They've been upstreaming drivers for the X2 platform for months at this point, since at least late 2025 (just search "glymur" or "kaanapali" on LKML).
The patch referenced in the Phoronix article is just a device tree file. That is the easiest part of the whole thing. As usual he's just farming every random LKML patch he can for clicks.
Not having a free toolchain that can actually handle the real language has probably been pretty bad on the downstream public knowledgebase. Hopefully Verilator can eventually close that hole, and there can be more high-quality designs and codebases incorporated into future models. Claude is at least good enough to write SV that triggered a compiler crash or two. :)
Despite the name seemingly implying otherwise, F3 is an alternative to columnar storage formats like Parquet; the goal is not to support every conceivable encoding of every file type such as a PDF. Think of the use cases being more like "What if you used a specialized compressor and need a custom block decompression algorithm" or "Decode internal format into Arrow output" or something like that.
They almost certainly already make a fuckload more money off API pricing than they do subscriptions, even if there might be more total subscription users. So offering subscriptions even at some loss is probably going to continue. Honestly, I'd be surprised if they even lost money on most subs; there are definitely Token Whales out there who mess up all the accounting up, though.
Realistically I think Anthropic just has insane demand but finite capacity to run models, and Fable will just make them more money if they dedicate it to API pricing. I suspect the goal here is something like: get individual engineers/PMs on their personal plans to taste Fable and then go to their meetings and say "Yes doubling the price of every single input/output token is a good idea, boss".
I suspect it's a long tail sort of thing; it mostly doesn't matter except when it really matters. It's interesting that the stated motivation for the patch is in the context of agentic tools spawning subcommands. There's some related prior art in this area where the payoffs could be much greater, like fuzzing: https://gts3.org/assets/papers/2017/xu:os-fuzz.pdf is an example. It would be very interesting to see this patch applied to e.g. AFL++
This paper is great and I also really like one of its references [29] as it goes into some more subtle parts of scalable interfaces, including fork. It's a gem IMO: The Scalable Commutativity Rule: Designing Scalable Software for Multicore Processors https://people.csail.mit.edu/nickolai/papers/clements-sc.pdf
> That's my impression from that sentence, at least. Don't you agree?
No. Given a choice between doing laundry and driving Lamborghinis, I would probably choose the latter. But I still have to do my laundry. I might use a washing machine to do so. It's just a responsibility among many responsibilities. It isn't that deep, really.
The reality few people want to admit is that maintaining open-source software is often closer for many people to "doing laundry" than like, being the software equivalent of Atticus Finch.
> Or did Claude just gave some basically retired programmer, who doesn't even want to work on his project anymore,
The only thing Claude has "done" apparently is give a bunch of annoying people online a license to engage in armchair psychoanalysis of someone they don't know at all, from what I can tell.
The GB10 itself is pretty good and I love using mine for broad Linux development. But it's too expensive for consumer level pricing, and even for the "prosumer" the price is pretty stiff. Even if they dropped the CX-7 and halfed the RAM and shipped a smaller hard drive, would it be below, say, $2500 USD? I guess we'll see, but this variant is coming out pretty late so maybe it's just best to wait for the 2nd generation.
Imagine something like writing a server with an /metrics HTTP endpoint that Prometheus can then scrape -- but you bind it on separate port only inside a tailnet, with an ephemeral tailnet key and name it "metrics-service-blahblah".
Now you can simply write a script that uses the tailscale API to find all "metrics-service-*" nodes in your tailnet, and then adds their IP/DNS to your prometheus scraping list. Run it every 60 seconds. Done, now you can just deploy your app anywhere on any cloud and it will get scraped and that route will never be exposed to the outer internet.
This will basically just let you attach bespoke applications and not just "computers" to your network. I suspect I will get a lot of use from it.
Yes, almost all JJ users do this constantly. Just "track" the particular branch. JJ has an idea that only some commits are immutable, the set of "immutable heads", and the default logic is something like "The main branch is always immutable, remote branches are immutable, 'tracked' remote branches are mutable." In other words, tracking a remote branch removes it from the set of immutable heads.
Jujutsu is not "VC funded". But some of the developers, including me, work at East River Source Control (I worked on Jujutsu before that, too). The majority of the code in the project doesn't come from us -- or Google, for that matter. We don't allow people to approve patches when the author is from the same company, anyway.
jj is not "one guy who works at Google" and the vast majority of submitted code comes from non-Google developers. Even if Google were to stop developing jj (they won't) the project would be healthy and strong.
There's some legal annoyances around e.g. CLA which was a result of being a side project of Google originally. Hopefully we'll move through that in due time. But realistically it's a much larger project at this point and has grown up a lot, it's not Martin's side project anymore.
Just to be clear: I think uv and the other Astral projects will probably be just fine! I don't really think this the end at all.
I was just trying to explain why people are so upset by the perceived change of hands; that perception isn't perfect of course, it's a mixture of fear, honesty, skepticism, truth etc. I think some people here are just being absurd (e.g. the idea that community projects are magically more sustainable by the fact they are community projects is literally just wishcasting with a mix of Red-Dots-On-Plane syndrome). But I can definitely understand the source of it.
Part of the reason Astral as a team is so well liked is precisely because they are not part of the main fold or related to "Core Python"; they are an independent vendor, one that delivered high quality code and listened directly to users and their own (extensive) experience to do so, and they succeeded at that repeatedly. Python packaging has {been seen as, actually been} miserable for years, and so by the same token the capacity to believe in/buy into solutions from the "core project" has dwindled. "If it took Astral to fix it, why would it be any different going forward?"
So that's all it really comes down to; uv isn't loved just because it's great but because it is in good hands. This real/perceived change of hands pretty much explains all the downstream responses to the news that you see in this thread. Regardless of who bought them, any fork is going to have very, very big shoes to fill, and filling those shoes appropriately is the big worry.
Not quite, just the pixel/vertex shaders and the algorithm is public domain. Slug "the software package" is not open source (you can get a copy of it along with C4 Engine for $100 to take a peek if you want, though).
Yeah, I was more just trying to paint a broad picture. Nvidia in particular I think had fast and large-ish L1 on Tegra (X2?) despite being tied to 4k pages.
I feel like that was much more true in the past but the X925 was only spec'd 18 months ago(?) and you can buy it today (I'm using one since October). Intel and AMD also give lots of advance notice on new designs well ahead of anything you can buy. ARM is also moving towards providing completely integrated solutions, so customers like Samsung don't have to take only CPU core and fill in the blanks themselves. They'll probably only get better at shipping complete solutions faster.
Honestly, Apple is the strange one because they never discuss CPUs until they are available to buy in a product; they don't need to bother.
When you do a cache lookup, there is a "tag" which you use as an index during lookup. But once you do the lookup, you may need to walk a few entries in the corresponding "bucket" (identified by that tag) to find the matching cache line. The number of entries you walk is the associativity of the cache e.g. 8-way or 12-way associativity means there are 8 or 12 entries in that bucket. The larger the associativity, the larger the cache, but also it worsens latency, as you have to walk through the bucket. These are the two points you can trade off: do you want more total buckets, or do you want each bucket to have more entries?
To do this lookup in the first place, you pull a number of bits from the virtual/physical address you're looking up, which tells you what bucket to start at. The minimum page size determines how many bits you can use from these addresses to refer to unique buckets. If you don't have a lot of bits, then you can't count very high (6 bits = 2^6 = 64 buckets) -- so to increase the size of the cache, you need to instead increase the associativity, which makes latency worse. For L1 cache, you basically never want to make latency worse, so you are practically capped here.
Platforms like Apple Silicon instead set the minimum page size to 16k, so you get more bits to count buckets (8 bits = 256 buckets). Thus you can increase the size of the cache while keeping associativity low; L1 cache on Apple Silicon is something crazy like 192kb, and L2 (for the same reasons) is +16MB. x86 machines and software, for legacy reasons, are very much tied to 4k page size, which puts something of a practical limit on the size of their downstream caches.
Look up "Virtually Indexed, Physically Tagged" (VIPT) caches for more info if you want it.
"PAYGO API access" vs "Monthly Tool Subscription" is just a matter of different unit economics; there's nothing particularly unusual or strange about the idea on its own, specific claims against Google notwithstanding.
Of course, Google is still in the wrong here for instantly nuking the account instead of just billing them for API usage instead (largely because an autoban or whatever easier, I'm sure).