6,858 karma · joined December 30, 2017
Currently:
AI inference/training/orchestration C#/.Net Python TypeScript Angular SQL
Too many other things.
Not all the things in the list, because I am aware of those. I might have missed the runway numbers changing based on shifting magnetic field of the earth, but that's a thing too. Runway 22? That's now Runway 21.
But why programmers specifically would believe this, as opposed to ... any other profession that is not aviation?
I have used its it came out so I do know what it is, but I have people ask if they should write their new program in TypeScript, thinking this is something they can write it in and then run it.
My usage of it is limited to JavaScript, so I see it as adding a static typing layer to JavaScript, so that development is easier and more logical, and this typing information is stripped out when transpiled, resulting in pure JavaScript which is all the browser understands.
The industry calls it a programming language, so I do too just because this is not some semantic battle I want to get into. But in my mind it's not.
There's probably a word for what it is, I just can't think of it.
Type system?
And I don't understand a "10x speedup" on TypeScript, because it doesn't execute.
I can understand language services for things like VS Code that handle the TypeScript types getting 10x faster, but not TypeScript itself. I assume that is what they are talking about in most cases. But if this logic isn't right, let me know.
There already is: Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC).
Get an instruction, press to confirm.
At the moment, this is only used for certain types of things (clearances, frequency changes, speed assignments, etc.) along with voice ATC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller%E2%80%93pilot_data_...
> If aerobic organisms or mechanisms are required (grown in space and then desiccated by exposure to vacuum when growth is complete), the methods and support equipment required to preserve key aerobic variables (e.g., atmosphere, pressure, temperature) must be part of the biomechanical assembly system design. Anaerobic organisms or mechanisms may allow for less support hardware but may require other controls to support continued growth in the space environment (e.g. pressure, temperature, humidity)
So that's very interesting that you mention that.
> According to crypto security firm Groom Lake, a Safe multisig wallet was deployed on Ethereum in 2019 and on the Base layer-2 in 2024 with identical transaction hashes. Ethereum’s alphanumeric transaction hashes are 64 characters long, so deploying the same smart contract transaction hash twice should be mathematically impossible.
> The same transaction hash appearing on both Ethereum and Base indicates an attacker could have found a way to make a single transaction valid on more than one network or could be reusing crypto wallet signatures or transaction data across networks, pseudonymous Groom Lake researcher Apollo said.
My last greenfield product I was able to choose the stack (except the database, which I was stuck with).
Front-end? Angular, mostly because I felt it fit best with experienced .Net developers.
Back-end API layer? C#, obviosly.
So I've been working with C# for 24 years. No regrets.
"Oh, I've never heard of ECMAScript before".
Well, it's a thing. You'll have to trust me on that one.
Using "$" to shorten JavaScript? That seems a lot like jQuery.
> This README was generated by ChatGPT
You don't need AI to explain this one.
It's really not that hard. I was able to pick up Angular to a level where I could create complex sites with it, or submit acceptable PRs that involved in, in week or so.
Granted, I am an experienced developer (C# since beta, HTML/JS/CSS from the start) but it seemed to just make sense quickly.
So when I was asked by a company to replace their aging, complex portal to manage critical infrastructure, I chose Angular for the front end.
That was smooth sailing. It was stable, performant, looked good and everyone was happy.
People often avoid it because it has a "steep learning curve" but that mainly seems to come from developers who came into the industry knowing only JavaScript and maybe a little React. If you are more experienced, you can pick it up right away.
And it helps, a lot, to use such frameworks on large complex sites. For various reasons.
I got to a juncture in my life where I was wondering what I should do. I thought "well, I love flight simulators, let's take a introductory flight".
Drove to my local airport, flew it. I was already familiar with all the controls thanks to the MSFS.
That flight had me convinced. Got my PPL, went to college and got my commercial and all the other ratings, and that was all due to one thing ...
Microsoft Flight Simulator
This new version is far beyond anything I would have imagined it would get to. I thought once it died, it was gone.
Oh no, they brought it back ... and they were serious.
I don't want it there, I never look at it, it's wasting resources, and it's a bad user experience.
I looked around a bit but couldn't see if I can disable that when logged in. I should be able to.
I don't care what the AI says ... I want the search results.
I was obsessed with that MUD on CompuServe.
My father had a second phone line at home for work and I'd log in on that line.
Then the bill came in. Something ridiculous for at the time. Hundreds of dollars.
He walks in and says "do you use ... CompuServe?".
"Yes, I like this game that it has"
"Ok, sorry but you can't play that game anymore"
Oh well.
So later I went on to run a dual-node BBS and I could play TradeWars. Not quite the same. Still was cool.
However, when you are dealing with people who are supposed to be helping people, and they are staring at how much money is currently coming instead, just do what needs to be done.
Any single law they broke? Sue them.
People are asking for serious help, and they aren't helping them. And people are dying. That is beyond unaccepable.
I hate these types of companies.
It's like the companies that buy the land under hospitals, make them pay to stay on what is no longer their land, squeeze out as much as they can, bankrupt the hospital, and do it again to another one.
Especially brutal when they do that to rural hospitals where now patients are pretty far from the other one still standing.
I have a very strong dislike for any companies in that category. The people don't matter, as long as we can extract the money, we're going to do it. Greed on steroids.
Then I read the bring in more revenue then "Disney, FedEx or PepsiCo".
Wait, what? Oh, right, subsidaries.
And, of course, a giant in Medicare Advantage.
That company sounds ... very bad and needs to start doing what they are supposed to be doing and stop playing games. People are looking for help and they are looking for ... well, how to squeeze out more money I suppose.
"You need psychiatric care? Sorry, we're a bit busy trying to make more money. Priorities and all."
"Someone died due to our lack of caring about any of that? Sorry to hear that. Listen, gotta go. (click)"
Sue them into the ground.
I'm curious, what do you think deleting accounts and starting new is going to do?
They'll just link it all together another way.
Except it isn't in UTC and it doesn't show an offset.
Even if you stored the user's timezone, that doesn't mean that's where they were working from.
That's how I ended up in a breathwork session.
But I still live in the universe, and the universe follows rules.
In this case, my body's CO2/Oxygen imbalance was out of whack, and I probably should have started breathing into a paper bag.
Consciousness is cool and all, but doing solid breathwork for over 20 minutes will upset the balance of molecules impotrant to a functioning consciousness. So while you may feel yourself soaring toward another dimension, it's your brain screaming for oxygen.
My 2 cents.
It felt strange, yes you can midly hallucinate and feel "otherworldly" but I always left thinking "ok, I just hyperventilated for 20 minutes ... this is exatly how I'd expect to feel".
And now we have a scientific study that proves it.
It seemed pretty obvious to me.
It's terrifying to take a step back from this and think about how much incredibly sophisticated technology had to go into ensuring that we could wipe out the human race in minutes.
And then, of course, there's all the technology handling the safety guards. Because we obviously don't want to wipe out the human race in minutes, so we have all these protocols and failsafes to ensure that doesn't happen unless it's really supposed to happen.
All for ... nothing.
Nothing, in the sense that every time Russia built more ICBMs the US had to build more ICBMs. That tit-for-tat got to incredibly absurd levels.
So all of this ludicrously complex technologies, from the missiles travelling to space, the lauching of multiple guided warheads, the safety guards and nuclear weapons, the trillions of dollars ... for nothing. All a game of "mine is bigger than yours" for strategic deterence.
Hopefully it stays that way.
No, no ... it's not.
First of all I don't care one iota about Jane Street or how much money Jane Street employees make.
The problem is that this money has to come from somewhere. And while you say it's due to the entire system becoming more efficient, that's not the full story. That $1 billion Indian options play came at the expense of Indian retail investors.
So yes, there is a siphoning of money out of the hands of the retail investors and into the vast pool growing under Jane Street and its employees, much as it has done under others like Citadel.
Who is that good for, except Jane Street?
If you look the per capita income from where it's leaving to where it's going, that's where I see a growing problem.
There may be a sucker born every minute, but that doesn't mean that this is all just about making markets more efficient.
And, of course, none of this would have been possible without the additional "liquidity" provided ... the clearly essential contribution that makes it all justified. "We provide liquidity!". Ok ... ?
There's some efficiency improvements too, but ... eh.
If Jane Street is so critical to the normal functioning of markets that their significance between "exists" and "don't exist" is a major change in liqudity, then they are a systemic risk.
They probably don't want to be viewed as a systemic risk to the financial system.
But when you are siphoning this much money out of the financial systems worldwide (to the point your employee equity looks to be going almost logarithmic), how much further can this go until "providing liquidity!" isn't good enough any more?
That's been the go-to answer since forever, anytime anyone questions what value is being added to the economy.
I actually know a little about this space. You know what the easiest response is that is always the answer?
"We provide liquidity".
Sounds important, most people don't get it, it works.
But it's not like the market is going to grind to a halt if Jane Street disappears overnight. Of course, people will say that. Not people telling you the truth.
I actually considered "but, but, THE LIQUIDITY!" in my answer but I felt there was sufficient snark.
Yes, I suppose this is all something to get all starry-eyed over, Jane Street encroaching on Citadel Securities, the two of whom control 30% of the US equity market volume.
I see it another way. I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again. And not just in the US, globally. This won't stop at 30% of the US equity market. It won't stop until the music stops and the last chair breaks. Which may or may not be soon. It will certainly be coming at some point.
Five times the London Stock Exchange’s entire trading volumes in 2023 in just your ETF arm? Sure ... this sounds like reasonable growth ...
> This is why some people argue that APs like Jane Street have become systemically important.
Oh, you don't say!
> About 80 per cent of the company’s capital comes from employee equity
That's adorable. They're like a little mom-and-pop shop ... except not anything like that.
It was subtle, but noticeable enough that after the meeting another developer and I both said "that was a pretty neat effect". It conveyed the sense of "yay, progress!".
Just make it optional.
The industry spends billions of dollars on developers writing Java. If they could spend 3 times less by simply training developers to use Smalltalk instead, they'd be doing it.
They're not, because that's not the problem.
I now work on an Angular 17 enterprise application.
Out of all of them, the Angular 17 application is by far the most enjoyable to work with. And I was brought into the SPA world kicking and screaming and muttering "get off my lawn".
But these points are not necessarily valid. We don't break the back/forward buttons, or page refresh, the initial payload is sizable, but less than many "non-SPA" websites outo there. And it runs a large enterprise. When we release a new update, nobody notices. In the corporate world, downloading a few MB that is compressed over the wire and cached on the client after it's sent ... people don't notice. There are single images on websites bigger than our platform.
The first compliment we got after releasing the Angular project was how incredibly fast it was. It's not bloated, I feel that is just an old way of thinking about it. Sure it's not pure HTML with bit of vanilla JS sprinkled in, but it's not going to slow your machine to a crawl (if done properly). Yes, "view source" is going to be a sea of JavaScript that renders HTML. Pure? No. Slow? No.
It's not one URI, it's /users/edit/104 and /departments/accounting/invoices/42. It allows bookmarks via deep linking.
Would I use a SPA for my personal blog? No, I'd use a static site. In fact, I've had them since the early 1990s and I still do have static sites up right now. But would I use HTML and vanilla JS for a large enterprise system? No. As I mentioned, been through almost every web framework since ASP in 2002. JavaScript since 1997. I know the pros/cons at this point.
There are too many SPAs out there, there is no question about it. It's because had a lot of developers go to bootcamps (or teach themselves) which ended up with a lot of JavaScript developers who knew some React. So that has been the go-to for "a website".
But I don't feel these points are valid about SPAs. 30 years into it, I'm happy I greenfielded with Angular on this most recent project. Smooth sailing.
I'm just confused on why these types of stories keep coming up recently. I thought the barrage of Sqlite was a lot, but "monolith vs. not monolith" seems to be even more frequent.
What exactly is being discussed in these cases? Most large systems don't boil down to pure "microservices" or "monolith". Look at the diagram on that page ... big clouds that talk to little clouds, big clouds that talk to yet another in-house KV store labelled "database" (that has boxes inside of it), big clouds that talk to cylinders, that in turn talk to more cylinders.
Then you get to the description ... it's Python running Distillery (custom Django), talking to "WWW" (PHP), with data stored in TAO using UDB. Add sharded MySQL, ZippyDB and Async (just to get some serverless in there?).
All of this with a term I've never had to use once in all these decades, "Server-Driven UI (SDUI)". After reading the explanation, this seems to be returning UI as JSON to be put together on the client, as to avoid waiting for a release cycle for UI changes? This sounds a lot like HTML and CSS.
What does any of this have to do with monoliths vs. microservices (or not monoliths)? I don't even know what I'd label this system. 8+ different technologies spanning server and client, but referred to as a "monolith"? That term has lost all meaning to me.
Funny they ran into timezone issues and a lot of technical debt. Now that I can relate to.
If an LLM can tell you the relatonship between a compost heap and nuclear bomb, that doesn't mean that was in the training data.
It could be because a compost heap "generates heat", and a nuclear bomb also "generates heat" and due to that relationship they have something in common. The model will pick up on these similar patterns. They tokens are positioned closer to each other in the high dimensional vector space.
But for any given "what does x have in common with y", that doesn't necessarily mean someone has asked that before and it's in the training data. Is that reasoning? I don't know ... how does the brain do it?