mihaelm

Tbh both ways of phrasing are fine to me. $1.56 today will get you as much as $1 in 2008, looking at it simplistically.

Same, I associate Hoka & Salomon with running, never would have thought someone would wear them as everyday sneakers.

Good points, the second is very "dual-licensing" in nature. BUSL is certainly the more "mature" option and there's a higher likelihood people came across it in the wild.

I think it definitely hurts adoption. No hobbyist or experimenter wants to delve into legalities head first by first having to understand the licensing terms of software, whereas permissive licenses like MIT and Apache 2.0 are easily-understood and familiar.

The solution is probably to be more selective what you're open sourcing if you're planning to build a business. And what you open source, you do it under a permissive license so people don't feel limited should they wish to play around with it.

A more restrictive license might be more apt if you don't really want to open source, but you must for regulatory reasons.

The verbosity takes a bit to get used too, but it sure beats the anything-goes feeling - messy as you put it - of pandas.

Maybe because it's like a swiss army knife for data work, regardless of whether you need it for OLTP or OLAP workloads. Having different SQL dialects is a bit annoying, but the base is the same more or less, so switching doesn't come at too big of a cost.

Lets see what they do with Opus first. I didn't find Fable 5.0 prose that bad to read, but improvement is always welcome. It's Opus 5.0 that's atrocious.

I like the software side on my Series X, so if they can bring that over to PC as an OS, that'd be great. I agree the Xbox on PC experience hasn't been stellar so far and I hope they ditch that app with the next generation, for the sake of current userbase. It was serviceable at best in my Windows 10 days.

For anything not gaming related, I have Linux or MacOS.

I'm pulling for Microsoft to create an XboxOS for PC you can just freely install on any machine, as that's about the only thing I care about regarding Windows. Then I could see myself dualbooting that when I want to play my Xbox collection. And it'd be nice to build a beefy machine to max them out on, once the PC component prices settle a bit.

They're playing with that with the Xbox Full Screen Experience on ROG Xbox Ally, but it's still running Windows 11 underneath. I just want the Xbox.

Yeah, the cost of running the test suite every time an agent generates code JIT would be the killer for running it at scale. I didn't even get into practicality of that approach too much because the gist of it for me was the question of agents writing code JIT having security benefits (?) - the verification thing is a sidetrack.

Certainly, adding agentic JIT code invites more complexity to properly do it, so what are the benefits that call for introducing it.

Again, I answered that in the earlier reply:

> Since the comment is talking about using more & more JIT for security reasons, I assumed it extended to verification too.

I wouldn't consider feeding the JIT-ed code to a JIT-ed verifier code proper verification.

Even ignoring the verification bit, I don't see the security benefits of having agents write JIT code, hence the original question. Because there might be some edge cases I don't know about, but I can't see this applying generally.

Where did I say you can't do that? I answered you why I assumed the original comment was leaning towards JIT for everything.

Proper verification would be deterministic rules the JIT-ed code would be checked against, so it would have to be non-JIT. Since the comment is talking about using more & more JIT for security reasons, I assumed it extended to verification too.

I don't get why you'd generally switch to JIT for security reasons.