Because scrapers would certainly comply with that
/s
More like have easier to assess legality status.
Readit NewsWe (humanity) need to invent a simple GPLv3 style license “You can derive any data on the data you see here, any derived data you sell or share should mention this place as a source and is subject to the same copyright as the source”. This will imply scraped datasets should become public and the law enforcement bodies will be able to work in an established framework to fight copyright and license crimes. Just blocking me from using any tools I want to make sense of the world around me (data on the internet sites being part of it) with crawlers and whatnot, is inherently evil, and is not logically consistent.
mrbald commented on Vibe coding for teams, thoughts to date laughingmeme.org//2025/05... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
I myself almost exclusively use LLMs as a scoping/pathfinding tool, an extremely powerful version of search engine and a ultimately knowledgeable sparring partner if you will, did not even dare tasking it to write production code (so o4-mini, not Claude)
To go a step further, I don't think you should be required to talk to middlemen when buying stocks, yet here we are. The house wants its cut.
Central counterparty concept implemented by most exchanges is a valid service, as otherwise counterparty risk management would be a nightmare - an example of a useful “middleman”.
mrbald commented on Codon: A high-performance Python-like compiler using LLVM github.com/exaloop/codon... · Posted by u/arshajii
What about GraalVM? Are they overselling, too?
No, their python support repository readme explicitly tells it’s highly experimental.
mrbald commented on North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet wired.com/story/north-kor... · Posted by u/mig39
Tell that to the North Koreans :P
Looks like every man and his dog is an expert on North Koreans. Did it occur to you that most citizen there are hostages of the own state and may be fighting hard to get a piece of bread on the table? I highly doubt they give a shit to the US, or the internet or the hacker wars of any kind.
Documentation is written in a human language, can include other media like graphics and is addressed to humans. We write documentation for the same reason that we don't produce maps at a 1:1 scale: documentation offers a higher-level description that can be grasped without having to understand all the code.
Not only is code not the best documentation, it's not documentation at all, outside of special cases where the entire code describes e.g. an algorithm and is encapsulated into one function.
Code should have a hierarchical structure, so one could read it on the high level of abstraction and also zoom in gradually, as necessary — this is what they usually mean by “code is the documentation”, plan the reading process as you plan the functionality.
It is a very important aspect of the readability, otherwise you will just sink in details when reading. But it is not easy to formally validate with tools, so naturally it is better to have both code and a picture and have discipline to keep them in sync.
I find this is nonsense. Code is the best documentation; I've watched people spend hours debating a spec that becomes obviously broken as soon as you spend 5 minutes writing it up in something with a typechecker.
Write the specification as code - make sure it's something that can actually be checked. Then you'll know whether it's actually any good.
"make sure it's something that can actually be checked" -- I'd love to find out about a sane (not purely academic, financially viable) way to do it. Since university days I know that a piece of paper is an irreplaceable tool - cheap and universal. I usually just draw it on paper, then code, then fix the code, then update the painting, and do it over again until both match each other and work. Never fails me.
I recently wrote some of the type of code that you would be upset to read, so maybe someone can sympathize with this a bit.
The task at hand wasn’t easy at all, it required both:
1. Making numerous network requests (some endpoints support batching, so do that as much as possible) 2. The entire main loop needs to be as fast as reasonably possible
The only real way to satisfy both, given that serially executing the network activity would waste tons of time, was some fairly tricky concurrent logic. I ended up using a few queue structures to collect day before making batch network calls, and stitching together all of the results at the end (block on all work threads, collect, report, then start next iteration)
Every step along the way made sense, every addition of complexity felt justified. And the first person to come to me asking how the fuck it got so complicated is frustrated, so my knee jerk reaction is to get frustrated back saying well how else could we satisfy complex requirements with a complex solution.
We should always be challenging ourselves and others to keep solutions simple, but remember that the simplest solution may itself still be complex.
Always have a drawn picture, if you cannot draw it you will fail to explain it to others (and to see design gaps) and inevitably everyone will think it’s an over engineered complex shit.
Design-wise:
The IO multiplexing — event loop(s), the completion callbacks go to the "Processing".
Processing — usually beneficial to model as a processing graph (tree/pipeline being specific examples of a graph without feedback loops). It's a clean, low overhead abstraction, easy to visualise (and thus discuss with others), easy to change structurally or in the "aspect oriented" way.
Examples in JVM world: Netty pipelines, AKKA actors, streams, and graphs, in C++ world ASIO & its executors sub-framework.
Queues/Threads is still a sufficiently low level to comfortably operate on.
And then maybe you could just customize and optimize your own mode for local use. Almost like mixing and matching different modules. It would be nice to have a model that only knows and does what you need it to