garganzol

If Deno just took payments or at least donations, it would have thousands, or even tens of thousands of paying customers. Instead, they preferred to submit to VC and chase beehives on Deno Deploy territory.

Deno Deploy offering would have never be profitable because it contradicted the very core of the Deno's technology promise: absence of lock-in and freedom to self-host.

I believe so. Deno is too good to just die off.

Luddites riots of 2026.

Men in black: it never existed... BLITZ!

I don't quite trust this class of devices to be programmed in China by who knows who. KVMs are among those things that need authentic, business-registered suppliers that hold a trackable reputational responsibility.

Kickstarter = never in stock. What's the point in all these PR pieces when there is no product?

100x speed improvement of math operations by 8087 is not an overestimation. The difference for apps relying on math was crazy back then. I experienced this first-hand on my 80286 machine, where it was 3-second vs 300-second calculation results.

One neat feature of 8087 instruction set is that it can be interspersed with x86 instructions in the code stream, giving you a simultaneous access to two processor chips working in parallel. This combo forms a real asymmetrical multi-processor system with certain opportunities for hardware-assisted code parallelization. If a thoughtful instruction scheduling is used, floating operations executed by 8087 work in parallel with the usual integer x86 code.

Ego is insulted, they're raging but it changes nothing. Math is beautiful exactly because it discerns right from wrong with 100% accuracy, while all the emotions and "flexible interpretations" are redirected to /dev/null.

Where this approach might shine right now is .o/.obj files for assemblers/compilers/linkers. Instead of using COFF/ELF/whatever binary voodoo, a relational DB container makes most of the previously hard things trivial, including optional vendor extensions.

This would be a super pragmatic approach for a modern compiler suite. This is the brilliant part of the whole idea.

Exactly, a guaranteed alignment and continuity of a blob makes it memory-mappable allowing to avoid copying the data back and forth.

Don't pay too much attention to the inner-circle feedback. Some people subconsciously use the tone of reception to control you, especially peers/colleagues are prone to this. They see someone having a bright idea, and they genuinely don't like it just because it makes them feel small in comparison. The thing they do next - they try to extinguish the spark by creating an illusion of worthlessness in your mind. By doing so, they are getting rid of a potential competitor on their own way to success. According to psychology, they start feeling normal again by reducing you, this is a natural compensatory mechanism ingrained in human archetypes.

The key thing here is to be able to discern between real and manipulated input information. For this, gut feeling usually works best: it spots that whiny, attention-insisting, importance-seeking, fear-inducing tone of a manipulator, but oftentimes the higher-level nervous system of the brain suppresses that signal (e.g. "How can a well-educated and charismatic person feel a bit off and responsibility-lacking sometimes? It cannot be right, so it must be something with my interpretation of reality. I bet they have the best intentions.")

An even better approach may be not to search for feedback at all, unless it's shared naturally without any strings attached.

Another option is to adapt a database engine to support page-aligned blobs, which is probably not that hard to achieve.

The copied vs. mapped memory situation is the only deal breaker in this experiment. Otherwise, file format unification would be a big step forward. The PE/COFF executable file format used by Windows (and some older Unix systems) is a relational database as well. The same goes to .NET assembly format - it's a relational database too. The wheel gets reinvented over and over again.

In real life, an imaginary "leadership" quickly evaporates upon the first hurdle of any kind until proven otherwise by real actions. If I was in your shoes, I would be very careful with blanket statements like these.

I do not see any value proposition in this - if I need a sandbox, I make one with Dockerfile, Bubblewrap or virtualization. What I am missing? An enforced required login is a net negative value - it means rug pulls in the future.

I'm intrigued by how it runs on those machines in terms of performance. Maybe you have some real-time videos?

True, that piece can be optimized better, but quality of the assembly code in general is not far away from what I had been writing in 1993-96. Back then, push/pops in function prologues/epilogues were a sign of experienced assembly programmer who avoided register clobbering by using standard calling conventions.

I know a guy who founded an AI-based startup well before ChatGPT, and recently I saw some of his public messages where he stands as an ultimate anti-AI proponent.

Meanwhile, his startup that received multi-million dollar funding and developed proprietary specialized LLMs, continues to exist being somewhat profitable.

Universal AI, however, poses an existential risk to his company. So he turns into a typical gaslighter: he tries to convince everyone that AI is a dead-end, not worth it, a total disaster. By doing so, he hopes to prolong the stream of existing profits maybe just for one extra day, but internally he already knowns that his company is toast.

This is a psychological phenomenon going on right now in the world around AI: gaslight your competitors into doubt and disbelief, then win.

I presume that there were similar movements during 1950-1980s who tried to gaslight the publics against using computers while using the computers to gain a competitive advantage over them.

LLM writes a better ASM then a C compiler? From running the demo in the browser, it seems so performance-wise and size-wise, but the ultimate test should be performed on a real hardware that I have no direct access to.

Anyone can validate the performance on a real PC of the era? If it's confirmed, LLMs may be one of the ways of creating highly optimizing compilers in the future.

Exactly this. It's a well-known statistics that macOS users have ~2x better conversion rate into paying customers, while the rest of the equation is determined by the OS market shares.

(I am surprised that such a simple formula creates so much drama for some HN users that they are dare to downvote you for giving the single correct answer to that question)

While she has some experience, she well may be a total outsider for the assigned role. This is often the case in Satya's Microsoft. Spontaneous program managers from that special village somewhere in the world (nepotism) who have near zero prior participation in the industry (incompetency).

This is a bizarre claim to make in this case, AI tech is used on all platforms universally.

The product you've built the animation for is only for macOS, which is a pity cause it has a way wider appeal than macOS market share is. You have low-hanging fruits right there, don't miss them.

Shallow, haphazardly-written books full of mistakes were a thing even back then. It looks like the publication process expensiveness wasn't a good-enough filter since 1970s.

Potentially interesting website, but it's impossible to use due to ads plague.

For a context: France relies heavily on automotive transport, plus it's a home to enormous agricultural sector, tractors are literally everywhere in the country during the summer. To a certain degree, structurally it resembles USA a lot.

Claude always was slightly lobotomized - instead of solving problems intellectually, it often prefers to be a middle-level code monkey. Maybe this was a part of the implicit safe mode from the very beginning. Cursor/Codex always work better for a way lower spend, at least in my experience.

I did mathematics on paper, and informatics on computers. Some of my peers weren't so lucky, so they had to do informatics on paper only. Needless to say that the magnitude of progress we were getting in informatics had day and night difference, not in the favor of paper.

AI is indeed dangerous. It gives super abilities when in the right hands. Some people don't like it as it creates competition for their mere existence. They start gaslighting campaigns - "AI is bad, dangerous, does not work, consumes too much energy etc". This is luddism of our century, but also a form of psychopathy. When everybody is being gaslit, some of the very same players who spreads false narratives use AI to their own benefit.

I already saw it in my life: a ban on calculators, a ban on computers. But after a short period of rejection, everybody starts to embrace the new tech. Instead of bans we were getting computer classes in schools.