> Plenary sessions of Parliament take place 12 times per year in Strasbourg and last four days
There are 48 days in sessions over a year. You're saying that it's too much to ask MEPs not to take holidays during those 48 days? Am I missing something here?
It seems to imply the reasons were optimization and to protect from disappearing dependencies. It doesn't imply that there were any hidden dangers to git.
I think it's very possible that google simply thinks speed is more important than decentralization. And for google's purposes, a google-owned cache is probably a safe enough hedge against disappearing repos (read: if you're not google you'd need to evaluate this risk yourself).
Edit: Discussion from the time here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837753 - in that thread too people don't really know why the proxy was needed (or like, "is it really just for speed? but it isn't particularly slow right now"). One additional reason is analytics collection.
Most of those deal with downloading large centralized indexes using git, not individual packages.
> The problem was that go get needed to fetch each dependency’s source code just to read its go.mod file and resolve transitive dependencies. Cloning entire repositories to get a single file.
Then it needs to compile the module, right? It's not downloading it twice.
> Grab’s engineering team went from 18 minutes for go get to 12 seconds after deploying a module proxy.
> ...
> GOPROXY became the default in Go 1.13.
The way this is written it sounds like go builds were extremely slow (18 minutes) so go adopted a proxy to speed things up. But Go 1.13 was released in 2020, and the blog post about 18 minutes is from 2023. There's no link to anything about GOPROXY.
The vcpkg example also isn't a git issue, it sounds like just bad engineering from Microsoft.
I'm willing to believe there are issues with using git, but that article is a letdown.
This is terrifying... are there any other decent indie music marketplaces? And even more, why kill this? How could it possibly not have been profitable?
Is a small number of people with huge amounts of money investing in things nobody wants better than lots of people with small amounts of money investing in things they want?
This is obviously wrong. Management has never cared about how engineers do their job. There's never been a push for any other productivity boosting technology: better languages, better editors, automated refactorings, paid code intelligence tools, etc. But suddenly AI comes along and the CEO says "all developers need to write code entirely with LLMs".
It's more than just reproducing the standard flavor. By not measuring sometimes you'll get something very good, but because you didn't measure anything you won't know what you did that caused it to be good and won't be able to do it again.
Measuring doesn't preclude experimentation. You should copy your recipe, mark what changes you plan to make, then try it. If it works, you have a record. If it doesn't work, you can add a memo to know not to try that again.
I've thought a lot about how to characterize the difference between 3D and hand-drawn stuff. I think the core of it is:
- With hand drawn animation, you draw what you have in your head, first roughly, then you refine it
- With 3d animation, you first need to model everything, then rig it, then work with the bone system to get the motions you want or else mocap, and then set up rigs and stuff so that the mocap actors can do crazy movements, etc etc. Then maybe undo some of the scaffolding the 3d software does: disconnect bones, fake perspective. You have to fiddle with lighting, textures, etc. Or you don't, and just go with whatever's easy to do in the 3d software.
Which means that spontaneity and emotion, like I think this guy's arms should be all wiggly here, are lost. Yeah, you can hand animate then 3d animate on top of the hand animation, but in an industry that's using 3d to cut costs and not because it looks better, that's not going to happen (in any way that keeps the spontaneity).
3d is awesome in that once you've done a huge amount of up-front prep, the rest is easy to iterate on and tweak, but that's a large tradeoff.
I thought that this is one area where I think AI could be a force of good. Keep the animators doing the rough sketches, and AI comes up with the lines, handles the filling, and maybe adds colors with a guide. I haven't seen this yet.
---
I'm not sure I agree on the mentorship parts. IIUC all the major studios and famous animators weren't taught by someone. All the studios have unique flairs that they came up with just by playing around and copying Disney. And they got there without drawing hundreds of thousands of in-between frames for someone else.
I think that being taught the correct way to animate based on existing productions probably also reduces creativity in the field.
I wonder if the earlier creativity was due to voids though, and now that there's some amount of saturation it's harder to break in, or if somehow the increase in revenue from global interest somehow increases stakes and causes more downward pressure squashing out experimentation.
---
There's a lot I don't get about this article though. It says the demand is way up, but the treatment and pay for animators is terrible... why? I didn't see it addressed. Japan has a long history of "non-monetization" though, like refusing to sell digital music overseas, or regional restrictions on streaming content.
---
Lastly, I think there's still a lot of indie animation that gets glossed over. There are lots of independent animators making animations for music videos, for instance, or releasing small animations. I don't know if that grows into larger productions, but there's a level of creativity you'd never see if you just watch televised anime.
There's a lot I don't understand here. How did they come up with 350? I doubt there are any people who own more than 10 houses for personal use, and this is 35x that.
What's to stop people from just making multiple corporate entities? Or investors below the cap buying properties and flipping them to institutional investors above the cap bypassing the cap entirely?
This has come up several times before. It's not well cited. I read through it myself and even if the math is right, the application of the math seems incorrect.
The original data was a small number of studies with a small amount of old (1980s?) data that found a slope with so-so correlation.
The revised math finds a much smaller slope with what appears to be much worse fit to the same old data. The data was nearly horizontal before, but after the math changes it's much further away from 0.
The original study was making predictions near the data. The revision is doing massive extrapolation, far away from the range of what any of the studies tested.
I'm not a statistician, but it's not surprising to me that it's being ignored.