We all took risks in the 1980s, kids thrive on risk.
The element of risk existing is not the argument being made here by ggm - it's the morphing and stretching of of the acturial mortality and morbidity curve.
The claim being made is that unregulateled electric bikes mixing in neophyte road users, suburban traffic, uncapped speeds, etc is increasing the per capita risk for an age band over what it was when "we" inhabited that demographic tribe back in our short pant days.
From what I've seen, standardizing delivery through registries and runtimes does reduce friction, but containers mostly move operational complexity around rather than eliminate it. You still get image sprawl, registry auth and storage quotas, supply chain issues like unsigned images, runtime quirks between runc and crun, and networking and storage headaches when an orchestrator like Kubernetes turns deployment into an availability and observability problem.
If you want the gains mentioned, you have to invest in governance: immutable tags, automated image scanning with Trivy, signing with cosign, and sensible image retention policies in your registry. Accept the tradeoff that you will be operating a distributed control plane and therefore need real observability like Prometheus plus request and limit discipline or you'll get the utilization benefits in graphs only while production quietly melts down.
Bayard shows how, when you read certain neglected books, you realize you’re familiar with their contents because they have been read by others who have talked about them, quoted from them, or have moved in the same current of ideas.
we also forget a very large percentage of the books we have actually read, and indeed we build a sort of virtual picture of them that consists not so much of what they say but what they have conjured up in our mind.[this is key]
every reading or nonreading or imperfect reading must have a creative aspect, ... since talking about unread books is a means to self-awareness.
> You haven't been seeing what's been coming out of models from China.
Citations?
I haven't, and would be genuinely curious if it is better than the AI short clip slop that appears on YouTube and really just needs to be taken out back and shot.
I have no doubt that its coming, I just haven't seen it yet.
I ain't reading all that, but if you're referring to the strike on the oil storage facility in Tehran, AFAICT that's not for export. It's local consumption. We haven't, to my knowledge, hit oil exports yet.
It sounds like you don't like programming. I am in the process of writing my own language/IDE/compiler on the side of making games, and have already written a dialect of C# with a compiler that transpiles it to legal C# for use in the meantime. I would, in fact, love to write my own OS if not for the fact that proprietary hardware vendors make it literally impossible for anybody to create a new OS that runs on consumer hardware in the year 2026. If you gave me a trillion dollars with which to build a CPU factory, I'd jump at the chance to learn that too.
People who don't like programming, who wish to abstract it all away and "stand on the shoulders of giants"[1] without understanding anything about the giants, seem to view low-level code as a bogeyman. It doesn't take a lifetime to understand. To the contrary, I would argue that low-level code is easier to work with than high-level code, because you can reason about it. The more you abstract, the more impossible it becomes to effectively reason about anything, because your reasoning is glossing over the details that make things work. But reasoning about primitives, and the things built out of those primitives that you understand, is not actually nearly as hard as the people who just want to plop Javascript libraries together and stop thinking about it would believe.
In particular, when it comes to games, especially 2D games (which are what Godot and MonoGame are typically used for), it's really not that hard. Windows has an API for doing X, Y and Z with graphics. Linux has an API for doing X, Y, and Z for graphics. You write a wrapper that your game code calls that passes through calls to each of those APIs with an #if statement filtering for which OS you're running on. Rinse and repeat the other set of platforms, with a bit of extra finangling for API limitations on web and phone OSes. Rinse and repeat for audio, input, and font handling. It took less than a month of work for me to get a polished cross-platform system working on five platforms.
Then, for example, writing your own rudimentary 2D GUI map editor can literally be done in a day. Presumably you know how to code a main menu. Add an option to the main menu that changes the gamestate to "Map Editor" when selected. Set a keybind on this screen where your arrow keys increment or decrement X/Y coordinates, a keybind to place tiles/objects, a keybind to cycle through them, and a keybind to save to disk. A little bit more work for a moving camera viewport, but it's not that hard. Want more features, polish it more. When you fully understand the primitives your system is built with, adding new features can be done quickly and easily, because it's so easy to reason about compared to reasoning about code you've never read.
[1] Another metaphor that is grossly mis-invoked, in my view. Do you think Isaac Newtwon did not understand the work of those that came before him? The great thing about giants is that by doing the hard work of exploring new concepts, they make it easier for everyone who comes after them to learn it.
What annoys me is the name. Early morning it took me a
moment to realise that PyPy is not PyPi, so at first I
thought they referred to PyPi. Really, just for the name
confusion alone, one of those two should have to go.
Edit: I understand the underlying issue and the PyPy developer's opinion. I don't disagree on that part; I only refer to the name similarity as a problem.
Someone with OpenAI on their resume (and vested shares) does not have to worry about finding another job, paying the mortgage, or feeding their families.
Are they working on building tech that is being used for weapons or mass surveilance? Like yes Microsoft has contracts with israel, but their entire business is not centered around those contracts. If you help build a better ai for openai, it will be used for war and control. If you help build a better version of one of the 10,000 things microsoft makes, that’s not definitely going to be used for war and control.
Not to get all historical on you, but if you worked for IBM in the 1930s-1940s you may have worked on something that was used to perpitrate a holocaust. Was that ethical? I don’t think so.
That said, it’s very easy to abstract yourself away from the harm. To tell yourself you’re not the one who builds the landmines, you just maintain the coffee machine at the landmine factory. But that’s just lying to yourself. An honest and deep appraisal of what you’re work is helping make happen is required to decide if your job is ethical or not.
You know? Since about 1980 I did wheelies too, on my road bicycle. And up to 70kph on flat grounds for up to two minutes. Then having to go down to 55 to 60, which I could hold up for an hour, depending on weather, fitness (varying). No helmet, ever.
Also no broken bones, or having caused others to crash. Annoyances maybe, but such is youth :-)
I'm of the opinion that this "disaster waiting to happen" thinking is a disaster by itself. I may concede that some of these kids are too reckless too often to be good for them, because e-bikes make it too easy to go that fast, without having developed the ability to handle these speeds safely first, or knowing where not to(sharp curves, rain, wet leafs, sand, fine gravel, etc(Did I mention I rode iced roads in winter?)).
But in principle the ride is getting more stable at higher speeds, because gyroscopically stabilized by the spinning wheels.
I see it as a darwinian filter of fitness. Sieving out stupid. Just like that.
If you don't give youth the chance to navigate that, there will be more and more unfit.
What are you even calling a lie? (not the campaign promises, the recent statements) The claims are something like this, right?: 1. Israel decided to attack 2. The US thought about how that would play out. 3. The US decided to attack too.
Which of those claims is untrue? Is there a claim I missed?
"The US could have snitched to Iran" does not contradict any of those claims.
Also I'm not convinced that warning Iran would have made things much safer for US troops. And you can say what you want about what the US priorities should be, but that's a whole different discussion.
I took the time to bring down the repo and compile it because I grew up playing SkyRoads on an old 486 DOS machine when I was a kid so I'm intimately familiar with the subtle details of the game (the weird bouncy physics of the hovercraft, the speed of the game, etc).
At this time, this project DOESN'T really work. At all. I mean it's totally unplayable. Within 5 seconds of starting the game, the vehicle was literally teleporting all over the place.
So it's a very cool proof-of-concept, but I'd be more in interested in a repost when Codex is finished.
I am in the process of figuring out how to do something similar but to teach a robotic arm a new task in the physical world for ko-br: https://ko-br.com/
because it cheaper than other options or what?