Other than batch jobs, I can't think of a problem that can be solved these days that doesn't also require high availability - at the very least they require a warm standby.
I'm using "sneaky" here to refer to anything that's not very obviously stated but anyway
> That their actions make sense for their business isn't any reason for people to accept their deceitful, customer-hostile decisions.
While I agree it's a dangerous precedence to set, I think this is a "vote with your wallet" sort of situation. They shouldn't do it, but from their POV this is what they need to do to offer the product they do at the price they do. If the product wasn't compelling people wouldn't accept that they do this. However they've decided if you want their product you have to use their interface and whatever spyware it comes with, so it comes down to, is the value proposition good enough that people will put up with it? As of today, the answer is unfortunately yes
> maybe you don't understand this hypothetical situation
> I'm suspecting you just don't care about other people's privacy.
Quite a leap to assume I have neither basic reading comprehension skills nor care for privacy, but assuming I'm just misunderstanding you - I think this is the fundamental disconnect between security and privacy.
For one, most of this data is already collected openly by most apps and sites on the internet in countries all over the world, they just call it "analytics" and preventing tools like ublock from blocking them is an ongoing cat and mouse game.
Secondly - as someone who buys a bunch of electronics from companies headquartered in china (DJI, Insta360, Roborock immediately come to mind) they already have both normal analytics like in point one, and anti tampering/ anti forfeiting / anti reverse engineering features that are at least as, but often more, invasive than this.
Thirdly, and probably most importantly - as the author states, you're using a tool that by design and to be effective, uploads your private data to a third party for processing. You use it knowing that once the API request is made you have no idea what's going to happen to that data and this again is just fundamental to how (cloud hosted) LLMs work - the only privacy preserving option is to run your own LLMs at home or remotely on hardware you control
I don't understand the privacy concerns the author is trying to highlight. Granted, doing anything "sneaky" will always raise suspicious once caught, but on the other hand, there would be no point in implementing these "security features" if they were upfront about how they work.
And no, IMO stenography isn't security by obscurity, in the same that using RSA and keeping the private key private isn't security by obscurity - keeping the private thing private is part of the security model.
We can't make single cores any faster, so realistically multicore is the only "solution". That said, most languages have M:N event loops, where M tasks are distributed across N OS threads so even if your software doesn't directly use multiple cores, you end up using them indirectly for example for IO to the database or other APIs.
Could have sworn the author was a nix(os) user already. I know it’s a meme but what all the problems they’re describing literally is solved by nix. The nix sandbox even catches calls for time for example to replace it with 0 for determinism.
I think it can't be improved because it's measuring the wrong thing. A junior engineer becomes a senior when they stop being told what code to write and start solving business needs. Therefore often the highest paid engineers aren't the ones who would do the best on leetcode - or SWE bench pro verified.
Maybe AGI is possible and we'll have software defined human intelligence that's completely autonomous but that's not coming in the next slightly better RL trained LLM and if existed likely wouldn't be under our control anyway
Googles machine translation team wrote the Attention is all you need paper that introduced transformers specifically to solve the problem that you can just model language by mapping one word to another. I'd be floored if they weren't using the tech they invented for intended purpose
I think it's because they're running out of ideas too BUT the current generations of foldables (galaxy fold 7 for example) are essentially indistinguishable from non folding phones when closed. Yes, that means they could have made a thinner phone over all - the Galaxy Fold is the same thickness as the iPhone 17 pro max but both are twice as thick as the air - but I think consumers have gotten use to thick heavy phones - its why the SE and air don't sell as well IMO
Rescheduler is impractical because scheduling is environment specific. You might have for example a database that needs three nodes and you have three servers, there's no where to reschedule those pods to in that case.
In the cloud you can use cluster autoscaler or karpenter to automatically handle the unhomed pods however.
I'm not personally trying to gatekeep kubernetes, everyone should do what works for them. However, if I'm putting my professional credibility and/or my sleep schedule on the line, I would not advise anyone to do this.
Even at home, I run stuff that needs to be highly available enough that I wouldn't go this route when there are better options.
Insert the "No god no" meme here - you really shouldn't be updating nodes in place and thus shouldn't be restarting nodes.
I'm aware bare metal exists and it's not always practical to just provision more servers, yet I think for most workloads you're not getting the benefit of Kubernetes if you have say 3 servers and lose 1/3 of your capacity to do software updates.
It makes sense when you consider LLMs don't generalize very well, so they're heavily dependent on how good (how varied as well as how high quality) the training data is