Aefiam (u/Aefiam) - Readit News

Aefiam commented on The EU made Apple adopt new Wi-Fi standards, and now Android can support AirDrop arstechnica.com/gadgets/2... · Posted by u/cyclecount

vineyardmike · 3 months ago

Apple said from the day that they made lightning cables that it would be supported for 10 years. They literally contractually guaranteed that to third party manufacturers in exchange for them creating a massive availability of cables for Apple users.

The EU “forced them” to switch to the standard they helped develop (USB C) on the 11th year after developing lighting. I’m sure it was all the EUs doing.

Aefiam · 3 months ago

The iphone could have had both usbc and lightning, so if they cared about that they would have done it.

Aefiam commented on An overengineered solution to `sort | uniq -c` with 25x throughput (hist) github.com/noamteyssier/h... · Posted by u/noamteyssier

jll29 · 4 months ago

I use questions around this pipeline in interviews. As soon as people say they'd write a Python program to sort a file, they get rejected.

Arguably, this will result in a slower result in most cases, but the reason for the rejection is wasting developer time (not to mention time to test for correctness) to re-develop something that is already available in the OS.

Aefiam · 4 months ago

you can develop just as fast or even faster with python once you develop a good enough utility library for it.

For example my python interpreter imports my custom List and Path classes and I could just do the following to get the same result:

List(List(Path("filepath").read_text_file().splitlines()).group_by_key(lambda x:x).items()).map(lambda x:(len(x[1]),x[0])).sorted()

and if used often enough, it could made an utility method:

Path("filepath").read_sorted_by_most_common()

So I find it shortsighted to reject someone based on that without giving them a chance to explain their reasoning.

I think generally people really underestimate how much more productive you can be with a good utility library.

Aefiam commented on An overengineered solution to `sort | uniq -c` with 25x throughput (hist) github.com/noamteyssier/h... · Posted by u/noamteyssier

da_chicken · 4 months ago

I'd not heard of clickhouse before. It does seem interesting, but I just can't get behind a project that says:

> The easiest way to download the latest version is with the following command:

> curl https://clickhouse.com/ | sh

Like, sure, there is some risk downloading a binary or running an arbitrary installer. But this is just nuts.

Aefiam · 4 months ago

how is this any less secure than running a binary/installer? the binary could run this inside?

Aefiam commented on Be Careful with Obsidian phong.bearblog.dev/be-car... · Posted by u/allenleee

phoronixrly · 5 months ago

I will assume you're not trolling but that just don't know what FOSS is about. Check this out https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Aefiam · 5 months ago

this page gives no arguments why nonfree software is unethical

Aefiam commented on A failure of security systems at PayPal is causing concern for German banks nordbayern.de/news-in-eng... · Posted by u/tietjens

skybrian · 6 months ago

That's a simplistic way of understanding "best interest."

The optimal amount of fraud is neither zero nor "let it all through." Their "best interest" is a balance between allowing legit transactions to get through and blocking enough fraudulent ones that fraud doesn't become too common.

Aefiam · 6 months ago

The optimal amount of fraud is zero.

But fraud prevention is not free and has negative returns at some point.

I dislike it when people use "the optimal amount of fraud isnt zero", because it is wrong and makes the underlying problem harder to understand, which is that people like to overoptimize a single desirable property(fraud prevention) without considering other desirable properties(like ease of use and a low rate of false positives for legit transactions)

Aefiam commented on Crimes with Python's Pattern Matching (2022) hillelwayne.com/post/pyth... · Posted by u/agluszak

quotemstr · 7 months ago

I've never understood why Python's pattern-matching isn't more general.

First, "case foo.bar" is a value match, but "case foo" is a name capture. Python could have defined "case .foo" to mean "look up foo as a variable the normal way" with zero ambiguity, but chose not to.

Second, there's no need to special-case some builtin types as matching whole values. You can write "case float(m): print(m)" and print the float that matched, but you can't write "case MyObject(obj): print(obj)" and print your object. Python could allow "..." or "None" or something in __match_args__ to mean "the whole object", but didn't.

Aefiam · 7 months ago

case .foo is explicitly mentioned in https://peps.python.org/pep-0622/ :

> While potentially useful, it introduces strange-looking new syntax without making the pattern syntax any more expressive. Indeed, named constants can be made to work with the existing rules by converting them to Enum types, or enclosing them in their own namespace (considered by the authors to be one honking great idea)[...] If needed, the leading-dot rule (or a similar variant) could be added back later with no backward-compatibility issues.

second: you can use case MyObject() as obj: print(obj)

Aefiam commented on Uber, Postmates Agree on $2.65B All-Stock Deal bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/uptown

jhallenworld · 6 years ago

So city dwellers in the ancient Roman world did not have kitchens- possibly they ate out more than we do.

So there must have been demand for food delivery... I wonder if they accomplished it with slaves?

Well there is some history:

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/01/08/food-delivery/

The Indian "dabbawala" maybe is where it has to go: some kind of standardized service where one driver can deliver to many people in a single traveling-salesman minimized trip. The packaging is designed to keep the food warm for a long time to allow this. But this probably only works for pre-arranged food delivery, not call for food now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabbawala

Aefiam · 6 years ago

> So city dwellers in the ancient Roman world did not have kitchens

Thats not true ( https://quatr.us/romans/roman-kitchens-houses-ancient-rome.h... ).

Rich romans did have kitchens, poor people could not afford one and instead made food in their appartment room or bought food from streetvendors or takeout food from thermopolia.

There was likely no demand for food delivery as poor people couldnt afford it and rich people had slaves to make their food.