- which they have also massively refurbished and could have handled themselves if not for regulations around creating a launch site.
there aren’t many technical issues to pouring concrete in a good lat-lon
- > We can generalise this idea of being forced to handle the failure cases by saying that Haskell makes us write total functions rather than partial functions.
Haskell doesn't prevent endless recursion. (try e.g. `main = main`)
As the typed FP ecosystem is moving towards dependent typing (Agda, Idris, Lean), this becomes an issue, because you don't want the type checker to run indefinitely.
The many ad-hoc extensions to Haskell (TypeFamilies, DataKinds) are tying it down. Even the foundations might be a bit too ad-hoc: I've seen the type class resolution algorithm compared to a bad implementation of Prolog.
That's why, if you like the Haskell philosophy, why would you restrict yourself to Haskell? It's not bleeding edge any more.
Haskell had the possibility of being a standardized language, but look at how few packages MicroHS compiles (Lennart admitted to this at ICFP '24[0]). So the standardization has failed. The ecosystem is built upon C. The Wasm backend can't use the Wasm GC because of how idiosyncratic GHC's RTS is.[1]
So what does unique value proposition does GHC have left? Possibly the GHC runtime system, but it's not as sexy to pitch in a blog post like this.
[0]: Lennart Augustsson, MicroHS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMurx1a6Zck&t=36m
[1]: Cheng Shao, the Wasm backend for GHC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMurx1a6Zck&t=13290s
- Now you've piqued my interest, especially if it could be done in a safe but distributed way, without a focus on profits.
How you'd envision it to work, considering the open nature of ActivityPub but the need/want from the users to remain private when using dating applications/protocols?
- I’ve been conceptualizing one for a few years, but just don’t have the free dopamine to build it alongside my day job.
ActivityPub even has the mechanics to facilitate it through publishing Person records. There is MASSIVE space for innovation, especially if you prioritize on non-monogamy, non-heterosexual, non-gender-conforming needs.
Dating apps are a REALLY hard space to get into, however. You need a cumulative mass of users in a given area before they’re useful, and monetizing it inevitably means making the app less useful. There’s a reason okcupid went to shit after it stopped being a non-profit.
And then there’s the moderation problem…
- 0.6 is too thin and makes poor contact. 0.7 is best but no board house makes it. 0.8 works.
- > if Apple is providing raw eye tracking streams to app developers
Apple is not doing that. As the article describes, the issue is that your avatar (during a FaceTime call, for example) accurately reproduces your eye movements.
- > The space agency, under a fixed price agreement, agreed to pay Boeing $4.2 billion to develop the Starliner spacecraft; SpaceX would receive $2.6 billion for the development of its Crew Dragon vehicle.
> The NASA officials at the press conference said they were confident that Boeing would continue despite losing at least $1.6 billion so far on the fixed-price contract and facing more losses amid investigations into the thruster failures on Starliner's latest flight. But there were no Boeing officials to ask. In the immediate aftermath of the landing, the company issued a short statement that included this noncommittal comment about its plans: "We will review the data and determine the next steps for the program."
From the article, it seems like the implication is that the program is under review from the Boeing side and not the Nasa side.
- The interesting thing for me is how this mission underscore the difference between SpaceX and other space companies. SpaceX have become an entire commercial space agency, able to supply everything from the rockets and capsules, to the ground operations and even the space suites and to do that in a complete package.
If you have enough money you can ring them up and say "I want to go into space" and they can make that happen. That is a pretty big deal.
- It’s clear they’d be fine without that; they could probably have Texas ready for manned launches fairly quick.
More likely they lease launch facilities from the government to minimize regulatory interference from… the government.
- It makes a little sense, for instance say you've got a public server on a fixed IP that an attacker manages to exfiltrate the key but nothing else. This'd keep them out of your network.
But I think it'd probably be better to alert the administrator rather than simply blocking them.
- "any peer public IP can impersonate any other (if it has the required WireGuard peer key"
Right. So you want to put in IP filtering on top of that, having already had a compromised connection?
The biggest issue I have with wireguard is the tendancy for clients to actually show the private key. It shouldn't generally be visible, there's no needs.
- The reason that I've heard used repeatedly is that a shocking percentage of folks who aren't Technology producers can't separate visual quality from "doneness" of a project. If you show some business folks something that looks like it works, they'll mentally update the project to "Nearly done!" and then everything else after that becomes "Unreasonable delays."
- Tbh this seems like a win—you want to incentivize making as much use of those short domains as possible.
- But you could at least dampen out or randomize eye travel while looking at the keyboard. Fully reproducing eye output is a recipe for disaster, and that should have been obvious.
- This is a great example of why ‘user-spacey’ applications from the OS manufacturer shouldn’t be privileged beyond other applications: Because this bypasses the security layer while lulling devs into a false sense of security.
- The Oxide folks are rather vocal about their distaste for the Linux Foundation. FWIW I think they went with the right choice for them considering they'd rather sign up for maintaining the entire thing themselves than saddling themselves with the baggage of a Linux fork or upstreaming
- Talking about "technological and political issues" without mentioning any, or without mentioning which components would need to be revived, sounds a lot like FUD unfortunately. Mixing and matching traditional and systemd components is super common, for example Fedora and RHEL use chrony instead of timesyncd, and NetworkManager instead of networkd.
- I prefer McDonald Douglas, after all it is a clown show.
- * McDonnell Douglas
- > there aren’t many technical issues to pouring concrete in a good lat-lon
Other than when a powerful and explosion-prone rocket destroyed its launchpad, hurling chunks of steel-reinforced concrete thousands of feet. But it's almost 18 months since that happened.
- That incident probably underscores the parent poster's point quite effectively.
That launch was on 20th April 2023, and the next prototype test launch was only 212 days later on 18th November 2023, although I think the pad redesign/rebuild/repair work was complete by the end of July 2023.
So only 3-4 months to redesign/rebuild/repair the pad (although it's probably reasonable to assume some design work had already occurred).
- [delayed]
- I’ve just rented a toyota and it’s comical. How people keep buying this???
Car is perfectly fine (despite being an anaemic ICE), but damn fix your UX.
People shit on Teslas touchscreen, but buttons on your Toyotas are worse - smaller, crowded and hard to discern.
Audio connectivity feels designed by lawyers who wish you to crash car as quickly as possible (thinking about this loud - maybe it’s a good thing, like the tullock spike?)
- > Zero dependencies
This is something seldom attempted, but I congratulate you. Go is one of a few languages that really is batteries-included. Just about anything you could need is included in the stdlib.
- Not sure how it is possible to consider fashion vs getting to do a space walk.
- So despite getting 61% more money for the project, they not only failed to achieve what SpaceX did with less money but actually lost another $1.6b on top of it while still failing to achieve the necessary result.
Boeing just seems to be really, really bad at this.
- Haha well that’s gonna happen from time to time when you try new things.
- That's why I wrote will become.
SpaceX doesn't have real competition after Boeing failed.
What happens in such a monopoly?
The prices rise.
- Whats your point
- Perhaps you would find it more palatable if it were phrased as: "You cannot exist as a company if you do not serve the wants and needs of your customer."?
But, of course, that says the same thing. These companies are scumbags because that's how the customer wants them to behave. In this case, because it makes executing payroll cheaper for the customer.
Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit