pg->ES, and firestore->local store. Then it needed messages for the async mutations to propagate back to the clients. And then these things require more things to make them work, like data transformers to support the three different formats for each stage.
This certainly did not require some giant CQRS system and could have been built entirely on postgres. It was a fractal of code that didn't go toward the actual objective.
It is certainly not solving the problem. It is probably perpetuating it. Without the other complementary life-critical facilities, nothing changes.
These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto. If this did anything to address the actual problem, then there would be no homelessness problem in LA.
Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable. That's going to lead to hot political quarreling, so it's a good place to stop.
There is no chance that these can provide the full spectrum of services required for a person to thrive. We absolutely can't handle the upkeep on 100,000 one-person boxes. We need to make the shelters better. Many are terrible, but there are better ones, and a lot of that comes down to who is working there. Everyone who is able should make time to volunteer, even just a few shifts, to see what it is and how it can be improved. (It's also a good way to meet people in your city.)
It quite literally does solve the problem of people being unsheltered. It doesn’t solve the problem of people being effectively unable to care for themselves, but that’s a separate (and intertwined) problem from homelessness itself. You don't need to solve those problems at a shelter per se, and from what I recall only about 1/3 of homeless people are too addicted/mentally ill to care for themselves (these are just the most visibly homeless and the most likely to sleep rough), in which case this actually seems like a preferable arrangement compared to a group shelter for the 2/3 of homeless who literally just need a place to live.
> We can’t handle the upkeep
The main benefit of these is that they are effectively disposable, and they’re dispersed enough that you don’t have to deal with one person starting a flood or fire and wrecking a whole building.
If I were ever to become homeless I would much rather live in a tiny home than in a shelter, even if I had to go to a shelter or gym or something to take showers and interact with social workers. I feel like I’d never feel a sense of safety, privacy or autonomy in a shelter.
You can’t separate the services problem from the housing problem. These tiny houses need additional services for bathrooms showers and food nearby and for that you be viable you need 25-50 units near each other.
>Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable. That's going to lead to hot political quarreling, so it's a good place to stop.
Most of those services are available AFAIK, there's charities in most major Canadian cities that provide those basics. Without them the homeless population would probably be triple what you can see, and from what I've heard the majority just need it short term to get back on their feet.
But they can only offer those to people without substance abuse problems (drugs and alcohol are banned in those shelters), and those are the folks you'll mostly see out and about. You'd need some sort of institution with far greater resources to handle those, like an asylum. North America just seems to have a sordid history with the like.
> You'd need some sort of institution with far greater resources to handle those, like an asylum. North America just seems to have a sordid history with the like.
Does anywhere not have a sordid history with asylums? I'm genuinely asking as it seems like such facilities always devolve into pseudo-prison for the undesirable no matter what.
You have a very good point that further supports are needed, however living in an urban area, I don't know if I can watch another 20 years waiting for the entire chain of everything to be setup before starting.
THese types of solutions from the private/volunteer sector do things that can't be unseen and often initiate conversations about what progress looks like.
The new types of shelter buildings with integrated services right in them, like other things are postive beacons.
If something cna improve the day to day, it's hard to say I'm against it when I'm sitting inside and someone who I might be saying it about isn't sitting inside.
> These are useful for solving one particular facet: people die from exposure in Toronto.
They are also useful because human beings need shelter, whether or not the exposure is life-threatening. They can't wait for your more ideal solutions.
Has someone said that's a risk or an issue for the people who use them? They probably also are bad in a flood, but is that a real risk? Isn't that true of most shelter?
Yes, I said it in the comment right above yours. In a conventional homeless shelter there are more people around and staff, meaning you're at least not alone with an attacker. Homeless people do get attacked by other homeless and street thugs.
reply