1,992 karma · joined August 5, 2024
What do you mean? The concepts of "drift" and "scaffolding" were uncommon before LLMs?
Not trying to challenge you. Honestly trying to understand what you mean. I don't think I have heard this ever before. I'd expect concepts like "drift" and "scaffolding" to be already very popular before LLMs existed. And how did you pick those two concepts of aaallll... the concepts in this world?
Improve grammar and typos in my draft but don't change my writing style.
> Some people have been indoctrinated into looking at others and feeling envy (cultural gap?) but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
Envy is a natural human emotion. What do you feel envy about? Rhetorical question. Not expecting an answer unless you want to volunteer this information. I'm no psychologist nor a philosopher but I'd hazard a guess that whatever you feel envy about says something about what you or your culture thinks are desirable virtues.
It looks like you are somehow projecting your type of envy onto me and my culture. I don't think I've ever felt envy about someone being rich. Someone is super rich? Very good for them. I am not super rich but I earn well to live a comfortable life. Good for me too.
But I feel envy too when I meet someone who is an absolute gentleperson who is not only doing very well for their family but also for the community around them. I admire them. At the same time I feel envy.
Now, I'm not saying one envy is better than other. Not at all. I'm just saying cultural differences can be big and it's sometimes very hard to imagine or visualize each other's culture because our own culture seems so natural to us that the other culture seems unnatural.
So to your rhetorical:
> cultural gap?
Yes, absolutely!
> but don't be delusional into thinking its all random and there's nothing to learn.
Absolutely! A person who wants to become super-rich has a lot to learn from someone who is super-rich. I don't want to be super-rich. I want to be excellent in other virtues which I think were mostly indoctrinated by my culture. So I look up to people with those virtues and learn from them. That's kinda why we don't really look at a super-rich person and immediately think "there is something unique about them" (which is where this thread began above) even if it's true. But we do see a person with great community spirit and think "there is something unique about them".
It may be tempting to say "they must know something others don't" or "there's something unique about them." But that's exactly the kind of thinking GP is pushing back against. Whether or not you say "genius" or not is semantics. But it's true that in some cultures, being rich is seen as a sign of wisdom or superiority. I see it sometimes on HN and I've definitely seen in public discourse. But I can't relate very much to it.
This may be a cultural gap but where I come from, wealth doesn't carry that kind of moral weight. It's like, sure Alex might be super rich. But are they honest, humble, and kind? Those qualities matter far more than how much money and assets they have.
Yes, there are billionaires where I'm from too, but no one treats them as inherently special. What people truly admire are virtues like groundedness and community service. When someone uses their skills with sincerity and a spirit of giving, that's when people say, "there's something unique about them." And this is going to be true as much for a rich bloke as it'd be for a poor bloke. Wealth has nothing to do with it.
May I suggest you use reader mode to remove the annoying flashing background? If you can get past the annoying UX of the article, it has interesting stories about serious issues.
Use reader mode, block Javascript or whatever it takes. Give the author a break. They're a teenager. What kind of websites were you making as a teenager? I'm sure one of those dark background websites with MARQUEEs and BLINKs with glaring contrast colors! So give them a break. Behind the annoying UX is an article about serious and appalling privacy and security issues.
Like read this:
> i raised this with chris, who's a full-time staff member (not a teenager), and he insisted that exposing physical addresses and sensitive info was "just a vuln" not a breach. said he's "never heard the term 'data breach' used that way" and... also relied on chatgpt instead of actual legal advice.
Actually this Chris guy has a point. I don't call it breach either. It's PII data exposure but it is a serious exposure. So I don't 100% agree with the OP but the cavalier attitude towards security coming from the staff of a legitimate organization is appalling.
It's just mind boggling that an organization handling PII data has such appalling privacy and security lapses and they still remain arrogantly indignant about it making bold claims about laws they don't understand, why, because ChatGPT told them so? Cherry on top is they are employing teenagers to answer legal questions! Not kidding! Just read the OP! Unbelievable!
On another note: There's very little substance in this post. It comes across as a lazy, shallow, "hot" take! Which is fine. It's your blog and you should write however you like on your blog. But is this really a good fit for HN? It's frustrating to see shallow posts with no substance like this rise to the top but higher-effort go unnoticed.
What a boldly incorrect comment! It's like you didn't even read the first point in TFA!
It's not so hard. You interpret it how it is written. Yes, they say one camp chases buzzwords and another chases common sense. Critique that if you want to. That's fine.
But what's not written in the OP is some sort of claim that Postgres performs better than Kafka. The opposite is written. The OP acknowledges that Kafka is fast. Right there in the title! What's written is OP's experiments and data that shows Postgres is slow but can be practical for people who don't need Kafka. Honestly I don't see anything bewildering about it. But if you think they're wrong about Postgres being slow but practical that's something nice to talk about. What's not nice is to post snarky comments insinuating that the OP is asking you to design unscalable solutions.
> This is literally the point the author is making.
Exactly! I just don't understand why HN invariably always tends to bubble up the most dismissive comments to the top that don't even engage with the actual subject matter of the article!
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
I'm glad the OP benchmarked on the 96 vCPU server. So now I know how well Postgres performs on a large CPU. Not very well. But if the OP had done their benchmark on a low CPU, I wouldn't have learned this.
Is anyone actually reading the full article, or just reacting to the first unimpressive numbers you can find and then jumping on the first dismissive comment you can find here?
Benchmarking Kafka isn't the point here. The author isn't claiming that Postgres outperforms Kafka. The argument is that Postgres can handle modest messaging workloads well enough for teams that don't want the operational complexity of running Kafka.
Yes, the throughput is astoundingly low for such a powerful CPU but that's precisely the point. Now you know how well or how bad Postgres performs on a beefy machine. You don't always need Kafka-level scale. The takeaway is that Postgres can be a practical choice if you already have it in place.
So rather than dismissing it over the first unimpressive number you find, maybe respond to that actual matter of TFA. Where's the line where Postgres stops being "good enough"? That'll be something nice to talk about.
Honest question. What could they have possibly gained from AI? What did they miss out on by not getting into AI?
What about TLS certificates attested by CAs who validate the real world legal entity? Would you agree that this is a solved problem there?
If I want to visit chase.com, I want to consider a server controlled by Chase (the company) to be the real website. PKI with a CA that attests the legal entity behind the website guarantees this. I agree with you that Let's Encrypt does not guarantee this. Is your comment scoped to Let's Encrypt only? If so, I agree.
But if we're talking about PKI in general, it seems like a terrible compromise to me to consider a middle-man to be the real website.
I guess we both disagree on a very fundamental point. To me it seems ridiculous to accept that it is reasonable to consider to the middle-man to be the real website. But to you it apparently makes sense. I am unable to understand why though.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the problem. Nobody here is talking about the domain resolving to ISP.
We're talking about an MITM attack where a middle-man (doesn't even need to be the ISP, it could be a router in the middle acting like middle-man) intercepts our request and serving its own public key instead of the actual server's public key so that it can carry out an MITM attack.
With TOFU, there is no way to detect this attack the first time I am connecting to the website. Once you have foolishly trusted the middle-man's public key, you may not notice any problem for months or years. Then one day, the middle-man may decide to misuse your credentials that it has collected during MITM attack.
But that's exactly what we're trying to avoid. When I want to visit my bank website, I don't want the ISP to become the real website.
I don't understand your comments. Your solution to how I trust the website on first use (TOFU) is to trust whatever public key the middle man (the ISP) serves? If you're okay with that, I guess you don't have a problem. But I'm not okay with that, so TOFU doesn't solve my problem.
Still doesn't explain how I'll confirm that if the website has not been intercepted by a middle man the first time I visit it.
Why is it reasonable to trust the key on first use? What if the first use itself has a man-in-the-middle that presents you the middle-man's key? Why should I trust it on first use? How do I tell if the key belongs to the real website or to a middle-man website?
As a user how would I know if I should trust the website's public key on first use?
This! Forget about average user. As a technical user too I don't know how I would compare fingerprints every single time without making a mistake. I could install software or write my own to do this on desktop but what would I do on cell phones?
And TOFU requires "trust" on first use. How do I make sure that if I should be trusting the website public key on first use? It doesn't seem like any easier to solve than PKI.