And just like dup2 allows you to duplicate into a brand new file descriptor, shells also allow you to specify bigger numbers so you aren’t restricted to 1 and 2. This can be useful for things like communication between different parts of the same shell script.
If we are talking about R, a lot of people who converted from R continued to operate in the same manner, by loading entire datasets into memory with pandas and numpy.
It is a humble brag. I saw the specs and thought the author would discuss different approaches of finessing the data and a benchmark. There isn’t one. So it’s indeed a humblebrag.
What you describe seems to have been implemented in Google Earth. It seems like an intentional product choice to do it in Google Earth and not Google Maps. Most people use Google Maps to get directions and reviews of places, and very few people I know even use the street view feature.
Google Earth and Google Maps 3D satellite view on desktop web have essentially the same rendering of Street View, which hasn't materially changed in 10 years or more and does not have the features I described. Google Maps on mobile never integrated the 3D satellite view at all, which represents another regrettable lack of investment on Google's part.
People rarely use the Street View feature because it's difficult to access, and difficult to understand spatially. Free camera motion is impossible and the transitions are jerky and stilted. As a result it's relegated to special places in the UI that are rarely visited. If it was seamlessly integrated into satellite view and directions then it would see much more usage.
On Android they've actually rolled out the 3D view in Maps recently! Took them long enough. I now have an "aerial" button in the bottom left corner when viewing Street View imagery that switches between the two.
Whoa, you're right! When did they add that? Why would they bury it like that? Nobody will ever find it there. It should be the main satellite view the way it is on the web.
Make is timestamp based. That is a thoroughly out-of-date approach only suitable for a single computer. You want distributed hash-based caching in the modern world.
so use Bazel or buck2 if you need an iteration on make's handling of changed files. Bazel is much more serious of a project than buildkit. I'm not saying make is more functional that buildkit (it might be to some), I'm saying its better written software than buildkit. two separate things
Oh I love Bazel. The problem is that it’s harder to adopt for teams used to just using make. For a particular project at work, I argued unsuccessfully for switching from plain make to bazel, and it ended up switching to cmake.
Now with AI bazel maintenance is almost entirely painless experience. I have fewer issues with it than the standard Go toolchain and C++ experience was always quite smooth.
Well then it’s a failure of UI design if you think this can cause confusion. In any UGC design it should be extremely clear which text is generated by another user and which belongs to the site itself.
What if a user with the name kссqzу (k[Cyrillic c][Cyrillic c]qz[Cyrillic y]) pretends to be you, sends your friend a PM and extracts a secret out of them?
Now you are just making up implausible scenarios that don’t help.
A chat app or any app with a PM feature either has a globally unique user name feature or has an internal identifier for the user so the user-chosen name doesn’t have to be unique. In the former case, any user will be able to see two seemingly identical user names in their chat list, but one with no chat history. In the latter case, well humans are known to have duplicate names too, so Cyrillic characters don’t even come into the picture.
No, no. The problem is, say you operate a forum; a malicious user makes a post that uses a Unicode confusion attack on a URL to direct other forum members to an attack site (e.g. a phishing site).
The big scary red warning page should at least tell you it’s phishing or malware or something else. OP didn’t have a screenshot of that. You can easily go to a safe browsing test site yourself at testsafebrowsing.appspot.com and find that Google does divulge the category of the blacklisting.
OP says:
> no gore or violence or anything of that sort
That’s not even the right criteria. OP is confused about Google Safe Browsing vs Safe Search.
That sounds like a competitor of yours manually submitting your site to Google for “impersonating” them or something. Anyone can submit URLs to Google to suggest it be blocked: https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/ Perhaps some overworked underpaid analyst had a lapse of judgement. I’m sorry that this happens to you.
wait, this actually makes things sound even worse because anyone who might not like your product can add it to google and google can sometimes be none the wiser and then add it to phishing link which could then lead to their domains (ie. any TLD's hosted by radix.website) being lost in void essentially unless you have verified the domain in google analytics and even then I would consider this whole situation to be so messy.
At this point, NEVER buy any radix.website TLD domains.
I am seeing pinggy had the same issue with their .online domain and this actually definitely caused hurt to their business https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40195410 (I saw this post from their comment in here referencing it)
A company like Apple has very little incentive to care about geopolitics, other than by current or future government laws and regulations (a government mandate, tariffs, etc). In the absence of government intervention, Apple has determined that investing a quarter trillion dollars is the cheap choice; getting the same result in the United States would probably need much much more than a quarter trillion dollars worth of investment. If the United States thought that such investments by Apple would have undesirable geopolitical implications, Congress should have acted a long time ago.
Your learned helplessness is defeatist and boring. We need not be Moloch's subjects; Apple's business priorities are not the result of some natural and unstoppable force, and their leadership is not exempt from responsibility because of your belief that it is. Someone, sometime, in a surprisingly boring room, wearing a surprisingly boring suit, made decisions like those which opened a factory in China instead of Texas.
I do not have learned helplessness. Nor have I claimed Apple’s business practices are the result of a natural force. Nothing is natural here. I said that Congress could have acted. Is Congress part of the nature now?
In contrast you have provided no arguments for why Apple’s leadership bears responsibility rather than Congress.
Texas would need to train its people. And the people would need to be as hungry as the Chinese were, and are to a certain extent. You should read the book the OT is talking about, it shows how the U.S. didn’t stand a chance in manufacturing, even going back to the 80s. Literally just not getting back to potential clients for two weeks and saying X or Y can’t be done, while Southeast Asian companies were jumping at the chance to build stuff.
There’s a giant cultural shift that needs to happen in the U.S. to get that back—not sacrificing labor laws, like China does, but the same idea that X or Y CAN be done, and actually jumping at the chance to build stuff instead of feeling entitled to it.
We do have agency, but the agency actually starts in the U.S., in education and culture, and not with a company like Apple.
It doesn't seem like money is the only issue. Infinity dollars won't help if the culture is radioactively toxic and shitty. (Arguably if you had infinity dollars you could spend it on therapists and counselors to fix the culture.)
As mentioned upthread, if you go to an American machine shop, they'll take two weeks to get back to you, and generally be a PITA to work with, vs China's jumping at the chance to build stuff.
> As mentioned upthread, if you go to an American machine shop, they'll take two weeks to get back to you, and generally be a PITA to work with, vs China's jumping at the chance to build stuff.
Probably because the Chinese are working 996. I know people who work 996, in China, and they dislike it as much as I would.
You don't have to work 996 to have an attitude of let's help the customer take their product to market. The American machine shop will laugh at you for not being a machinist, and tell you oh we don't do powder coating, we don't make cardboard boxes or styrofoam inserts. So then you, as the customer trying to get a product to market gotta run around town figuring it all out.
Meanwhile, you start talking to the Chinese machine shop guy, and he's all yeah my brother's does powder coating, his uncle does cardboard boxes and styrofoam inserts are another relative. The American attitude could go that and not work 996, but that's why it's not just about the money.
So basically you're blaming American workers for an attitude problem, when the real issue is, due to offshoring, the supply chain either doesn't exist here or isn't so centralized/expansive enough that someone has random relatives in related manufacturing businesses they're motivated to send work to?
So basically, you're being unfair.
And, from personal experience, while it's not exactly the same, when I've worked with American tradesmen, they've always had someone they could refer me to for related work.
These people will never stop to think that they are the problem in society, society has been molded in their neoliberal image where everyone is a savvy consumer and worker. We have 40 years of living in such a society and income inequality is worse than the gilded age, life expectancy is regressing, and children are doing worse in school; people don't even have the time to enjoy themselves and are forced to consume to be part of culture. Why we took all this for granted because a couple of MBA fuckups thought they knew better than the rest of us, I'll never know. Well actually I do know, because they were so greedy they wanted to make slightly more money rather than provide Americans good jobs.
Yes. It's a fundamental attitude problem of "that's not my job, it's your problem". It's like after your car gets into a crash. You just want your car back the way it was before the crash, assuming you don't take the insurance pay out. You want to be taken care of. But no, you gotta take it to a mechanic, then a body shop, and then a glass place. Or for software "well, it works on my machine". Even if we take the attitude out of the picture, if you're operating a business, you don't have time to spare. Having to find vendors for each step of the process takes time that could be better spent working on the product.
First off, if you have a car accident and one shop doesn't do everything to fix it, you went to a terrible shop. I've never seen a body repair shop that didn't do all that.
But that's beside the point.
Do you honestly expect a machine shop, a place that specializes in creating or fixing or modifying pieces of metal, to find you packaging and fluff for inside the package and then ship it to your customers? Why?
I'm absolutely confused on why you would expect a company that has literally nothing to do with an area of business to just do that thing for you for your convenience.
Do you expect your plumber to also put your floors down? Do you expect your doctor to also clean your teeth or do your taxes?
This isn't an 'attitude problem', this is a 'you have irrational expectations' problem.
I think US regulation is a huge part of what you're talking about though. In the US it is a literally pain to do anything new. I work at a chemical plant, and it took years (I'm not exaggerating, it was something like 2-3 years) to get all the permits to build a new unit. Because of how slow the city is.
So when you talk about how Asian companies were quicker to jump on new things, that's exactly what I think of. I haven't worked in Asia, but I imagine their government is not holding them back with red tape even a tenth as much.
Dell ate Compaq’s lunch with a BTO model. It’s pretty clear Tim Cook decided to put the factories out of reach after that experience. Putting the supply chain close to major customer markets is cheapest but invites competition.
> Acompany like Apple has very little incentive to care about geopolitics, other than by current or future government laws and regulations (a government mandate, tariffs, etc).
Isn't that massive? You make it seem like it's not important but look at Trump's tariffs that are connected to geopolitics. The US's relation with China could worsen to a point where certain imports are banned.
That’s simply not quite true if you read the article. When Terence Tao got stuck on a continued fraction problem, his mother told him to use the quadratic.
In contrast when I was a kid and was thinking about optimizing my program to print all prime numbers, my mother, instead of telling me about the sieve of Eratosthenes, told me to do school-approved math instead.
Now shoutout to my actual math teacher, who, having been told that I got stuck on writing a program to solve simultaneous linear equations, told me about Gaussian elimination.
reply