> Some folks can eat them like an apple. Most of my customers do.
My grandfather and my cousin, who he pretty much raised were eating regular red or yellow onions like apples like that. I had never seen anyone else do that. They would make an onion "salad" which was just cut up onion with olive oil and salt.
> The irony was recursive: Claude was helping me write about why these popups are harmful while repeatedly showing me the harmful popup.
I bet when caught in the inconsistency it apologized profusely then immediately went to doing the thing it just apologized about.
I do not trust AI systems from these companies for that reason. They will lie very confidently and convincingly. I use them regularly but only for what I call “AI NP complete scenarios” questions and tasks that may be hard to do by hand but easy to identify if the result is correct: “draw a diagram”, “reformat this paragraph”, etc, as opposed to “implement and deploy a heart place maker update patch”.
> While the guy is brilliant, I doubt he could fit the role of senior/staff/principal engineer in any one-level-below faang kind of company.
Maybe but what’s the point? Hell, I might guess he is terrible at jiggling and basket weaving, too. Complete failure as wrestler, even. But that is kind of neither here or there. Or is it you think staff title at faangs is some kind of pinnacle position every engineer should strive for? It actually always strikes me as a funny title. In college when they didn’t have a specific professor to teach or just going to use a grad student they put “staff” in the name box so in my mind it’s associated with a random lower rung student who couldn’t get away doing just research.
Yeah, staff engineer is a pinnacle "still doing engineering and maybe leadership but not management" position in engineering firms. The academic "staff" is just a "not really one of us" gatekeeping-the-servants title.
> Without being glib, I honestly wonder if Fabrice Bellard has started using any LLM coding tools
I doubt it. I follow him and look at the code he writes and it's well thought out and organized. It's the exact opposite of AI slop I see everywhere.
> He codes mostly in C, which I'm sure is mostly "memorized". i.e. if you have been programming in C for a few decades,
C I think he memorized a long time ago. It's more like he keeps the whole structure and setup of the program (the context) in his head and is able to "see it" all and operate on it. He is so good that people are insinuating he is actually "multiple people" or he uses an LLM and so on. I imagine he is quite amused reading those comments.
Ok, if you have such insight into development, why not leverage agents to type for you? What sort of problems have you faced that you are able to code against faster than you can articulate to an agent?
I have of course found some problems like this myself. But it's such a tiny portion of coding I really question why you can't leverage LLMs to make yourself more productive
Most coding is better done with agents than with your hands. Coding is the main financial impediment to development. Yes, actually articulating what you want is the hard problem. Yes, there are technical problems that demand real analytical insight and real motivation. But refusing to use agents because you think you can type faster is mistaking typing for your actual skill: reasoning and interpretation.
He is definitely a director's director. The people who study cinema like him, people who become young directors and cinematographers like him, college professors teaching cinematography like him, but is he definitely not for the general audience.
I completely understand why your average moviegoer (is there such a group of people any more?) would walk out of his movies.
When Thin Red Line came out (1998) I saw it a few times in the theaters, then Saving Private Ryan came out about the same year, and I remember having interesting debates with my friends about which one was a "better" war movie. It was this perfect A/B study. They found Thin Red Line completely boring and terrible: no main hero, one who is sort of the main character dies senselessly in the end (well he sacrificed himself, but it wasn't with any sense of bravado or anything). And my point was, that's kind how war is: there are no heroes and people die senselessly and often stupidly, and there is a lot of boredom and sitting around waiting, too.
> This kind of earnestness stood out in an age of relentless irony and snark.
That's why I like him. And to be fair, I am the first one to enjoy relentless irony and snark, but on a deeper level I realize it's also unhealthy and often is an escape from something terrible or a way of distancing from what's happening, so when something more honest and authentic some about, I pay attention.
I wanted to appreciate Malick's films out of a sense of intellectual snobbery, but it was too difficult for me. And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.
The Thin Red Line had some good moments, but it clearly came together in the editing room--but in the end, it came together only somewhat and weakly. He had hours of scattered footage (famously, a couple of major characters/actors had 90% of their planned screening time reduced in the final release), and in the editing room, he was trying to make sense of it, but unsuccessfully. What somebody interpreted as genius, I saw as disorganization, poor planning, and imprecise editing.
Well, someone may say, when talking about The Thin Red Line, that's what war is: confusing, boring most of the time, very violent in bursts. But that is akin to saying that life is mostly about eating and using the bathroom and doing pedestrian stuff and cleaning counters. But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores.
It might be for others, but not for me.
> And I think most people who love his films appreciate them in a snobbish way; they really try to convince themselves that it is great cinema.
Absolutely he is very much a snobbery magnet. Same as Tarkovsky.
The reasons I like him: I like the visual style, the poetic narrative structure, and the cinematographic techniques: camera work, lighting, etc. The second part I think is what trips up most people. Not many people like poetry nowadays. I can only think of two people in my circle of acquaintances and both were English majors, one is an English teacher. So it's a bit like that with films -- to some people it looks like disjointed random scenes that don't make sense, to someone else it looks like visual poetry.
> But most of us, and not because we are simpletons, don't go to movies to see actors doing chores. It might be for others, but not for me.
That's a perfectly fine view of cinema. I think most of it should be that way. If people pay their hard earned money to see something, it should be something they'd enjoy and not random disjoined scenes that don't make sense. That's why folks like Malick are a director's director. It's someone who film makers look up to, but not someone the majority of filmgoers would recognize or appreciate much, and for good reasons either way.
> privacy rules imposed by Apple for iOS devices, as of April 2021, on third-party developers of apps distributed through the App Store. In particular, third-party app developers are required to obtain specific consent for the collection and linking of data for advertising purposes through Apple’s ATT prompt
Wait, so they are punishing Apple because Apple makes it harder to spy on users.
What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can create their own Apple competitor, I guess.
No, they are punishing because the ATT pop-up is not enough to comply with privacy rules, requiring 3rd party apps to have a secondary pop-up to be compliant (which Apple's own apps wouldn't need since they don't use ATT).
So it's more that Apple's ATT is not compliant with stricter privacy rules, not the opposite...
> The terms were also found to be disproportionate to the achievement of the company’s stated data protection objectives. Since user data are a key input for personalised online advertising, the double consent request that inevitably arises from the ATT policy, as implemented, restricts the collection, linking and use of such data. As a result, such double consent requirement is harmful to developers
The "stricter" privacy rules of "Accept all" banners that send your data to 1000+ companies? Or "Accept all", but to Refuse you must tap a small grey link and manually uncheck dozens of boxes? Or worse, banners that force you to choose between accepting all tracking or paying a monthly subscription, blatantly illegal in the EU but ubiquitous in Italy even among large companies and news sites?
Meanwhile ATT blocks access to IDFA (instead of making it a pinky promise), and if apps were honest and were denied ATT it should disable other tracking too. The user has already indicated lack of consent.
> The "stricter" privacy rules of "Accept all" banners that send your data to 1000+ companies? Or "Accept all", but to Refuse you must tap a small grey link and manually uncheck dozens of boxes? Or worse, banners that force you to choose between accepting all tracking or paying a monthly subscription, blatantly illegal in the EU but ubiquitous in Italy even among large companies and news sites?
I don't know, I just stated what is in the decision: Apple makes 3rd party developers have to go through a process their own apps do not have to, hence creating an imbalance in competition since they are also the owners and controllers of the distribution channel.
The blatantly illegal pop-ups also annoy me a lot, it's clear it's not even malicious compliance but a targeted attack against the regulations to make it seem the law is requiring them to make it as annoying as possible. It seems to work since you got incensed by it.
I'm not "incensed" by the law at all, only by the companies gleefully violating it.
But Apple doesn't track you in the way ATT prevents, see my other comment; the narrative that they do was pushed by the adtech industry who wants ATT gone, and the courts (French, Italian) just never bothered checking if that was true. Check the decision yourself, they take it for granted and never look into how it works.
As far as I can understand, the fine is for having a prompt for 3rd party apps, but not apple's own apps. Then I'm not sure because even to me, the wording used by the authority is not entirely clear, but the issue would lie in a different treatment reserved for 3rd parties compared to 1st party apps
Yes, precisely, take a look at the summary document [1] at the bottom of the article.
> xii. As a matter of fact, revenues from App Store services increased, in terms of higher
commissions collected from developers through the platform; likewise, Apple’s advertising division, which is not subject to the same stringent rules, ultimately benefited from increased revenues and higher volumes of intermediated ads
> xiii. Therefore, considering that Apple holds an absolute dominant position in the market for the supply to developers of platforms for the online distribution of apps to users of the iOS operating system, the Authority established that Apple’s conduct amounts to an exploitative abuse, in breach of Article 102 TFEU, that started in April 2021 and is still ongoing.
ATT isn't about a vendor tracking you across their apps (Facebook can still log you into all their apps at once). It's about using data collected by third-parties or sending data to third party trackers, which Apple doesn't do for their own ads.
> What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can create their own Apple competitor, I guess.
My guess is that if they want to do that, they'd also need to leave the European market as a whole, as many countries share similar laws and regulations, besides the ones that applied across the entire European Union. And since Europe seems to represent ~25% total revenue in 2025 for Apple, that feels like a highly unlikely choice for them to do, considering they're a public company and have obligations to the shareholders.
> What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market?
They can’t.
If they did, the company (and thus shareholders) would lose money. Shareholders would vote out the board, and the new board would appoint a CEO who would promptly re-enter the Italian market.
This is why corporations get slapped around by regulators everywhere, even though on the surface, the regulators need the company far more than the other way round.
Curl here is used generically, as in “client for url”? This is not cURL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CURL). I found it a bit confusing. My first thought was “I sure don’t remember curl running JavaScript from pages it fetches”.
Obviously, it does not cause any confusion at all because all the Windows admins always install the latest and greatest versions of Powershell into the environments they administer.
> Skipping flushing the local disk seems rather silly to me
It is. Coordinated failures shouldn't be a surprise these days. It's kind of sad to here that from an AWS engineer. Same data pattern fills the buffers and crashes multiple servers, while they were all "hoping" that others fsynced the data, but it turns out they all filled up and crashed. That's just one case there are others.
Durability always has an asterisk i.e. guaranteed up to N number of devices failing. Once that N is set, your durability is out the moment those N devices all fail together. Whether that N counts local disks or remote servers.
Interestingly, on bare metal or old-school VMs, durability of local storage was pretty good. If the rack power failed, your data was probably still there. Sure, maybe it was only 99% or 99.9%, but that’s not bad if power failures are rare.
AWS etc, in contrast, have really quite abysmal durability for local disk storage. If you want the performance and cost benefits of using local storage (as opposed to S3, EBS, etc), there are plenty of server failure scenarios where the probability that your data is still there hovers around 0%.
This is about not even trying durability before returning a result ("Commit-to-disk on a single system is [...] unnecessary") it's hoping that servers won't crash and restart together: some might fail but others will eventually commit. However that assumes a subset of random (uncoordinated) hardware failures, maybe a cosmic ray blasts the ssd controller. That's fine, but it fails to account for coordinated failure where, a particular workload leads to the same overflow scenario on all servers the same. They all acknowledge the writes to the client but then all crash and restart.
To some extent the only way around that is to use non-uniform hardware though.
Suppose you have each server commit the data "to disk" but it's really a RAID controller with a battery-backed write cache or enterprise SSD with a DRAM cache and an internal capacitor to flush the cache on power failure. If they're all the same model and you find a usage pattern that will crash the firmware before it does the write, you lose the data. It's little different than having the storage node do it. If the code has a bug and they all run the same code then they all run the same bug.
Yeah good point, at least if you wait till you get an acknowledgement for the fsync on N nodes it's already in an a lot better position. Maybe overkill but you can also read the back the data and reverify the checksum. But yeah in general you make a good point, I think that's why some folks deliberately use different drive models and/or raid controllers to avoid cases like that.
> There is a part of me seriously considering making a bookshelf dedicated to all of these banned books.
That's great idea, many stores have them!
This is not about bookstores but about school. So then, would you put that bookshelf in a second grade class. How early do kids need to hear about "Five troubled teenagers fall into prostitution as they search for freedom, safety, community, family, and love". I mean, a lot of those kids still believe in Santa maybe telling them about teenage prostitutes is a bit early.
My grandfather and my cousin, who he pretty much raised were eating regular red or yellow onions like apples like that. I had never seen anyone else do that. They would make an onion "salad" which was just cut up onion with olive oil and salt.
reply