What’s another example of different rules depending on size? “Content Moderation” I think? Anything outside the DMA? I think small companies get some exceptions for documentation requirements?
It is a derivative of what is called the "Risk Based Approach" in compliance, and is widely adopted.
As for companies and accounting you can look into the directive 2013/34/EU that established micro, small, and medium sized companies based on their size. These types of companies have different reporting requirements.
In the US, some laws specifically exclude small companies. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 requires 15 employees, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires 4 employees.
in my part of Europe there are tons: companies over a certain size might have different rules for layoffs, have to have union representatives, must pay for safety courses for the employees, must employ a certain percentage of people with disabilities...
A long time ago there was this “web of trust”, I don’t think it exists anymore. Was one of the big CA and you could get different certificates through some form of vouching, I think it even went as far as meeting people to show your ID and then they sign you or something. As it was run by a big CA, not really distributed but IIRC they kept their involvement minimal. It’s been a long time but if you’re curious maybe look into that
Keybases popularity falling off a cliff isn't really surprising, their venture into shitcoinery already put them on thin ice with the anti-cryptocurrency crowd, and then development basically ceased overnight after the Zoom acquisition. I don't know why they're even bothering to keep the lights on, it's been five years of radio silence at this point.
keybase had promise early on but kinda lost the plot. the vouching system was neat in theory but never really caught on outside a small circle. the crypto stuff definitely didn’t help, and once zoom bought them it was basically a ghost town, no roadmap, no real dev activity, just inertia.
feels like identity + trust systems keep coming back around but never quite stick. maybe too hard to balance usability, decentralization, and adoption all at once.
I tend to think the ecosystem is vastly dominated by established solutions. In order for a New Thing to win, it needs to be at least an order of magnitude better and more usable, or the network effect obliterates it.
Could it also be that social media sites depend on commingling “daily active users” vs “number of unique humans” for having high numbers? A web of trust would establish one live person per account, somewhat like Facebook had a policy for.
Keybase was great. The idea behind it (using private key to prove your identity) is the idea behind some of the default methods for the Decentralized Identifier (DID) standard: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-1.0/
You're thinking of the Thawte Web of Trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte which was run by Mark Shuttleworth (now of Canonical). The certificates were used for email, not for SSL. I lost track of what happened to it after CACert took over.
This is one of the reasons I hate python, it allows for so many weird things that are only borderline standardised, if at all. When I started with python decades ago, I was also all hype, list comprehensions and functional patterns everywhere, and why not monkey patch a third party library on runtime?
Now I regularly see such code written by the new junior devs, painful to maintain, painful to integrate into a larger code base, most certainly failing with TorchScript, and plainly convoluted for the sake of appearing smart.
If you want to code it Haskell, have you considered using Haskell?
Fair point, they have a proper PEP. I’ve been burnt by `lst[::-1]` and the likes which TorchScript does not (did not?) support and to my surprise learned that the standard is not clear on this behaviour. Generators are fine but I somewhat fail to see their use as they move state somewhere not really clear and I have seen plenty of problems with needing `list(generator())` confusing people
I wrote a whole response thinking you were like 19 but you say you started with Python decades ago. If you still haven't gotten the hang of it I don't think there's anything to say. Generators have been in python for more than 2 decades so I find your claims extremely suspect.
I am not sure what your argument is supposed to be. That I am wrong because I haven’t gotten the hang of it after all these years? I do understand generators. For a long time. I still believe they are usually an anti-pattern, same like massive abuse of inheritance where you have 20 classes but only a single instance but you made your code “future proof”.
The point I wanted to make is that using generator, in particular like here, is something that I consider ugly and difficult to maintain and it will probably have to be rewritten when trying to export to TorchScript. I really do not see how “just get a hang for it” can help me reevaluate my perspective
Edit: Maybe you were hung up on my “standardised” - I have to admit I do not know how thoroughly the PEP defines generators and if really all edge cases are defined without needing to check the python source code. From past experiences, my trust in python language standards is a bit shaky, as it had been difficult to reproduce the very exact behaviour using a different language, or python features - without requiring digging through the sources.
I’m using python since version 1 my friend, no need to get personal and insulting. I gave an example of something that is not defined properly in a PEP as well. I really do not like python, and one of the reasons is that is encourages writing of what I believe is code that is harder to understand and harder to maintain for people who didn’t write it. There’s nothing wrong with Haskell, but it has a rather steep learning curve when you’re not coming from functional programming and if you embrace patterns like this you put extra burden on your colleagues.
I also really dislike Python but actually their implementation of generators is pretty good IMO. Few languages have it, e.g. Rust still doesn't have generators.
They are pretty niche but when you find a situation that needs them they're really elegant. I've used them for generating deterministic test stimulus and it's really nice.
That’s maybe my point, maybe not. Generators can be useful, but somewhat niche as you said. I still prefer explicit code and try to avoid generators, I can’t remember the last time I wrote a yield. I disagree on their elegance. From my earlier days in python I remember writing a lot of convoluted things that felt smart at the time but turned out stupid, and I think representing infinite list with recursive generators in python is exactly that. Maybe a fun exercise to show what’s possible, but from painful experience I am quite certain someone will read articles like these and apply it everywhere without fully understanding it. I loved perl and how terse and expressive I could be, but after a little while of not using it (hah, python came to my life!) I had no clue anymore what my code was supposed to mean, and the same happened later to my “oh so elegant” python code eventually.
Nowadays I mostly work with python ML code that has to be exported as TorchScript, thus I’m very sensitive to things that don’t work there. Not per se a problem with python - but having rewritten a lot of code to make it work, pretty much each and every time I found the explicit, imperative rewrite much cleaner and easier to follow and understand
I have filled plenty of paperwork for customs, my employer explained me what I had to do, because I imported stuff on behalf of my employer. I could have also just tried to hide it in my luggage, but then it wouldn’t surprise me if my visa was revoked as well. Why would you mess with customs, in particular if you do this not for your personal fun?
Somewhat related, there is NVIDIA CUDA Direct Storage[0] which provides an API for efficient “file transfer” between GPU and local filesystem. Always wanted to give it a try but haven’t yet
Blind Deconvolution is around for a while and from the estimated PSF you can gather the shake pattern (or tell whether it’s just overall out of focus). It just never worked good enough in practice but I remember some impressive results already a decade ago
Thank you, blind deconvolution and PSF sound like what I have been scratching around the edges of in my experiments, without knowing the right terms to search for to discover prior work. I shall dig into the literature!
Anything procedural works so much better in Houdini I find. I was excited about the geometry nodes in Blender and had some fun with them, but always hit a wall where things in Houdini are much better designed and much more powerful and flexible. But it's a steep learning curve and I forgot most things again because I don't really have to use it regularly.
I had the indie license for a while (purchased privately) and just making things shatter and explode was satisfaction enough. I did this mostly for learning and fun
You can’t take the GDP in US$ for comparison, given the sanctions and all. PPP is a better means.
I do not know about entrepreneurship, but I do know that a Russian’s average purchase power is significantly higher than what you might expect from just looking at the GDP
It might be true that we can’t compare gdp between Russia and other countries, but even if so, wouldn’t we see a growth in GDP over time (ie comparing Russia to itself)?
What’s wrong with V8? Had only pleasant interactions with it so far (maybe compiling takes long, can’t tell, whole webkit is a nightmare in that regard)
Oh it's perfectly fine, but Firefox was kind of the only illusion that the web does not rely on a single implementation, so discovering that even that depends on V8 is kind of funny :)
reply