You have a stack dump, which means you will get all the information if you symbolicate your crash report. Xcode can do it for you automatically, but some manual methods also exist.
that's not related to the symbolizer thing. It seems to just be part of the "index out of range" crash. I get the same thing without using the symbolizer.
zsh: illegal hardware instruction swift main.swift
God how I hate Electron apps (nothing against Electron itself though)... People don't appreciate how much it means for example, for Mac users not seeing the rubber band effect on scrollers, let alone everything else feeling just unnatural and sloppy. You are immediately transferred back to the 1990s. Why should I care that some big fat corporation wants to save pennies on native app developers?
I can forgive a free and open app running on Electron (hello, Signal), but never a commercial one, full stop.
Most of the mainstream untyped languages are the "children of the 1990s", the era of a delusion that PC's can only get faster and that a computer is always plugged to a free power source.
Then along came the iPhone that prohibited inefficient languages.
So these cycles don't just happen for the sake of cycles, there are always underlying nonlinear breakthroughs in technology. We oscillate between periods of delusions and reality checks.
I'm not sure the runtime efficiency is the critical determinant: assembly is after all an untyped language (+), Javascript is not really typed and is the major language run on the iPhone (on every web page!).
It was more of a natural language/DWIM movement, especially from Perl.
(+ one of these days I will turn my "typesafe macro assembler" post-it note into a PoC)
Yes, Apple made an exception for JavaScript because of the browser. But in the early days of iOS, dynamic languages were prohibited for power efficiency reasons.
With Obj-C it was only dynamic method calls (message sending), the rest was very static and native-code too. I think Apple was after dynamic VM-based languages specifically.
Objective-C has plenty of dynamism, basically you can do almost everything as in Smalltalk.
Apple was after nothing, they got NeXT in a reverse acquisition, thus Objective-C.
Had they kept their Copland plan, or acquired Be, C++ would be the lucky one.
They only introduced Java in OS X, because initially they were afraid Mac OS community, raised in Object Pascal and C++, weren't that keen into adopting Objective-C.
Once they saw otherwise, Java support was killed, and the Apple specific extensions given to Sun/Oracle.
Apple was after “ios and downloadable code for vms/jits that we cannot control is a recipe for disaster” really. And it was.
Partly due to ios “security” based on appstore checks rather than technical ways (private ios apis, calls allowed only under specifically claimed features, and just bugs). Partly due to the fact that running something locally is prone to local vulnerabilities naturally (the same category as “never run curl | bash”).
The majority of downloadable code since day one of iOS app store, is native compiled code from C, C++, Objective-C, nowadays Swift.
The only dynamic stuff VM used by Apple is JavaScript.
Even the original lets make HTML5 apps went nowhere, as given the reception, it took less than one year for the official Objective-C SDK to enter the scene, and the whole HTML5 apps idea was thrown away.
Sorry but no. Obj-C used to be my bread and butter, I knew it pretty well (alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio). The only truly dynamic part was message sending and even that got much stricter in later versions of the language, i.e. you wouldn't be able to call any method on any object like before without at least explicitly casting to `id`.
But message sending included properties and KVO/KVC that basically every object in an iphone/osx program used. It wasn’t long until they started to @synthesize these cause everything was a property. Yes, full-C modules could be written and C “interop” was just code, but the main use case was dynamic as hell with a little type checking peppered over it. They promised that objc_msgSend was fast and assembly, of course, but that is dynamic dispatch in basically every line of code still.
Sorry, but that seems like not being knowledged of the spectrum of Objective-C capabilities then, specially to the extent how it was used in NeXTSTEP and first round of OS X frameworks.
> Chatgpt is arguably more valuable then Wikipedia and Google for studies.
But ChatGPT is just a glorified Wikipedia/Google. For the consumers it's an incremental thing (although from the engineering perspective it may seem to be a breakthrough).
> But ChatGPT is just a glorified Wikipedia/Google
It really isn't, unless something really majorly changed recently. Neither of those you can query for something you don't know about. Lets say you want to find the meaning of a joke related to cars, Spain, politicians and a fascist, how you'd use Wikipedia and Google to find the specific joke I'm thinking about?
ChatGPT been really helpful (to me at least) to find needles from haystacks, especially when I'm not fully sure what I'm looking for.
I just tried it myself with ChatGPT o1 and with Claude's Sonnet 3.5, Sonnet got it after two messages, o1 after 4.
If you're unable to reproduce, maybe tune the prompt a bit? I'm not sure what to tell you, all I can tell you that I'm able to figure out stuff a lot faster today than I was 2-3 years ago, thanks to LLMs.
Additional hints that might help; the joke involves a car and possibly a space program.
I ran it 10 times with the extra information, and each time got a different result. I don't know if any of them were the specific joke you were after, I get the feeling it was just making them up on the spot. None of them are even funny
It seems to be censored with US puritan morality (like most US models), but I think that's besides the point (just like if the joke is "even funny" or not), as it did find the correct joke at least.
I just got a load of responses like "Sure, here’s a joke that combines cars, Spain, politicians, and a fascist with a touch of space humor: Why did the Spanish politician, the fascist, and the car mechanic get together to start a space program? Because the politician wanted to go "far-right," the mechanic said he could "fix" anything, and the fascist just wanted to take the car to the moon... so they could all escape when things got "too hot" here on Earth!"
Ok, that's cool. So because you were unable to find a needle in this case, your conclusion is that it's impossible that other people to use LLMs for this, and LLMs truly are just glorified Wikipedia/Google?
No, I don't think that LLMs are glorified Wikipedia/Google. I think they're a glorified version of pressing the middle button on your phone's autocomplete repeatedly
Yeah... when I googled it initially I guess I got personalized results. After I left the link here I clicked on it (bad order of operations) and was surprised to find a much different set of search results.
Go try to learn a college level mathematics concept from Wikipedia, then try to learn it from ChatGPT. The wiki article may as well be written in a foreign language
I don't think any of the methods give any significant advantage since in the end you need to maintain a connection per each client. The difference between the methods boils down to complexity of implementation and reliability.
If you want to reduce server load then you'd have to sacrifice responsiveness, e.g. you perform short polls at certain intervals, say 10s.
i can't speak for why the author chose it, but if you're operating behind AWS cloudfront then http requests have a maximum timeout of 60s - if you don't close the request within 60s, cloudfront will close it for you.
i suspect other firewalls, cdns, or reverse proxy products will all do something similar. for me, this is one of the biggest benefits of websockets over long-polling: it's a standard way to communicate to proxies and firewalls "this connection is supposed to stay open, don't close it on me"
tl;dr information asymmetry. Didn't read the entire text, just skimmed through.
I think fundamentally the reason behind info asymmetry in our day and age is that products and services have become so much more complex that there's simply no time to independently assess the qualities such as reliability, durability, and a myriad of other variables in each particular case.
I think it's the complexity that is becoming our enemy number one, and too many variables when choosing a product as a consequence of that. Is the air conditioner too noisy? Does it require a WiFi connection and even a mobile app to function? People may omit some of these things even in their Amazon reviews.
And then some of the insanely complex products like mobile phones are practically impossible to evaluate objectively. I once stumbled upon an article that explains why Android requires roughly 2x RAM and a slightly larger battery compared to an equivalent iPhone in order to have the same efficiency and performance, supported by some benchmarks (blame garbage collector I guess?). How many technical people or experts are even aware of this?
My process of purchasing stuff comes down to two principles: (1) devices that Apple makes are generally OK to buy, they are less likely to disappoint; (2) for everything else: research, read reviews; the time spent on a product is proportionate to the price of the product.
For me it went a bit deeper. Yes, there is always information asymmetry, but there is a world of difference between that and allowing outright lying and deception. In practice consumers are powerless against outright lying, so if Governments and organisations don't actively intervene it runs rampant. Apparently does that in most organisations. The article gave examples of CEO's that didn't allow it - Gordon More and Eric Schmidt. He claimed both ran very successful organisations as a result.
That reflects what I've seen in Australia. Unlike the USA, we have very strong local consumer protection laws. If a firm lies on the box, like saying a plan is unlimited when it is not, and a government will come knocking on their door. But in web market places like ebay the government can't control overseas sellers. Lying about the size of USB Flash drives on Ebay in particular became rampant. While Ebay is much cheaper than local brick and mortar sellers for just about everything, in the end I abandoned Ebay for USB Flash and other items where fraud was rampant. So did everyone else. The market for those things on EBay just collapsed - to the detriment of everyone - buyers and sellers alike. In the end EBay stepped in by siding with the consumer far more often when disputes arose, and those products returned.
The USA worships markets. Markets only work well when the buyer and seller are both well informed. Yet, the USA doesn't enforce that. To outsiders, it's weird.
Regarding smart phones, iPhones have had a bunch of features which they objectively do better, but these are never considered by reviewers or many buyers, who just look at paper specs and features. Just because these features are never articulated. Things such as user interface lag, long time usability, finger print sensor reliability. These were mayor problems with Android phones in the past (I have no idea how it is now), but since these features are very difficult to advertise, Apple focused their advertising in another direction.
And as a consequence people like hackers, Europeans, and such believe that the public are only getting iPhones because it's fashion and a "status symbol".
Yes but a movie is a movie whereas these AI-generated videos will likely be used to replace stock footage in other (documentary, promotional, etc.) contexts
If the producer wants to publish bad physics, they get bad physics.
If the producer wants to publish good physics, they get good physics.
It doesn't matter if it is AI, CGI, live action, stop motion, pen-and-ink animation, or anything else.
The output is whatever the production team wants it to be, just as has been the case for as long as we've had cinema (or advertising or documentaries or TikToks or whatevers).
You don't have full control over AI-generated images though, or not to the same extent producers have with CGI.
There's a video on sora.com at the very bottom, with tennis players on the roof, notice how one player just walks "through" the net. I don't think you can fix this other than by just cutting the video earlier.
There's already techniques for controlling AI generated images. There's ControlNet for Stable Diffusion and there are already techniques to take existing footage and style-morphing it with AI. For larger budget productions I would anticipate video production tooling to arise where directors and animators have fine grained influence and control over the wireframes within a 3D scene to directly prevent or fix issues like clipping, volumetric changes, visual consistency, text generation, gravity, etc. Or even just them recording and producing their video in a lower budget format and then having it re-rendered with AI to set the style or mood but adhering to scene layout, perspective, timing, cuts, etc. Not just for mitigating AI errors but also just for controlling their vision of the final product.
Or they could simply brute force it by clipping the scene at the problem point and have it try, try again with another re-render iteration from that point until it's no longer problematic. Or just do the bulk of the work with AI and do video inpainting for small areas to fix or reserve the human CGI artists for fixing unmitigatable problems that crop up if they're fixable without full re-rendering (whichever probably ends up less expensive).
Plus with what we've recently seen with world models that have been released in the last week or so, AI will soon get better at having a full and accurate representation of the world it creates and future generations of this technology beyond what Sora is doing simply won't make these mistakes.
I think AI "art" can be as useful as the text generators, i.e. only within certain limits of dull and stupid stuff that needs to exist but has little to no value.
For example, you need to generate a landing page for your boring company: text, images, videos and the overall design (as well as code!) can be and should be generated because... who cares about your boring company's landing page, right?
One could ask why the boring company landing page exists in the first place though. If it's not providing value to humans to warrant actual attention being paid to it...
The world is in need of soap. Not the fancy beautiful artistic kind, but the kind that comes in containers and you put in bathrooms. This objectively saves lives and is one of those boring things I can imagine.
Then you don't understand the purpose of a landing page. If the boring company hires somebody to make the landing page who actually understands their job, the landing page will have great importance.
Most companies don't need this. They need a page that has their contact info and some general information about services they provide so they can have a bare minimum internet presence and show up on google maps.
Absolutely, if your company doesn't want to make sales or if you want to be bothered all the time by people calling and mailing only for them to find out your product isn't a fit for them. Or if you want third party sellers to take over most of your business like Booking.com, AirBnB DoorDash or Amazon.
Companies who understand the importance of a customer friendly and functional web presence get a great return on their investment. And it's much better for the customer.
I have an ice cream shop by me that doesn't even have a website. They're mobbed every day, because good ice cream is fairly self explanatory, and doesn't need a web presence
Your ice cream shop doesn’t need a landing page because of word of mouth and foot traffic.
Some project management platform for plumbers needs a highly tuned webpage because they’re competing with 20 other such systems, and there’s no line to walk past and assume it’s there because the software is good.
Believing that if you build great plumbing SAAS software people, paying customers will magically appear, is naive.
A great product can sell itself. But that doesn’t mean that marketing and sales aren’t necessary in order to get the product in front of people, assuage their concerns, reassure them that it solves their problems, show social proof from others using it, and close the deal. A good landing page will do all of this ;)
reply