Suggestion: it should, at very least, not show a UI a notification "_ is now on signal!" As a nice to have, yes, it should blackhole a message until at least one reply happens.
No, but I can empathize. I never understood the Nix language. It's impenetrable to me. I hate it so much.
I keep checking back every year or so secretly hoping they'll have upgraded the language. It's fascinating how successful Nix is given how utterly opaque the language is.
Imagine how hard moderating a forum is. Now imagine moderating the whole Internet. Everyone always thinks it's trivial. Everyone couldn't be more wrong.
How convenient that Google gets to reap all of the benefits of that situation without bearing any of the responsibility. Oh, but it's fine, because they have a trillion dollars and "it's hard, you guuyyysss!"
"lets make private corporations responsible for policing the behavior of other corporations instead of the government and legislation" <- this is what I'm hearing
> For example, my software renders the smiling face with horns as red [], but often the depiction is purple.
It seems the article is ironically falling for the same problem. This would be worked around by including images of the emoji variants, rather than relying on Unicode.
It's not insane. The best codebase I ever inherited was about 50kloc of C# that ran pretty much everything in the entire company. One web server and one DB server easily handled the ~1000 requests/minute. And the code was way more maintainable than any other nontrivial app I've worked on professionally.
I work(ed) on something similar in Java. And it still works quite well. But last few years are increasingly about getting berated by management on why things are not modern Kubernetes/ micro services based by now.
I feel like people forget just how fast a single machine can be. If your database is SQLite the app will be able to burn down requests faster than you ever thought possible. You can handle much more than 23 req/day.
In the not-too-distant past I was handling many thousands of DB-backed requests per hour in a Python app running plain PostgreSQL.
You can get really, really far with a decent machine if you mind the bottlenecks. Getting into swap? Add RAM. Blocked by IO? Throw in some more NVMe. Any reasonable CPU can process a lot more data than it's popular to think.
Anytime someone talks about scale I remember just how much data the low mhz CPUs used to process. Sure the modern stuff has nicer UIs, but the UIs of the past where not bad, and we a lot of data was processed. Almost nobody has more data than what the busiest 200mhz CPU on 1999 used to handle alone, so if you can't do it that isn't a scaling problem it is a people problem. (don't get me wrong, this might be a good trade off to make - but don't say you couldn't do it on a single computer)
It's not. It's kind of bonkers to pursue that when you have a lot of traffic, but it's a perfectly sane starting point until you know where the pain points are.
In general, the vast number of small shops chugging away with a tractably sized monolith aren't really participating in the conversation, just idly wondering what approach they'd take if they suddenly needed to scale up.
I'm not even sure it's bonkers if you have a lot of traffic. It depends on the nature of the traffic and how you define "a lot". In general, though, it's amazing how low latency a function call that can handle passing data back and forth within a memory page or a few cache lines is compared to inter-process communication, let alone network I/O.
The corollary to that is, it's amazing how far you can push vertical scaling if you're mindful of how you use memory. I've seen people scale single-process, single-threaded systems multiple orders of magnitude past the point where many people would say scale-out is an absolute necessity, just by being mindful of things like locality of reference and avoiding unnecessary copying.
if you have 23 requests per day the insane thing is wondering whether or not you've chosen the correct infrastructure, becuase it really doesn't matter.
do whatever you want, you've already spent more time than it's worth considering it.
most productive applications have more RPS than that. we should ideally be speaking about how to architect _productive_ applications and not just mocks and prototypes
Don't know if this is sarcasm or not. If you have 23 req/day, then there's no tech problem to solve. Whatever you have is good enough, and increasing traffic will come from solving problems outside tech (marketing, etc)
You seem convinced this is "fake". It's unclear what you think is fake about this.
Fruits are wet, salty, acidic objects. As such, they can be used in an electronic circuit. They have an impedance, and, if you do it right, a voltage. [1] There's nothing fake or surprising about this.
He's just placing the fruit in series with the power source of some effect pedal. Unsurprisingly, this slightly alters the power source for the pedal, creating an audible difference in effect.
It's probably not something someone would do in practice, but notably, when it comes to electric guitars, experimenting with different types of distortion is pretty common, and it's common for guitar players to get creative.
Even if this "fruit effect" is not practical (I mean, you'd get inconsistent results), it's definitely a silly and interesting enough idea to justify a YouTube video. I could even see someone using it as a gimmick for playing live.
> I think anyone with a basic understanding of electronics would see the absurdity of these circuits and wouldn’t buy the schematics
Which schematics are you referring to? I think you might be assuming he's selling the "fruit" circuit. I think he's selling circuits for effect pedals, completely independently of this "fruit" video.
He’s not selling the schematics for the “Produce Preamp”, that’s a freebie on his website.
I downloaded it. It’s a PDF of a circuit where instead of a 9v battery, there’s 2 nails and a banana.
Then he demos the sound in the video. A sound that could not possibly be produced by the circuit in the PDF or any reasonable variation of the circuit.
This is all presented without any tongue in cheek. It’s presented in the video, the website and PDF as being 100% real.
Yet, it’s objectively and indisputably fiction.
To go through all the trouble of setting this channel up and fabricating all the devices and the website with schematics and recording and editing the videos at a very high level seems extremely unlikely.
That’s a lot of work for very, very little or no gain. Unless I’m missing the big scam and there is a bunch of money to be made, but I don’t see it.
However, if this was AI slop. That’s 100% reasonable. Who cares, just write a prompt and out comes the video.
“Create a video of a new pedal that uses a banana for electricity.”
The whole thing has the feel of long AI hallucination for a vague prompt. It fits really well.
Except, I haven’t heard of any service that could generate a video with that level of quality and duration.
I totally expect that to be available sometime in the relatively near future. But from my understanding, currently available AI models can’t possibly be responsible for high quality videos of that length.
And given these videos have been showing up for many months makes the whole thing that much more strange.
It seems incredibly improbable that a person would put so much energy into creating high quality videos of nonsense for no purpose. Not impossible, but it just doesn’t add up.
It seems completely possible that, in 3 or 4 years time, publicly available AI services will be able to produce videos of this quality and duration.
I can’t think of any reasonable explanation for why these videos exist or for how they were made.
> A sound that could not possibly be produced by the circuit in the PDF or any reasonable variation of the circuit.
Why not? What's wrong with the circuit?
Here's my rebuttal to your claim: I literally show a circuit of a single wire and say I'm using it on my guitar, and I could get that sound. Why? Because I didn't say I'm _only_ using the wire. I have other equipment.
> The whole thing has the feel of long AI hallucination for a vague prompt.
I really doubt the video itself is AI. Only because it doesn't need to be. It's literally just a dude sitting and talking to a camera. It would be easier to make this video than to generate it with AI.
> I can’t think of any reasonable explanation for why these videos exist or for how they were made.
Respectfully , that's a bit of a ridiculous thing to say. I'm not sure where you're going with it. Even if this was 100% AI, there would _still_ be a reason someone took the time to generate it and post it. Why does any YouTuber post a video?
> It seems completely possible that, in 3 or 4 years time, publicly available AI services will be able to produce videos of this quality and duration.
I think you're completely correct, and I think many of us share your paranoia here. But honestly, there are _plenty_ of better examples of AI slop out there, and it's sort of ironic that you've chosen to focus on one that very much doesn't appear to have any signs of AI.
