doctor_phil

When we are talking about galactic algorithms we have long since left the realm of things that might fit on one computer. Some of these algorithms are only starting to become faster on n so large that we have trouble fitting the data in this solar system. At those scales the distinction between the type of RAM is irrelevant. At that point "how long to read memory address X" is pretty much the same as "how long does light take to reach X" which is pretty much "how far to X" which scales with a cube root. (Well, probably a square root if we look at physical limits for weird reasons)

From personal experience in a small (total <10 people) company, we have definitely 10x our product in the last two years. What 4 devs did in 4 years have been dwarfed by what 2 devs were able to do in 1 year with AI. I'm not so familiar with the giant companies, but from afar it seems like they already have practically all the code-writing capacity they wanted anyway. Google could say "let's build a browser" or "let's build a mobile phone OS" or "lets build an experimental Fuschia" and throw all the people they needed on it already.

Wouldn't it make sense to use mouse movement for this. Display the tooltip only if the cursor is not moving (same position two frames in a row).

If you don't copy the data to the other process, then your garbage collection needs to be aware of all processes all the time. I'm not sure if the author would count that as a form of synchronization, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that I think.

I agree, producing a lower bound is possible. It's practically very hard to give a good lower bound though. Many programs do not terminate, so we don't know if they do produce the right output eventually. In practice the best that has been done on Turing machines is that we have now proved which 5-state machines halt and which don't. So proving any lower bounds larger than that is practically impossible.

Nice, not having bodies on GET has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. It would be nice to allow bodies on DELETE as well, but that is less of a problem in most cases.

> UBI won't work either because it will lead to [...] extreme levels of invasive control over people's lives and what they can and cannot do

I've never heard this before. I thought UBI would be very freeing and without much control. If it is universal then there needs to be no control of who gets it or not. What am I missing?

I also for a second thought this was Rasmus Lerdorf, the creator of PHP. In my head I just have him as Rasmus L-something, so this guy was just a hash collision. :)

Idris is slightly more mainstream I would say, but not wildy so. If you like the Haskell interop then I'd recommend staying with Agda.

Scala 3 is much more mainstream and has path dependent types. I've only used Scala 2, and there the boilerplate for dependent types was frustrating imo, but I've heard its better in 3.

Wow, this is so cool! Very overwhelming with so many interesting things at once. I wish I had a few months with nothing else so I could surround myself with only this. :)

Yes. Metal. No.

You want to read about "conservation of etendue" for a technical explanation. For an easier explanation, look for xkcd's excellent "Fire from Moonlight".

I don't think this blog post reflects so well on this engineering team. Kudos to them to be so transparent about it though. "We had so many flaky tests that depended on 3rd parties that broke pipelines that we decided on micro-services" is not something I would put on my CV at least.