You can do something like that, but you still need to be able to tell your OS when you want to sync what writes to disk.

Yes, I know mmap already sort of allows this (and has for well over a decade). To elaborate: when I want to, say, parse a megabytes-sized file, I don't muck about with mmap(), I just read() into a buffer; it's simple and it's fast enough even though I'm just wasting microseconds waiting for bytes on one fast chip to get copied into another slightly faster chip (and then copied into CPU cache). If I'm dealing with a larger amount of data, I'd be tempted to use database middleware to figure out all the platform-specific shuffling between RAM and disk (designed on the assumption that the disk is spinning rust, cough), but that pulls in yet another chunk of complexity.

Instead, imagine if I could just state in one line of system-agnostic code "give me a pointer to /home/user/abc" and it does the right thing--assuming there was some way around mmap's current set of caveats. Imagine if I could turn a memory buffer into a file in one line of code and it Just Worked. Imagine if the OS treated my M.2 SSD as just another chip on the bus instead of still having a good amount of code on the hot path that assumes I'm manually sending bytes to a mechanical drive.

Meta note: I think we should be angrier at Apple and Google over this. It’s in their interest to push everyone and everything to the cloud (their clouds ideally) and so they never pushed for great local connectivity solutions in their phone OSes.

There’s not really a good reason why it has to be hard for a device to connect to a nearby phone over some reliable signal, eg a home’s existing wifi network. (HN disclaimer: yeah yeah, i know it’s possible, but it’s a big hassle and the UX sucks so a manufacturer is effectively forced to go cloud if they want a device to be controllable from an app). The industry could have long developed some fancy protocol/system over wifi intended for just that. But device manufacturers aren’t strong enough to push for that in networking land, and Apple/Google/Microsoft have an interest against “local” becoming a normal thing normal people can figure out.

I feel like this is what regulation should be about. Instead of demanding that companies open source their systems if they go under, IMO we should have rules saying that smart devices shouldn’t need internet access for controlling them from nearby. If rules like that are in place, a push for a way to make the UX for that as good as it is via some cloud server will automatically happen.

If I have zero experience designing PCBs but wanted to do a similarly (non)-complex one, how much of a tall order would that be? In my completely made-up mental model, I'm guessing I just take the parts I've already breadboarded, look them up in some sidebar, and drag and drop them around, snapping to nice clean spacing, and then connect all the various pins together and have it automatically organize things? We're not going for perfect here. Just "Baby's first PCB" that at least works.

And then when I have one designed, how much would it cost to get made and sent to me if I was okay if it took a month?

But most importantly: how do I build personal confidence that I'm not shipping a potato off to be printed? Is there a community I could ask for a review from?

Location: Beijing, China

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes, but.... due to my unique diplomatic status, I cannot relocate unless the price is right. I don't need to work, but I will for the right project or company.

Technologies: C, C++, C#, TypeScript, JavaScript, Node.js, React, WEBASM, NGINX, SQL, Redis, Python, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, Ansible, Terraform, CUDA, Video Encoding, Jupyter, PyTorch, LLMs, MPEG (Low-level video encoding), Linux, TV and Mobile development. HbbTV, ATSC 3.0 (NextTV). OpenTV. Design: Figma, Balsamiq, Adobe CS.

Hi. I'm a highly self-motivated builder and problem solver. Nominated for multiple technical Emmys. You name it, I have built it, at scale. Give me a team, and I will teach them how to do it right and efficiently. My previous project was a Twitch-killing streaming system for 200M+ simultaneous viewers. I can build anything. I can find a solution to any problem. I specialise in building streaming services. If you own a TV you are likely using my software already. For money, I design and build national-scale broadcast systems. Do you want to build a Netflix? I can do that from the ground up. For fun, I am currently building a large-scale AI project in public. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqvHjXfbI8o )

Résumé/CV: https://blog.metawrap.com/1994/12/28/resume-of-james-mc-parl...

Email: james@metawrap.com

One the one hand this is a cool story about real technology pioneers. On the other hand, this is a story about people building technology that was so ahead of its time that it had no chance of turning into a good product. Too expensive, too unreliable, too complicated.

I think there are some obvious parallels here to General Magic and the Apple Newton. Very cool technology. Impressive demos. But ultimately the products didn't deliver on the vision. It wasn't until the iPod and capacitive touch screens and tiny hard drives came to the market that the iPhone became possible. Being 20 years early doesn't help.

Similar catastrophically flawed research projects get started today. In the past couple of days the Humane AI pin has been in the news. It's a wearable AI gadget that seems cool but it doesn't work. The tech has to catch up to the vision. It's at least a decade ahead of its time.

> Also, writing a compiler in its own language, while simultaneously developing the language, tends to result in a language that is good for writing compilers, but that was not the kind of language we were after.

I have seen this sentiment a few times recently. First of all, it raises the question is a language that is not compiled in itself a bad language for writing compilers? My intuition is usually yes. Secondly, the implication is that a good language for compilers will not be good for other applications. I really don't understand this because a compiler will use most of the same building blocks that are used for other programs.

I would really like more context into what the author is trying to say though.

I wonder why Go isn't the new Java/.NET (yet?).

Clearly a lot of tools and APIs have been written in it, many would describe not needing a separate runtime on the target system as a big plus and the language seems simple enough to learn and utilize (with VSC support and GoLand both being good), even the typical complaints like the error handling don't seem like dealbreakers.

I wonder what's missing for Go to become a mainstay of development for the decades to come, or at least take up a huge chunk of the job market instead of being considered a niche language in some places.