4,853 karma · joined July 14, 2016
https://daveon.design or https://vintagedave.com
It's a mildly horrific celebration, with its tradition of burning an effigy (Guy Fawkes.) The man himself was not executed by fire, but in the end by hanging, I think. Wikipedia has some unpleasant details of what was planned for him.
Yet today, effigies of other people are placed on the fire. I feel it is a relevant festival, in that unlike Halloween (spooky ghosts, commercial) it's a deeply political festival, the result of failed revolution. It's a celebration of the establishment winning, and yet somehow people see it more as a celebration of the attempt.
Anyone know what they're doing?
It sounds like a single processor, so no best-of-three or similar systems. Software solution only, possibly running on the same bitflipping CPU that's being checked. I'd be very interested to know how it's solved.
At home I sometimes find a dead spider fallen and trapped in a drinking glass. Since moving to the countryside, mice in winter have become a reality. Recently for kitchen repairs, I found several dead ones that had fallen into the cavity around our range hood, which was built apparently once, not made to be opened. Here I am, two thousand years later, experiencing in my kitchen something similar to those Romans in their wardrobe.
> Both the report and the Park’s press release invoke Tacitus and the rules for property left without heirs. The report adds that this reference needs philological and legal-historical study before it is tied to the owners of this house. The measure I could trace is in Suetonius, Life of Titus 8.4, which assigns the property of those who died at Vesuvius without heirs to restoring the buried towns.
'Restoring the buried towns' - what a wonderful idea, that Pompeii's treasures were, and by tradition and respect today are, used for the benefit of the site!
The press release, Google-Translate-d, has only speculation about what happened to the residents:
> But perhaps they didn't make it, and they could be among those who, as the historian Tacitus recalls, died without an heir, and whose assets were supposedly used for the refoundation of Pompeii, which ultimately never materialized.
...which is considerably less romantic than the thought that the artifacts and property would have have the ancient law respected today.
Are they forced to sell? To raise new capital? To increase value somehow (?) to show the debt can be met? I don't know enough to even know what questions to ask. Are they in trouble, I guess, as in, suppose they had to sell to cover debt, in this market, would anyone be around to buy?
Edit: the readme has something very similar:
wine based Win16->Win32 conversion codes:
BOOL16 WINAPI DestroyWindow16( HWND16 hwnd )
{
return DestroyWindow( WIN_Handle32(hwnd) );
}
I would guess that's what the WIN_Handle32 method/macro is doing.OpenAI, in theory, tries for GPT to be neutral. And, 'reality has a well-known liberal bias', as Colbert said.
I live somewhere pretty remote, and every article it suggests is an entry for a nearby village, which is usually a sentence long. There are other interesting things nearby: could it have some kind of variance function, so it looks specifically for a variety of content?
Here I am, seeing something cool and immediately asking for changes. Spirit of the internet ;) Genuinely, it is a wonderful idea, and I admire the concept and that you did it.
I think if redeploying was not possible, I would have preferred they automatically hid or revoked keys, or the sites or services were automatically turned offline. I suppose this may not be everyone's preference. I know for my site, a simple 'This is hosted by Railway and we have an outage' (and for our service tier, all REST service requests 500-ing, or 404-ing, or...) would be far preferable to the site being online, appearing to work, and functionality just failing for people due to the keys being revoked. Something clear is preferable to something hidden. I worry that to our users, who don't know our host, when the service is down but we cannot change the deployment, it makes us look like we're unreliable or flaky.
I like Railway but have been burned a little by them. FWIW, while not using them for one service where I felt really let down, one other service remained and just a week ago I recommended them again... ouch!
I feel they've grown fast but may not have the infrastructure fully fleshed out. A mass 'disable all services' button probably would not exist until the day they need one.
I thought both these statements were no longer held to be broadly true? At least in big lab or frontier models.
> What you should do: As such, we strongly recommend that you immediately roll all environment variables, including any API keys, stored in Railway, as well as any private registry credentials, and review logs for those services for unusual activity.
> All deployments are paused while we investigate. Until builds are restored, you will not be able to roll out new versions. We apologize for this inconvenience.
They lead with rotating keys.
Next, I did not realize that this meant not being able to restart an existing deployment to bring up new env vars. They also speak of builds. I don’t need a new build. I need my existing deployment to work.
It was not at all clear ‘paused’ mean this; maybe I should have realized, but I had interpreted it as doing new deployments or builds. New services. Code changes. New builds as they even say. It’s fully reasonable to pause that in this sort of situation and so I had interpreted their statement that way.
If there is a clear impact from following advice — ‘do what we recommend and your service will not function’ — those who provide that advice need to make that clear.
Only to read,
> Because deployments are paused, you will not be able to redeploy your services to pick up the new credentials until builds are restored. We will post here when builds resume with any additional details.
So now my service does not work. Which is worse: a stolen key or a broken product? I'm genuinely regretting following their advice on rotating keys, because logs showed no sign of incorrect usage, and our service would at least have remained online.
I hope that they automatically redeploy their customer services. I just worry that I won't have tested it. I mean: 5AM. Keys changed. Nothing more I can do. Should go back to sleep. No timeline to wake up to check deployments, so... I... wait?
Anonymous methods are the ones that are implemented via an interfaced object. It is a bit odd and I wish they had chosen something more ABI-compatible with a C++ functor, since it would have made mapping between the two easier IMO.
I have a test branch of the Oxygene compiler -- no idea if we'll merge it in, we make syntax experiments regularly -- where all callables are assignment-compatible. In Delphi terms this means assigning an anon method to an event handler would work, but equally for us, lambdas, blocks, and more. The idea is somewhat C++-like in terms of std::function and std::bind but with simple syntax in that you write it and it works: if it can be called, it can be applied where any callable method-like expectation exists.
I expect among many other things I will be mentioning FPC's support for packages and this thread :)
This is in the sixteenth century, and it's striking how many centuries the plague remained a threat for. I wonder what it was like, knowing that maybe one year, after decades have passed, the plague would strike -- like knowing Covid would return, continued for hundreds of years, but normalised and ingrained. Just: part of life. You would grow up knowing and expecting it. Perhaps influenza was like this early 20th century.
It would be remiss not to point other HN readers at Connie Willis's Doomsday Book: an amazing novel, Hugo and Nebula Award winner, which mixes both a modern day plague and the horrifying medieval one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Book_(novel)
Let me see if I understand this: we are losing accuracy, deliberately, to avoid a negative leap second (something the effects of which we have fears about but don't know), allowing our timekeeping to grow a full hour out of sync, several orders of magnitude worse than we have accepted in the past?
I'm sure there are good reasons, but in terms of communication, this seems lacking. Can someone help me understand why this is better?
I have heard that Fortran is very very good at optimizing array processing due to lack of aliases. That may be one answer today. There’s also value in continuity: in using a language for your task because it can build on what others have built. That applies to any established language, of course… but I could see it reasonably applied if someone wrote some kind of numerical processing library today. They’d write it in Fortran and call it from Python!
Also, putting on a product manager hat for a moment: one concern you need to have in your role is creep: small changes accumulate over time into something materially worse, but where each stage is small and not excessively bad on its own. The graphic shows it clearly in the quantity of items on the Dock. The first version had 14: already quite a lot. macOS 27 has 22, and is very wide. I find it visually overwhelming, not just because all the icons have the same silhouette, but because there are so many of them.
Yet I bet the addition or removal of an app to the default Dock was carefully assessed in every single release.
Edit: check out this comment in the thread [1], where tkcranny states it more colourfully than I do :)
https://signalandsilence.substack.com/p/i-think-someone-hack...
Not affiliated, just a happy customer. If you're thinking of getting in a similar business and are not a competitor in Sweden, drop them a line. When I spoke to them they were very friendly.
In a sense this is true across _all_ user interfaces. MacOS is perhaps the best example. This occurred largely in the same timeframe.
I wonder what it means culturally / socially, in terms of the loss of excitement or visual wonder, and replacement with 'sterile, generic' visuals.