aobdev

This is hardly surprising after the recent string of venture-backed developer tooling acquisitions: Bun -> Anthropic, VoidZero (vite) -> Cloudflare, Astral (uv, ruff) -> OpenAI

The only thing that remains to be seen is how these affect those tools going forward (and who's next)

I had to double check the site because I believed for a second that Apple was doing some pricing sleight of hand by saying "Look, it's cheaper!" and removing half the product...

But this isn't true at all, it's $129 for a normal case, $149 for a wireless charging case.

Python and Java do not have any similar constructs

That only works with "G" brand gaming devices. Their entire MX line does not allow you to store customizations in onboard memory.

Logitech mice and keyboards have extra features that the OS would consider non-standard; you can customize a lot of behaviors as well as map extra buttons to specific actions. For some reason, Logitech decided not to store customization settings on-device so there is a background daemon that must run on the host. Also inexplicably, it is an electron app with a 600MB install footprint requiring online connectivity (apparently there's also an offline version, weighing in at 1.2GB). Also not available on Linux.

I’m not claiming it’s not fine, but it is a surprising consideration for a relatively small deployment. You have to start planning around Postgres’ architecture for anything larger, hence the solution in PgBouncer.

Yes but they can’t be shared. If you size your pool to hold 10 connections (because asyncio can handle that and more), then deploy with uvicorn —-workers 4 (which should match the number of cores on your app server), and then deploy to 3 app servers (for redundancy) then you’ve now got 120 open connections to Postgres. Run anything more than a trivial query and you’re easily at gigabytes of ram.

That's fine but doesn't address the issue that PgBouncer does. Your application connection pool can multiplex all the connections needed in one application. PgBouncer can multiplex the connections across all applications (whether different apps or many instances of the same app).

This solves the latency but not the overhead--you'll end up with a full pool of connections for each running instance of your application.

> If you have a connection pooler in your application, and the DB is only used for this application, you don't need an external pool like PgBouncer.

But this is only true if you have no more than a few running instances of your application. So it feels like the cases where you must have Postgres (over an alternative like SQLite) but can't justify PgBouncer are very narrow.

Every single connection to Postgres is a new process, which requires a fork and new memory allocation (at least 10MB plus whatever you need for your query).

PgBouncer opens a pool of connections and then reuses them each time a client asks for a connection. This reduces latency (no more fork) and overhead (reuse memory).

The author is pretty unsympathetic towards those who give their lives to “Workism” in exchange for money, no?

Huh, TIL. Thanks for pointing it out.

I think you’ve made an extreme leap in your interpretation of the comment you’re replying to…

Airlines have kept tabs on Bluetooth and WiFi hotspots as early as the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 incidents (2016)

I can’t tell if you’re making a joke about the current state of AI and GPUs or refuting the purpose of this driver

Wasn’t this the same argument for .jar files?

I really don’t see how you came to that conclusion—that Mac was overpriced and underpowered, and only had the single usb-c port. Neo has better battery life, a better display, a more capable processor, and a much lower price (9 years later no less).

I've been very pleased with my ViewSonic VP2488-4K. A little steep for $550, but if you spend any significant time in front of the screen I think it's very much worth it. I'm planning to buy a second one.

But isn’t this what the article is saying? Even with AI you’re still not going to build your own payroll/ERP/CRM.

I believe that. Companies will build cheap tools today while competitors are spinning up to undercut ADP, Salesforce, and SAP. But what happens tomorrow? There are plenty of examples in IT today where the reasonable option is to outsource in 90% of cases: don’t roll your own auth, don’t host your own email server, don’t build your own data center. I don’t see how AI can change that, when the people who build specialized software also have access to AI.

Another great example is open source. I think PostgreSQL being free and usable by everyone is a more economic outcome than every Fortune 500 company building their own database engine. Payroll, ERP, and CRM fall into the same category of being commodity software in a lot of cases.

I don’t doubt it but that doesn’t negate the fact that Slack as a company exists and makes money by selling software. My question is this: AI makes it cheaper to build software, but ADP, SAP, and Salesforce also have access to AI and could make cheaper versions of their products. How does AI change the build vs buy trade off in a way that eliminates economies of scale? My opinion and that of the article is that it doesn’t.

Why does AI make it cheaper to build internal but not cheaper for SaaS competitors to pop up? Everyone has access to the same tools.

That’s a fine example, but my question then is why does Slack exist? Surely Fortune 500 companies are smart enough to realize that building a slack clone is cheaper, yet they don’t do that.

So now consider AI, perhaps the cost of building has decreased from 100k to 10k. What stops a Slack competitor from also building the product for 10k and reselling it at 10% of the cost of Slack? My point is that I don’t see how AI has changed the value prop.

Thought exercise for those in disagreement: why would every company use AI to build their own payroll/ERP/CRM, when just a handful of companies could use AI to build those offerings better?

This is largely how things work now; AI may lower the cost and increase margins, but the economics of build vs buy seem the same.

Check the article, AI interpreted the phrase “continuously merged” as “continvoucly morged”

The analogy should be obvious--a model refusing to perform an unethical action is the lock against others.

If that's what they're referring to, then my question is why does that need to end?

I understand selling the Teensy line is out of your control, but what does “support” mean exactly in this context? Will related materials stay on your site?

I really hope this doesn’t lead to “boycott” of Teensy per se. I completely sympathize with tensions running high but please reconsider for the good of the community.

It’s not just carrying their products. They are the exclusive producer of Teensy boards and are distributing them to many resellers but not to Adafruit.