The most common argument for this is some core unexamined axiom that only humans can reason by definition, and then working backwards to a justification for that.
> It’s insane. 45 minutes to build debug from scratch. Linking is super slow even in debug and that’s without LTO.
How much memory do you have, and do you have swap turned on?
I have 32GB of RAM, and it barely manages to build release if I shut down everything else on the system that uses RAM. 64GB would be better. If you have 32GB or less and you have swap on, the performance might be mostly because you're spending a lot of time swapping. And that's for release; debug on a repo that size may spend a lot of time and memory linking debug info.
+1. Some of the added detail (e.g. more realistic-looking brick) looked great. Some of it was the kind of thing that better depicts "areas you've failed to maintain", iff you want your simulator to have those bits of verisimilitude.
I'd be all for separating "better, more lifelike, more realistic rendering, with interesting variation" from "decay".
It's unpleasant to accuse someone of being naive in a paternalistic fashion that implies "you're wrong, because you don't know any better, but if you knew better you'd agree with me".
The post you replied to embodied a preference. You responded that they were wrong and naive for not wanting to depict cities constantly "being pulled into the ground". Some people playing a simulator do not want the simulator to force unavoidable decay everywhere. This is something for which there is room for a breadth of preferences, not something for which there is a correct and incorrect answer.
Browsers and TLS infrastructure have been solving that for a while now, via certificate transparency. Browsers can now reject any certificate that isn't publicly logged. So, yes, they could MITM, and burn an entire CA doing it.
If you're dealing with an authoritarian state they don't need to burn anything or care about cert logging. They can:
1. Make it illegal to distribute a browser that distrusts their CA
2. Make it illegal to run a browser that distrusts their CA
3. Block all encrypted traffic that they can't MITM and notify police that you are running illegal software
This is unnecessary, they already have the problem controlled better. They just outright block foreign services, and the domestic ones they can request data from freely.
Doesn’t require cracking crypto or any funny business around forcing people to install stuff.
Sure, a state can do that, and some have tried at various times. But even authoritarian states have a number of competing aims they have to balance. And CT makes authoritarian goals harder; they can no longer do as much surreptitiously.
“Make it illegal to…” that has never in human history prevented anything from happening. Cannot increase the risk? Of course, but laws do not stop humans from humaning.
Furthermore, doing any of the things you listed would isolate all legitimate network traffic as well as any undesirable traffic, fully shuttering all Chinese manufacturing businesses from global requests via the web. This hat would happen then? Phone calls, emails, and even physical mail would become the new norm and most of the Chinese economy would collapse under the weight of not being able to hop on a Zoom with a client that wants tooling made for its aluminum manufacturing molds.
So besides my point of the black market your hypothesis of total control misses all the other pressures that exist that make what you’re proposing infeasible on its face. Only a place like North Korea that is willing to be a pariah state is old be willing to take the economic and social costs associated with your proposal, and they’ve only been able to do that because their abominable regime was in place before the internet existed and they pre-built controls very late in the game.
Tl;dr simply because a country _could_ do something doesn’t mean it’s realistic for reasons outside of basic networking concepts.
I really, really hope that Turso survives this, and doesn't become another "incredible journey". I'm excited about Turso as a technology, both as a better sqlite and as something theoretically capable of becoming an embeddable postgres-compatible database.
I hear you Josh, and I don't blame you because this does happen a lot. All I can say is that everyone is excited about this, on both sides of the aisle. From our perspective we'll have resources now to turbocharge the development of Turso, and things will only get better from here.
I wish you the best of luck in beating the odds and actually continuing to operate effectively post-acquisition for as long as possible. Turso is great, and I'm looking forward to the point where it feels like it crosses from "keep a close eye on" to "use in production with no qualms".
I have only ever interfaced with sqlite querying databases created by other applications so I'm not really super familiar with the application development side of it, but I've only ever heard praise of sqlite. Out of pure curiosity, what would a better sqlite look like, aside from postgres compatibility mentioned?
More async, more concurrency, more dialects (not just postgres), better defaults, ability to be called from safe languages without going by way of an unsafe FFI layer, open community...
This is a really interesting idea. I had never considered this before.
This would allow you to write PostgreSQL queries that work against a flat file or a Postgres server. Am I understanding the potential benefit correctly?
The most common argument for this is some core unexamined axiom that only humans can reason by definition, and then working backwards to a justification for that.
reply