increasing the (social) pressure on maintainers to get PRs merged seems like the last thing you should be doing in light of preventing malicious code ending up in dependencies like this
i'd much rather see a million open PRs than a single malicious PR sneak through due to lack of thorough review.
By 1066, not quite. That was an invading army led by the King of Norway to press his claim on the throne of England. I’m sure many of the soldiers in that army had been Vikings but at that time they were soldiers of a Christian king, which would have been considered much more legitimate than being a heathen raider.
I guess the Normans were also of Nordic descent but they had given up the Viking way of life a century before.
“Viking” isn’t a matter of heredity though. If your grandfather was a bricklayer, you’re not a bricklayer as a matter of heredity, you have to actually lay bricks. Likewise, if your grandfather was a viking, you have to actually go raiding and pillaging to be one yourself. Which is not something you’re likely to do if the king of France gave your grandfather an entire duchy in exchange for a promise to stop doing that sort of thing.
What's gonna bake your noodle is, Viking raids were the VC-funded startups of medieval northern Europe. Norse kings were very generous with their kingdom's treasure, to the raiders with the most fearsome reputations.
I scrolled through the entire readme and didn't see any mention of sqlite_vec. My feedback for the readme would be to optimize for signal- if it is a layer on top of sqlite_vec say what it does on top of that etc
But it is not a layer on top of sqlite_vec, so your logic seems to be:
If the tool uses sqlite_vec (which it doesn't)
Then it should say so in the readme.
You didn't find evidence sqlite_vec in the readme, so your conclusion was that it should be added.
This is seemingly based off of your not liking the author mentioned that it would be the "sqlite of RAG" (which, notably, does not at all imply the use of sqlite, in fact, it suggests this is an alternative to sqlite).
Nothing is very clear here.. the benchmarks might just be comparing WAL mode on vs off, or something else entirely, SQLite does not have 150ms latency on such a small database.
The original commenter wasn't making statements about sqlite being involved, they were saying that a specific library should be mentioned if it was involved, which it wasn't. Unless you are saying sqlite_vec is part of the dependency chain through GRDB?
It would be like commenting "If any other developers were involved in this project you should mention them."
sqlite-vec is a great vector index — Wax actually uses SQLite under the hood too.
The difference is the layer. sqlite-vec gives you vec_distance_cosine() in SQL. Wax gives you: hand it a .mov file, get
back token-budgeted, LLM-ready context from keyframes and transcripts, with EXIF-accurate timestamps and hybrid
BM25+vector search via RRF fusion — all on-device.
It's the difference between a B-tree and an ORM. You'd still need to write the entire ingestion pipeline, media parsing,
frame hierarchy, token counting, and context assembly on top of sqlite-vec. That's what Wax is.
Thanks for clarifying. If mv2s is a sqlite3 db file under the hood that is something I would like to see in the readme as it would make me more likely to use.
This seems like a very white-centric categorization to assume that a Tamil Brahmin should necessarily see himself as in the same racial solidarity group as a Somali, Haitian, or Venezuelan as opposed to a European.
He’s going to be a victim of the same anti immigration anti foreigner anti minority movement that the other groups you mentioned will be victim to. Remember the DHS tweeted a supremacist call to deport 100 million people. That is only possible if you denaturalize all the citizens who were once just immigrant workers on visas. The fact that he’s “Tamil Brahmin” isn’t relevant - his right to exist in America is at risk, by his very own actions of supporting the administration.
The vice president's wife is a Telugu Brahmin, and the director of the FBI is a Gujarati Patidar. What evidence do you have for Trump and ICE having a problem with Hindustanis?
Take a look at the ecosystem of far right influencers and personalities guiding the MAGA movement, and what they post on Twitter. Go look at replies on deportation and ethnic cleansing (“remigration”) posts made by Elon or DHS or others. You’ll see a torrent of vile supremacist content, and most of it is directed at Indians. That includes insults aimed at Usha Vance, various Indian CEOs, and Indian people at large. It’s why Vivek quit social media - almost every single reply to any post he made was racist. It’s what the right always was, unfortunately, even though it looked for a bit like it might be moving on from that past.
When the deportation push shifts from illegal immigrants to legal ones - which it has to because their stated goal of deporting 100 million Americans is not possible otherwise - it’ll come for Indians too. In fact I would say Indians are perhaps the most hated group on the far right.
As for those Indians still ignoring what the administration stands for and where it’s going, such as the ones working for Trump, they’re useful idiots. Doing the dirty work that will come for them in the future.
It would be possible to build an ornithopter, evidenced by the existence of avians, but it turned out the easiest ways to make flying machines were otherwise.
What counts is the overall complexity, not the complexity of a single subsystem.
Using more senses allows simpler processing of the sensor data, especially when there is a requirement for high reliability, and at least until now this has demonstrated a simpler complete system.
I'm not sure I agree. I think just having wings that flex a bit is mechanically simpler than having an additional rotating propellor. After all, rotating axles are so hard to evolve they never almost never show up in nature at a macro scale. Sort of a perfect analogy to lidar actually. We create a new approach to solve the problem in a more efficient way, that evolution couldn't reach in billions of years
Rotating axles have not evolved in animals not because they were complex, but because any part of an animal requires permanent connections with the other parts, not only for the supply with energy but also for the continuous repairing that is required by any living body, to avoid death.
Artificial machines rely on spare parts manufactured elsewhere, which are used by external agents to replace the worn out parts.
For an animal to have wheels, it would have to grow wheels in some part of the body, periodically, then use its limbs to detach the wheels and attach them on the axles, after removing the old wheels. This is something sufficiently complex to be extremely unlikely to appear from evolution.
Even this huge complication would be enough only for passive wheels. For active wheels there exists no suitable motor, as the rotational motors with ionic currents are suitable only for the size of a bacteria. All bigger living beings use contractile motors, which cannot be used for a rotation of unlimited angle. So active wheels would also need a different kind of motor, which can work without a solid connection between the 2 moving parts. The artificial motors of this kind use either electromagnetic forces or fluid expansion due to temperature or pressure variation. Both would be very difficult to evolve by a living being, though electric fish and bombardier beetles show some possible paths.
Living beings are not devoid of axles and wheels; rather, they are entirely composed of them, at scales and in forms compatible with biology.
At every relevant level, life relies on rotating and cyclic structures coupled through continuous material exchange. The objection to wheels in animals assumes that axles and wheels must be rigid, permanently isolated parts. Biology does not work this way. Instead of discrete components joined once and preserved unchanged, living systems implement rotation through structures that are simultaneously connected, repaired, and replaced.
Cells are full of rotary and quasi-rotary machinery. Flagella are true rotating motors with stators, rotors, bearings, and torque generation via ion gradients. ATP synthase is literally a wheel-and-axle device, converting rotational motion into chemical energy and back again. The fact that these devices operate at molecular scale does not make them conceptually different from macroscopic axles; it shows that evolution favors rotation precisely where continuous repair and material flow are required.
At larger scales, joints function as constrained rotational interfaces. Hips, shoulders, knees, and vertebrae are axles embedded in living bearings, lubricated, rebuilt, and reshaped throughout life. Bone remodeling, cartilage regeneration, and synovial fluid circulation solve the very problem claimed to prohibit wheels: permanent connection combined with continuous maintenance. The difference from artificial machines is not the absence of rotation, but the absence of rigid separability.
Even limbs themselves behave as compound wheels. Gait cycles convert linear muscle contraction into rotational motion around joints, then back into translation. Tendons wrap around bones as belts around pulleys. Muscles do not rotate indefinitely, but unlimited rotation is not a requirement for a wheel; it is a requirement imposed by certain human machines. Biological wheels rotate as much as function demands, then reverse, exactly as many engineered systems do.
The claim that active wheels require exotic motors overlooks that biology already uses fields and flows. Ionic gradients are electric fields. Blood pressure, osmotic pressure, and gas expansion are fluid-based actuators. Electric fish demonstrate macroscopic bioelectric control, and insect flight shows that indirect actuation can drive cyclic motion far from the muscle itself. The distinction between electromagnetic motors and biological motors is one of implementation, not principle.
What evolution did not produce is a detachable, externally replaceable wheel, because life does not outsource maintenance. Instead, it internalizes repair, redundancy, and gradual replacement. From this perspective, an animal is not a wheeled vehicle lacking wheels; it is a dense hierarchy of axles and wheels whose boundaries are soft, whose materials are alive, and whose motion is inseparable from their growth and repair.
Life did not fail to invent wheels. It dissolved them into itself.
Most of what you have said is not different from what I have said.
All the rotating parts bigger than some tens of micrometers have only a limited rotation angle, where the limits are enforced by the solid connections between the 2 mobile parts, e.g. tendons, nerves and blood vessels.
The bacterial flagella and the rotating enzymes, which are powered by ionic currents, cannot be scaled to greater sizes. Already the flagella of nucleated cells (eukaryotes) are no longer based on rotating motors, but on contractile proteins, which must be attached at both ends on the mobile parts, limiting the relative movement.
Unlimited rotation is an absolutely necessary condition for a wheel that is used in locomotion, otherwise it is no longer a wheel.
A wheel used in locomotion that would have limited rotation would be just a leg that happens to have the shape of a wheel, because like a leg it would have to be raised from the ground for the forward motion, eliminating the exact advantage in efficiency that wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles have over legs (i.e. that backward and forward movement are simultaneous and not separated in time during a step cycle, and no energy is wasted with a vertical oscillation of the leg).
The distinction between electromagnetic motors and biological motors is definitely one of principle and not an implementation detail. The only resemblance is that both are motors.
It is true that you can claim that when analyzing both chemical reactions and the interactions between the mobile parts of an electromagnetic motor they can be eventually reduced to electromagnetic interactions. Nevertheless such an assertion is completely useless, because most things that matter to us in the surrounding world can be reduced to electromagnetic interactions. Knowing this is not helpful at all for classifying them and understanding the differences between them.
The contraction of a protein caused by a chemical transformation and the magnetic forces that appear either between electrical currents through conductors or between electrical currents and ferromagnetic materials are very different phenomena and knowing that both of them have as primary cause electromagnetic interactions is of absolutely no help for understanding how they work or for designing either kind of motors.
Electromagnetic motors that are not extremely small need ferromagnetic materials. The only ferromagnetic material that is known to be synthesized by living beings is magnetite. Magnetite crystals can be good enough for sensing the magnetic field of the Earth, but they would be a very poor material for motors.
An easier to evolve rotating biological motor would be a rotating hydraulic motor, e.g. powered by pumped blood or lymph. This could work if the wheel would become non-living after being grown, to no longer need nerves and blood vessels. However it would be very difficult for a living being to seal the space between an axis and the rotating wheel in such a way so that blood or lymph would not spill out through the interstice.
They are not. Turbine engines require much higher quality manufacturing and tolerances and operate at much higher speeds and pressures. There is more to it than the perceived number of moving parts.
Others in this subthread discussed the comparison of the complexity of different ways of achieving flight itself, but I think there is an interesting discussion in that... well... we do add senses we don't technically need to achieve stable flight (but are very useful for safe flight and have reduced the incidence of aviation incidents and accidents dramatically).
Whether it be altimeters based on radio[1] or air pressure[2], avoidance and surveillance systems that use radio waves to avoid collisions with other aircraft[3][4], airborne weather radars[5], sensors that measure angle of attack (AoA), GNSS location, attitude, etc, many aircraft (even unpowered gliders!) have some combination of special sensing systems that aren't strictly necessary to take off, fly to a destination, and land, even if some are required for what many would consider safe flight in some scenarios.
Many of these systems have redundancies built in in some form or another and many of these systems are even built into unmanned aerial systems (UASes) big and small.
Is it still a decent gamble after you've been trying (and failing) for a decade, and numerous well funded competitors are going the easy way, and when there is huge upside to being first, and when the value of FSD easily covers the rapidly falling cost of LIDAR?
No. It's not a good idea. It's not a good gamble. It's stupid, and the engineers can see it's stupid. A lot of them have quit, reducing the very slim chances of it working even further.
No it’s not common for two pieces of code within a single process to communicate by serializing the protobuf into the wire format and deserializing it.
It’s however somewhat common to pass in-memory protobuf objects between code, because the author didn’t want to define a custom struct but preferred to use an existing protobuf definition.
reply