This article is drivel. If a supplier writes down the value of a contract with Tesla, they're saying Tesla is buying fewer batteries, or will in the near future. That is, there is a lack of demand for the batteries. If you're determined to take this as bad news for Tesla, rather than bad news for L&F, you could maybe speculate about lack of demand for Cybertrucks, but spinning it as "supply chain collapse" is just silly.
Readit Newscwp commented on Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99% electrek.co/2025/12/29/te... · Posted by u/coloneltcb
I assume this is similar to Ray?
The code example is very similar to Ray.
Monarch:
class Example(Actor):
@endpoint
def say_hello(self, txt):
return f"hello {txt}"
procs = this_host().spawn_procs({"gpus": 8})
actors = procs.spawn("actors", Example)
hello_future = actors.say_hello.call("world")
hello_future.get()
@ray.remote(num_gpus=1)
class Example:
def say_hello(self, txt):
return f"hello {txt}"
actors = [Example.remote() for _ in range(8)]
hello_object_refs = [a.say_hello.remote("world") for a in actors]
ray.get(hello_object_refs)After some thinking, the ternary conditional operator can be decomposed into 2 composing binary operators like such:
? takes a bool, a T, and returns option<T>
true?b == Result b
false?b == None
: takes an Option<T> and a T and returns T
Result x : y == x
None : y == y
However, in most languages (looking at you php) the ?: act as a type of parenthesis: in a?b:c, any expression goes into b, no matter it's precedence.
Nice. Another aspect of the ternary operator is conditional evaluation. Beyond parenthesis, in a?b:c, only one of b and c get evaluated.
cwp commented on Ask HN: Is it possible to make FAANG salaries without working there? · Posted by u/zer0sand0nes
I also came from a place with unlimited and I loved it. Makes me wonder if the people that regurgitate the notion that it's a trap actually have worked in places with unlimited.
Agreed. I was skeptical at first, but I've worked at several companies with unlimited PTO and they all specifically encouraged people to take time off. One place was explicit that the reason they switched to unlimited was to get people to take vacations: "PTO is not meant to be a bonus when you leave the company. We want you to rest and recharge."
My current company recently made a rule that you have to apply for time off through the HR software. Not make it harder to take PTO—all requests are auto-approved-just so HR can track it. At the next all-hands the CEO said something like "You guys work really hard... we're, uh, worried." My manager has been bugging me to take a proper vacation instead of my usual day off here and there.
There are certainly awful, exploitative workplaces out there. But there are also great companies run by good people.
cwp commented on Anthropic: Expanding Access to Claude for Government anthropic.com/news/expand... · Posted by u/Luuucas
I can imagine that for many government tasks, there would be a need for a reduced-censorship version of the AI model. It's pretty easy running into the guardrails on ChatGPT and friends when you talk about violence or other spicy topics.
This then begs the question of what level of censorship reduction to apply. Should government employees be allowed to e.g., war-game a mass murder with an AI? What about discussing how to erode civil rights?
Sure. Everyone, including government employees, should be allowed to discuss anything with AI. The problem is actually doing illegal things, which is... already illegal.
cwp commented on Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models machinelearning.apple.com... · Posted by u/2bit
I don’t actually think this is complicated and reading a comment is not the same thing as scraping the internet and you obviously know that.
A few factors that come to mind would be:
- scale
- informed consent which there was none in this case
- how you are going to use that data. For example using everybody others work so the worlds richest company can make more money from it while giving back nothing in return is a bullshit move.
Reading a comment is exactly the same thing as scraping the internet, you just stop sooner.
cwp commented on Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models machinelearning.apple.com... · Posted by u/2bit
I got a ZSA Voyager split keyboard and then spent weeks exploring custom layouts. The first question was QWERTY vs something better. Then there was layers and layer navigation. And should I swap out the key switches? And Keyboard Maestro.
Now I'm trying to abandon 30 years of muscle memory and typing at 4 wpm while I learn Colemak-DH. Maybe what I should really do is build a custom 34-key board...
cwp commented on Pkl, a Programming Language for Configuration pkl-lang.org/blog/introdu... · Posted by u/bioballer
Maybe not always, but surely in most cases of too complex a config, it is a case of ad-hoc grown config, representing what one wants to actually configure badly, and/or underlying abstractions of the thing one wants to configure matching badly what one wants to do. In most cases it would be good to take a step back, or multiple ones at that, and really ask oneself: "What is it, that I actually want to configure here?" and think about why it cannot be a simpler config. What abstractions would actually make expressing that config easy.
Often one will get to a very simple config format in the end. Of course, when one has to deal with very complex formats created by others, already widespread in use, on cannot easily change the format. Maybe that is the reason we get these meta config tools.
Sure. There are undoubtedly a lot of config formats that are overly complex.
But sometimes the complexity is irreducible. Kubernetes is one such case. The model is very well thought out, and just about as simple as it could get without removing functionality. It has sensible defaults, built-in versioning, well-defined schema etc. But if you want to describe a complete installation of a distributed system with many heterogenous processes, spread across many hosts, communicating in specific ways, with specific permissions, persistence, isolation, automatic scaling, resilience, etc, there are a lot of details. I've worked with systems that have thousands of lines of configuration, and honestly that's not extraordinary. Many people on this site will rightly scoff and say, "psshh, that's nothing."
Configuration languages are a really important area of research in the tech industry right now, and every time someone posts one on here, there are a huge number of dismissive comments. Fine. Not everyone has this problem, but it's a real problem, and solving it represents a real advance in the state of the art.
/me sighs
The board has not been consistently candid in its communications with... anyone.