Location: Miami, NYC, LA
Remote: Prefered, but happy to travel
Willing to relocate: nothing's impossible
Technologies: ios and Android apps (Expo, Swift, Flutter); web applications (many: Next.js, Django, Rails...); POSIX; sockets; .NET; LLMs (langchain, pytorch)
Résumé/CV: https://gist.github.com/ibejoeb/902026c035a995d571920451109255e7
Email: joe@bokengroup.com
After building and selling a couple of companies, now I'm a quasi-retired "technologist" I guess. I like to build. The benefit is that I'm compensation-flexible and offer a straightforward style. Lately, I've been splitting my time building native apps and working on LLMs, but I'm very also comfortable in the middle of the stack and at the systems level. Somehow I wind up doing a lot of custom USB and BT work.
No drama. I don't want to run your company or lord over a tribe. The best fit is a situation where you need something done, you set the direction and constraints, then I bring you options to get it done and deliver it.
>For non-Canadian vehicles, you may reach out to Rivian Service to request that we disable the eSIM card in the vehicle through a service appointment.
Why is that? I really don't want to bring it to the shop to turn off the radio. In Canada it's a toggle in the settings. Is there Canadian legislation mandating this or something?
// Registers can't be a record type because the values need to be truncated to 8 bits when writing, so setters are needed
// This is for the web renderer as Fable transpiles uint8 to Number (more than 8 bits) in JS and doesn't apply any truncation
// Known non-standard behaviour in Fable (https://fable.io/docs/javascript/compatibility.html#numeric-types)
So, I think, it's just conservatively cleaning the data due to Fable's widening via js Number on the web target.
I haven't used Fable much, but apparently it maps .NET arrays to js TypedArray. Presumably you could keep the registers in 8-element array and fable will properly produce a Uint8Array. I'd like to benchmark that.
It's an interesting read. I don't think it's bad, but it's not rigorous or really aimed at anything in particular. Basically asking a discrete mathematician whether he needs continuity: no. It seems reasonable that we might need separate paradigms to think about different kinds of problem (e.g., is there a physical size of the universe vs. is there a biggest prime number) because we don't know yet if there is a theory of everything or if there are innate boundary layers.
It's a fun thinking prompt, and you can go down the rabbit hole of information theory and quantized spacetime. Like you suggest, it's perfectly fine to say "infinity does not exist" and also contemplate and operate on slice at a time.
We've spent the past three decades trying to invent ways to deduce identity and build profiles of what would otherwise be anonymous users. When the government steps in and compels people to formally identify themselves by their government names, what would you expect these companies to do? They're not gonna say "no thanks."
Why the heck would the government compel people to formally identify themselves to read or comment on a newspaper or a blog? That's absurd and unconstitutional in the US.
You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.
I don't know. Why would the government compel someone to formally identify himself to put cash in a box at the bank? Why would the government compel people to take off their shoes to get on a plane? Or submit biometric data drive a car? KYC for a phone line...
It's not invalid. I have no reason to believe that this isn't going to creep.
We have extremely strong first amendment protections that form part of our constitution. That's why it's not going to creep. It would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.
I think your interpretation, even if correct, is not the current position of the legislature. This post and the thread attached to it is about how it's currently happening. Personally, I don't see a future where you don't have a digital ID. If the government can compel you to provide an ID to, say, travel or operate a vehicle in public, I don't see a compelling 1A argument that it can't do the same to operate computing device on the public internet.
While I don't agree on your characterization of the legislature, it doesn't even matter. That's the whole purpose of having checks and balances, and a Supreme Court that can strike down unconstitutional legislation.
And your analogy between driving a vehicle and posting on a website doesn't work because there is no constitutional protection for driving vehicles or taking commercial air flights. However there is a constitutional protection for speech, above all political speech. That's the difference.
I love Zed, but I hear you. It's a very fast and capable editor with lots of IDE features, but it's lacking comfortable ways of tuning it for specific projects. (This is a problem with every general purpose, everything-to-everyone kind of IDE versus stack "native" IDEs that are geared toward the one true way of developing for particular target.) The configuration file structure is arcane, and it certainly not clear what the boundaries are between language feature configuration, LSPs, built-in and third-party code quality tools, etc.
I eat the cost of configuring it manually when I start up something new because it's just not that big of deal, even when you're like me, working across myriad languages and frameworks and organization with varying standards. It's not ideal, but it's not deal-breaker.
I do wish that there was a better way to definitively set it up a particular way and know that it is doing what you want it to do. I want something like presets/profiles. If I'm working with typescript, I want to be able to set it up to use a specific version of tsc, eslint, prettier; I also want to be able to create a different one with biome; I want it to work correctly whether I have my source in the project root or in a sub directory or in a monorepo tree.
Fairness to Zed: it is difficult to support all of these permutations, but I do think that they ought to be able to do something better to abstract these things and make the reusable.
The standard approach these days is to have all of those declared in a config file somewhere in your project. That way, other contributors (and the CI) can lint/format consistently.
Even if it's for solo projects, it's nice that you don't have to update them in lockstep. As in, you revisit an older repo, you don't get bombarded with squiggly lines from your latest user profile, instead you can upgrade it at your leisure.
1. I want to be able to readily duplicate that configuration for another similar project.
2. It's not always appropriate to co-locate those specific files within the project source itself, especially within a source repository. Notable cases are if we're working on different platforms with different binary paths, or if we're not standardized on a particular editor. I should be able to configure my editor without polluting the common source.
Does IPFS support content eviction now? If not, that could go wrong really fast. You get a compromised package out there and then, I think, literally every node needs to unpin it or it remains.
Presumably, how ever you mark a version as latest would also be how you mark one as compromised. IPFS files are immutable and keyed by hash. But this seems like overengineering.
No drama. I don't want to run your company or lord over a tribe. The best fit is a situation where you need something done, you set the direction and constraints, then I bring you options to get it done and deliver it.
reply