do you need a disclaimer to your comments that you work on a product (XTP Bindgen) that is basically competing with the WASI component model? I don't care for either but thought the transparency was necessary.
It doesn’t require k8s — you run their agent binary on multiple hosts and they all get connected. You can deploy the same agent in k8s also if you want.
Yep that's right, we do not require k8s. There's a ton of existing infrastructure into k8s so we try to make it apparent how you integrate there. The local CLI, wash, is an example of how we run locally, it's just a Windows/Mac/Linux binary and then the WebAssembly components are architecture/OS agnostic.
We use NATS to connect distributed hosts and manage distributed state (e.g. no etcd) so as long as you can connect the NATS servers you can run anywhere.
If it doesn't support SVN or Mercurial I don't see a need to try and be abstract. At a minimum it needs to use the word Git because that page is inscrutable.
Great! Now let's see if someone really cares enough to make a pull request or whether these complaints are just superficial to have something to complain about.
Can we please just move to using OSS licenses with a clause namely targeting cloud providers? e.g this MIT license is applicable to everyone except for the following companies: Amazon, Microsoft, Google.
Leave the rest of us poor folk alone so we don’t have to seek expensive legal counsel.
I think the right solution for this problem, and many others, is not to allow the "platform" to compete inside their own garden.
So if you offer infrastructure, you cannot offer managed DBs there, if you have a market place you cannot sell on it, if you have an app store, you cannot sell apps there. Etc etc
Most of the Facebook companies are still called Facebook, see for example FACEBOOK IRELAND HOLDINGS UNLIMITED COMPANY https://opencorporates.com/companies/ie/466405 and some of its connected companies.
Still, you'd probably need a license steward to keep the list of companies up to date, and you'd keep the list in an annex. Alternatively you'd need to pick some objective thresholds, such as "more than 1 T$ market cap or more than 100 G$ global annual revenues". This is the approach the EU followed with the Digital Markets Act.
(I'm not saying that I'm endorsing such an approach.)
I joined while in the bathroom where the camera was facing upwards looking up to the hanging towel on the wall…and it said “looks like you got a cozy bathroom here”
I don't see it as an issue. The bad part of social networks is feeding you never ending crap. If kids want to talk to each other... what's the issue with that? We had phone calls and party lines and passing notes before. (Or letters for those who were into that) They were as much a social network as Google doc comments.
It's the feed that allows them access to public posts that is a big problem. Let's start with children accounts where the feed is restricted to friends / followed accounts and only in chronological order.
As I type this, I realize this is exactly what a lot of us have been saying should be done for adults too. And why is it that all social media either moves towards this nebulous endless feed or actively pushes it. Very telling.
Rust is not an interpreted language like Python. Your comment would make sense if Python code could be compiled into x86 or ARM assembly in the first place.
> Your comment would make sense if Python code could be compiled into x86 or ARM assembly in the first place.
It can actually be compiled (or transpiled) into C code [1] with few limitations, so I can't see why not. It still requires libpython but it should be better than porting the whole interpreter to webassembly.
As far as I could tell, the big pain point was performance -- they were just too slow on median machines during the late 90s/early 00s window they had mindshare.
I actually enjoyed using them to get around a few browser limitations around the mid-to-late 00s, and they seemed feature/performance competitive with Flash unless what you were doing fit the media authoring model closely. But by then people were skeptical about Java and if you had to do anything to get it installed they wouldn't, and the direction was native web.
They were better than Flash (which needed a weirder runtime, and couldn’t interact easily with the DOM, and didn’t have variables until version 3). This is hugely improved over JavaScript at the time (pre-XHR) and had less lock-in than ActiveX.
I spent years working with GWT, it's not nearly as simple as you describe. It's not running "Java" in the browser, it's compiling down (a subset of) Java to Javascript.
That said, GWT was ahead of its time in a lot of ways, but it had warts galore.
I recall around 2010 or so, when a company I worked for was creating a new, rather ambitions, web application. I had to argue against using Java Applets in favor of standard web technology for several components. Thankfully I won that battle.
That web application is still in use, in production, today.
Your didn’t answer my question. If I had an account in SVB, and I put a 100k in it, why would SVB take my 100k and invest it? That was the whole issue with FTX. Investing it whatever asset class, my money shouldn’t have been invested unless I give permission to SVB period.
It’s how literally every bank has worked for all of time. They have to cover interest you are payed for keeping your money at the bank. Where do you think that money comes from? They take the money people deposit, and invest it, either through loans to others, or through other investment vehicles, like treasury bonds in this case. When you put your money in a bank, you are giving them permission to reinvest it somehow. If you just want your money to sit there, your only option is to start stuffing wads of bills under your mattress.
