mej10

It is obviously not going to be until some really bad series of cyberattacks or a chemical/bioweapon attack before anyone takes regulation of models seriously.

They are _obviously_ (please convince me otherwise) going to be capable of carrying these terrible things out almost completely autonomously at some point in the near future, in potentially clever ways. Therefore we must, at some point, ban or heavily regulate them. Seems we should start figuring that shit out _now_, as progress has remained very fast and regulation and enforcement take forever on these time scales.

Can someone help me understand the licensing of this?

https://github.com/sdv-dev/SDV/blob/main/LICENSE

It was MIT licensed up until 2022 where it was changed to what it is now, where they say that it will become MIT again 4 years after release... but is that from when the license was changed or the first release of the software in GitHub?

There was/is a game called Shattered Galaxy that was best described this way.

Several factions continuously battling over discrete territories. There would be calculations throughout the day that would give certain bonuses to whichever factions were winning.

Every territory had a field commander that could request people join that had leveled up certain types of units based on how the battle was evolving.

There was also a form of player controlled government in each faction that could choose bonuses and allocate resources to various battles.

It was really cool for its moment in time.

> I don't get the impression that they had a "ton" of money when they started.

Viaweb was PG's first company, which sold to Yahoo for $49 million in 1998. Just as an FYI -- I think PG/JL/YC are great.

For what it's worth, that is illegal in the USA at least. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passed in 2008.

Straight up plagiarizes The Beatles here: https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3#dr.-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go

" There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known. Nothing you can see that isn’t shown. Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be. "

actix, cdrs, rusoto, cadence, diesel, futures/tokio, serde, chashmap, slog, postgres, criterion, r2d2, chrono

That isn't all of them but those are the main ones.

Interested to know what Rust was missing. I built an ad exchange last year and it has been great. I have been using nightly builds, mostly for access to async/await, and it has been very fast and stable.

I have had to submit a few pull requests to various projects along the way, but didn't find the ecosystem prohibitively lacking.

Cool! I am working on almost the exact same thing. Grats on shipping!

I wonder how enforceable that patent is.

I have also had many lucid dreams -- I used to practice lucid dreaming.

This is like a lucid dream but there is no narrative or control over what is happening -- only awareness. It is really most like being in the center of a river of thoughts, briefly experiencing them as they rush by.

Nope, though I am familiar with that, too. At least in my experiences with hypnogogia I have some "control" or at least a feeling of control over what is happening to some extent. Or maybe it is better to describe it as being a more sequential experience than the other one I am describing.

Maybe if one is to stay conscious during hypnogogia for longer than I ever have they would experience a similar thing? There just always seems to be some bias in hypnagogia steered by and experienced by my consciousness in first person. In the other experience it is really more like I am an outside observer.

I have become conscious during dreams that I would describe as "being in a river of disjointed thoughts and emotions" -- the experience is exactly like I was witness to the many thoughts being considered/happening in my brain rapidly and simultaneously.

It is much more intense than normal dreams and I usually wake up within a few moments, and there is never a narrative like normal dreams -- just an awareness of many concurrent thoughts in quick succession.

There is a typo in the first subheading: "Project Refrences"

We have, so far, only made a GraphQL endpoint for internal use. It has been awesome for quickly finding things in a medium-complexity database schema (30 or so tables, bunch of different relationships). It has become my preferred way to quickly find things in the database.

That being said, there are cases where a join between ad hoc subqueries is the best way, and GraphQL doesn't really offer a way to do that (though I don't see why it wouldn't be possible). E.g. arbitrarily combining two GraphQL queries that return lists where some field in one is equal to some field in another.

But in terms of replacing REST, where you have to do all of that anyway, it is far and away the better option (for ad hoc querying, at least).

Pretty much anyone working in ad tech.

Not necessarily trillions at a time, but even small ad tech firms deal with billions of new data points across many dimensions every day.

... you mean like async / await?

Very inspiring work! Would love to try it out.

How many paying customers does an app like this have? Seems cool but niche.

Ah, I have looked into Datomic a bit but didn't realize this, though it makes sense in retrospect.

I was under the impression, based on its docs, that Datomic only supports processing transactions serially through a single transactor.

Do you have good examples of

> easily do that with a single aggregation REST endpoint too, provided you have resource links in your responses

I work with/on a "REST" API that has about 20 types of objects, 5-100 fields on each, with many different relationships between them. We've been looking at GraphQL to solve both the querying and mutation aspect, since it is extremely cumbersome to do it efficiently.

GraphQL seems great for this case, but if there is some way just adding resource links could get us most of the benefits I'd love to hear it!

Personally, I think it would be morally reprehensible to use energy to keep BTC alive if there are vastly more efficient alternatives that achieve the same goal. Though I am interested in counter-arguments.

They've been releasing new features for it at a pretty steady rate. I think it is a safe bet in terms of sticking around.

It fits in well to the overall Google Cloud Computing offering and has few real competitors in AWS/Azure.

I say this as someone using AWS daily but Firebase for side projects.

Backpack, for example, was _literally_ only released in the latest version of GHC. Do you just glance over the subreddit occasionally or something? That would explain your list.

You list things that aren't part of the Haskell standard and just claim that they are "core" while not even listing all of the _actually core_ features of OCaml -- all of its OO parts.

Since I am calling out the responses to you, I feel like I should do the same here.

> All the other things that people use exist as (individually) extremely simple extensions that you can learn in isolation in a few minutes.

If by "learn" you mean you can type in something that is the correct syntax, sure... but in terms of actually learning how to use them to model problems? Come on...

> Haskell is possibly the least over-engineered language out there

Javascript is pretty under-engineered. But more seriously there are several real contenders here in Smalltalk, older Scheme standards, and Go (though again that may be considered under-engineered).

Because GHC isn't a compiler for just "Haskell -- the standardized language".

It also implements a huge number of optional language extensions.

This is a weird comment since you've purposefully included many Haskell extensions that are in no way part of the "core" language.

Hindley-milner, ADTs, type classes, and laziness are core i.e. part of Haskell 2010. GADTs aren't even part of core Haskell. So I guess it is simpler than Ocaml after all!

That's true, but since there are many people that find Reason (OCaml) readable I am going to say familiarity is the biggest problem here.

readability is a function of familiarity

EDIT:

Sorry, I just don't like when people share shallow and negative thoughts about projects that take away from meaningful discussion.

Why is the OP comment shallow? Because obviously _some_ people find it readable which would suggest that it is familiarity that is the problem -- not some universal quality of the language.