Readit NewsI'm not saying that random running random installers from the internet is a great pattern. Something like installing from your distribution can have better verification mechanisms. But this seems to add very little confidence.
So much this.
The whole point of functions and classes was to make code reusable. If the entire contents of a 100 line method are only ever used in that method and it's not recursive or using continuations or anything else weird, why the hell would it be "easier to read" if I had to jump up and down the file to 7 different submethods when the function's entire flow is always sequential?
My principle has always been: “is this part a isolated and intuitive subroutine that I can clearly name and when other people see it they’ll get it at first glance without pausing to think what this does (not to mention reading through the implemention)”. I’m surprised this has not been a common wisdom from many others.
> I would prefer an approach where calls to "async" functions are implicitly awaited unless a keyword turns then into a promise, and all functions are implictly treated as async as needed, unless a keyword specifies that they return a promise, which should be awaited instead. This would make the majority case clearer, and force you to make the minority case explicit where it's currently implicit.
This is a very interesting idea and feels good in an initial 'gut check' sense.
WHERE
fa.rowid IN (SELECT rowid FROM address_fts WHERE address_fts MATCH 'google')
OR
ta.rowid IN (SELECT rowid FROM address_fts WHERE address_fts MATCH 'google')
I'm building a search feature for my app, that parses a user's search query (a la Github search) and returns relevant results. Generating the above workaround SQL on the fly is just... ulgh.
Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI was really ideal from a speed-of-advancement perspective. That is, reams and reams have been written about how Google has to move at such a slow pace with AI productization because, essentially, they have so much to lose. Microsoft saw this first hand with their infamous Tay AI bot, which turned into a racist Hitler lover in a day.
Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI was perfect - they could realistically be seen as separate entities, and they let OpenAI take all the risk of misaligned AI, and then only pull in AI into their core services as they were comfortable. Google's lack of this sort of relationship is a direct hindrance to their speed in AI advancement and productization. Microsoft's lack of a board seat gives them a degree of "plausible deniability" if you will.
Plus, it's not like Microsoft's lack of a board seat impacts their influence that much. Basically everyone believes that the push to get Altman back has Microsoft's/Nadella's fingerprints all over it. Their billions give them plenty of leverage, and my bet going forward is that even if they don't take a board seat outright, they will demand that board membership be composed of more "professional", higher caliber board members that will likely align with them anyway.
What.
How is an engineer deciding what to work on like this, even at a small startup?!