georgelyon

Another good way to think about this is that it does change the output, but in a way that is equally likely to make it "better" as it is to make it "worse".

Yes, though the API of having a write-only value that is a monotonically increasing counter is much simpler than having to think about causality or logical clocks.

Unfortunate that the author doesn’t bring up FoundationDB version stamps, which to me feel like the right solution to the problem. Essentially, you can write a value you can’t read until after the transaction is committed and the synchronization infrastructure guarantees that value ends up being monotonically increasing per transaction. They use similar “write only” operations for atomic operations like increment.

Unless Apple comes up with a way to have the crease still physically be there, but visually seem like it isn’t. Perhaps using a waveguide or something similar.

I betting $10 Apple’s foldable will be two iPhone Airs where one side has 0 bezel hinged together with extreme mechanical precision and maybe some fairy dust to make the gap when unfolded unnoticeable.

This creates a foldable with no durability issues and no “crease” problems. Also the two halves of the display could be on the outside when folded, avoiding the need for a third display and getting a rear display for free. I would buy 3 of these.

While this is a common view, recently I’ve begun to wonder if it may be secretly an antipattern. I’ve run into a number of cases over the years where additional fields don’t break parsing, or even necessarily the main functionality of a program, but result in subtle incorrect behavior in edge cases. Things like values that are actually distinct being treated as equal because the fields that differ are ignored. More recently, I’ve seen LLMs get confused because they hallucinated tool input fields that were ignored during the invocation of a tool.

I’m a little curious to try and build an API where parsing must be exact, and changes always result in a new version of the API. I don’t actually think it would be too difficult, but perhaps some extra tooling around downgrading responses and deprecating old versions may need to be built.

One thing is the graphics are a generation behind what you would usually expect from a game of this quality. I’ve been playing it and I can confirm it is wonderful, and the graphics just makes me impressed with the amount of focus the tiny team (33 people, I think?) put into making what matters great (though I’d be excited for a remaster in the future).

For the record, I’m not saying this is the perfect model and we should move to it immediately. My only claim is that it isn’t crazy.

I think the fundamental difference between advertising to discoverers vs advertising to consumers is that currently “discoverers” (platforms, content creators, billboard owners, etc.) make money directly from advertisers. Success as a “discoverer” is at least somewhat correlated to income (with more money, platforms can be more successful; content creators can create more compelling content; landowners can buy more billboards). If that money is coming from advertisers, you are biasing the market to prefer discoverers that can secure the most advertiser funding, which in turn preferences advertisers that can spend the most on advertising. This isn’t fundamentally bad, since a compelling product can make a lot of money that can then be spend on advertising, but it also creates anti-consumer incentives (like marketing something that is just good enough not to return as the next best thing). On the other hand, if discoverers are paid directly by consumers, that biases the market to prefer discoverers who identify products that bring the most value to consumers for their money.

The idea of product discovery has value. Advertising funds product discovery by taking some of the funds that you pay for goods, and funneling that money to platforms and creators that are willing to help others discover that product.

There is an alternative model where we simply pay professional product discoverers. Think influencers, but whose customer is the fan not the sponsor. It would be a massive cultural shift, but doesn’t seem so crazy to me.

I’ve been wrestling with Swift’s region isolation checker recently and had a similar experience.

I’m genuinely surprised it took this long for Apple to do this. Having a full contacts list has long been one of the most valuable pieces of information for ad targeting. It’s why you can not be on Facebook but they still know everything they need to know about you because enough of your contacts are on their platforms.

If I’m not mistaken, the embedded swift mode aims to make ICU (the 27mb file for Unicode support) optional (and thus easily removed where it isn’t needed)