Agreed.

I saw one recently where the cyclist shouted out something like, "ON YOUR LEFT!" and all it did was startle the crap out of a jogger who spun around into the path of the bicycle. Luckily just a close call. That cyclist's "warnings", with no time for pedestrians to react properly, were really just a game of Russian roulette. (And really rude, as you say).

Shouting that while traveling too fast is indeed incorrect, but a polite "on your left" or bell while traveling an appropriate speed is considered good behavior to avoid surprising pedestrians.

The problem is there's a good number of people that hear "on your left" and shift left.

A gentle bell mostly doesn't do that.

Yeah, I prefer a bell.

also - even though the pedestrian has the obligation to move over - a friendly thanks! or thank you! helps all cyclists in the long-run.

This again depends on the jurisdiction and kind of path you're on. Where I grew up, if it's not separated into bicyclist & pedestrian lanes, bikes yield to pedestrians.

On US forest trails, the general rule is bikes yield to pedestrians and everyone yields to horses.

(Obviously pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes are doing it wrong.)

Yep, a wave helps as well.

Outside of some stage actors and drill sergeants, there are probably few people who can project their voices well enough that a vocal warning is useful.

You're either traveling slow enough that it's not necessary (and why yell at people if you have to?), or are too far away for someone to understand and get a bearing on who isn't already looking at you.

A bell is still rude in a shared space but used correctly, a decent one can at least be effective.

> A bell is still rude in a shared space

I just don't think that is even a little bit true, or at least it's something that is very culturally specific and thus not generally applicable.

I have a friendly sounding bell I use from an appropriate distance (and I can modulate the volume), and I routinely have people give a light wave to show they heard. In addition, the biggest complaint about cyclists in local social media is about them passing without notice.

If you just bell once or twice, and don't aggressively keep ringing, I'd never consider a bicycle bell in a shared space rude. I even consider it good manners, though as others have said, that varies between cultures.

Being visually impaired, though, I'm grateful for cyclists who use their bell. It's immediately clear. For some reason, my brain takes slightly longer to process someone yelling "on your left!" or similar, than just a quick "ring ring".

Cyclists will normally do the same thing passing out other cyclists at a 5-10 km/h speed difference, and it's definitely useful there.

Unfortunately in many jurisdictions it is legally required to do that when passing a pedestrian.

Can you list some examples? When I lived in Chicago it was quite common for cyclists to shout this on the long lakefront trail, I wonder if that's the case there too.

I've never ridden in Illinois, but yeah:

> § 11-1512. Bicycles on sidewalks. (a) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-625-vehicles/il-st-sect...

No idea if the lakefront trail is classified as a sidewalk but there are at least some cases in Illinois where either a bell or a "on your left" are legally mandatory.

You're right, it's certainly not the primary way to prevent accidents. But it helps at the edges, which seems worthwhile.

That's assuming the bells aren't abused too badly, which is a mixed bag, but mostly true.

WAL relies on shared memory, so while a proper FS is necessary, it isn't going to help in this case.

Why does it not help if both containers can mmap the same -shm file?

Shared memory across containers is a property of a containerization environment, not a property of a file system, "proper" or not.

It's a property of the filesystem, docker does not virtualize fs.

I dug into this limitation a bit around a year ago on AWS, using a sqlite db stored on an EFS volume (I think it was EFS -- relying on memory here) and lambda clients.

Although my tests were slamming the db with reads and write I didn't induce a bad read or write using WAL.

But I wouldn't use experimental results to override what the sqlite people are saying. I (and you) probably just didn't happen to hit the right access pattern.

"the sqlite people" don't say anything that contradicts this

I don't know if it's just me, but this whole post seems to have time traveled forward from about 3-4 days ago.

It's not just a repost. The thread includes a comment I made at the time which now from "1 hour ago".

Makes me wonder if it's an honest bug or someone has hacked the hacker news front page to sell their t-shits, mugs, and AI starter kits.

It's an artefact of the "second chance pool" mechanism.

Interesting choice to change the time of the comment, a deja-vu can be weird enough without staring at a comment with a recent timestamp.

> Companies are seeing this switch, so they adapt.

You’re confusing cause and effect here.

Companies are pushing apps very hard because it gives them a lot more ability to wield their various revenue enhancing dark patterns.

That kids see apps as the primary option is a corporate success metric, not an organic choice.

Anyway, the premise that “phone screen ==> native app not web app” is rather faulty, is it not?

They’re not confusing anything, you’re just sticking your head in the sand.

The modern entry path to “computing” is small screen devices (phones). Their point of newcomers not having our same entry path is accurate. This is organic, however much we don’t like it.

Anything past that is just market skating where the puck is.

I think they mean that a webapp is necessary desktop-first. Many websites/webapps are mobile-first. It resonate with me as I’m used to try new services on a (mobile) browser if available and switch to an app only if necessary.

> the premise that “phone screen ==> native app not web app” is rather faulty, is it not?

Okay but that's not what he's arguing, you're missing the point.

There's nothing stopping a website from being usable on a smartphone. In fact, almost all of these apps are just websites in disguise! They use web views to render.

The reason it's an app and not a website isn't because apps are better for smartphones. It's because apps are native code running.

It's also a choice that websites cannot present as apps (PWAs). Apple and Google purposefully did that so they can push users to apps instead of websites, for data farming purposes.

We're talking about web app vs native app here, not big screen vs small screen.

Obviously, you can have either kind of app on either size of screen, so small screen first doesn't mean native apps. It's enshitification that's driving native adoption, not small screens.

It’s pointless if you believe no one is asking LLMs to generate passwords for them.

Humans will always smash a screw with the handle of a spoon and be proud of themselves when they manage to do it.

I mean, people are still rotating <month><year> passwords because they refuse to remember anything. I only know this, because I am in a customer-facing position, and these customers rarely care about revealing their passwords when they need help...

A strange response.

Rather than address the comment you change the subject, “whaddabout the author!”

Why do the dark work of deflecting on behalf of “Meta”?

(lol, that name gets me every time. Might as well have renamed themselves NoIdeaWhatToDoNow)

Because recognizing the author as conflicted and an unreliable narrator changes how you should weight and consider the information they are providing. It doesn't necessarily mean anything is untrue - but it does add extra, valuable information to how much you trust it.

If someone tells me something, I'm mostly likely to believe it without further investigation. But not always.

Another one. Deflecting the criticism of Meta with a “whaddabout the author!”

Formed as an answer to a question, but not one that was asked.

A different account than last time, though, so I’ll ask you too: Why do the dark work of deflecting on behalf of Meta (lol)?

I think the point is that up until she was fired, she was Meta. She wasn’t a random employee, she was their global public policy director. She wasn’t just implementing policy, she was responsible for creating it.

The question remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired.

It’s not like she quit due to her ethical objections

The question does indeed remain, but is it a question whose answer matters?

If someone exposes a shady organization why should I care if they did it for ethical reasons or for something less noble like revenge for getting kicked out of that organization?

>> but is it a question whose answer matters?

I think it does? "scummy person loses job, finds another way to cash in" almost seems to becoming a trope? I think it raises questions about what is left _out_ of the book, not just what's in it - are the issues raised the worst/most important, or just the ones that will sell the most books? Did we really need someone to 'tell us' meta/social media can be evil?

There are reasons that (some) criminals are not allowed to profit from books/movies about their crimes.

Anyway, that's just my general feelings about this sort book - I've never heard of the book or the author. And I honestly have no interest in reading it. Based on what I'm reading here - that would basically be rewarding/enriching one of the 'bad actors' ?

> but is it a question whose answer matters

Yes. 100%. And the fact that you're not seeing why it does is confounding to me.

This person has shown that they are willing to harm society (for their own benefit, presumably); by active choice. And, as such, anything they say needs to be viewed through the lens of "is this person lying for their own benefit".

1. Their previous actions do mean that we should not trust what they are saying outright, we should do (more) work verifying the information they provide.

2. Their previous actions to _not_ mean we should avoid holding other accountable when the information provided turns out to be true.

You're asking your question like someone is arguing that this person's information doesn't matter (2); but the point being made is that we should (1).

Because it doesn’t really target the issue.

Would she go do the same job at Alphabet? X? Probably, if they’d have her.

And the only real thing that’d happened is the government has been used to remove other companies’ competition.

Hooray I guess

> The question remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired.

Assume the answer is no. What does this change about any of this?

She’s attempting to use the public to bludgeon Meta.

This is a fight among shitty people. I will not lionize either side. They both contributed to the shitty state of affairs today.

Meta can burn and she can go broke. I’m fine with both

That's a good reaction to have.

Thankfully she wrote the book so we know about all these bad deeds.

I don’t think the book revealed anything new about FB’s bad deeds, though. Was there novel info?

I think its just more exposure for already bad things.

Had she had a trove of emails or something, I might thing differently.

This is quite different from the recent lawsuits that produced novel material and evidence.

Knowing something is happening and reading detailed descriptions of them actually occurring is different, IMO. I learned things I didn't know while reading it, at least.

I think the core question would be whether her claims are accurate or not, right?

A third “whaddabout the author”!

It’s almost as if…

Many of the juicy stories from the book have no supporting evidence other than the claims of the author. Their credibility is all we have to go on here. If someone wrote a message here saying that they were a fly on the wall at the publisher’s office where they had a workshop inventing these stories to sell more books, you’d be right to question their motives.

Even justice system considers the trustworthiness of a witness, evaluating incentive, conflict of interest.

Having worked in another FAANG, I realize a large number of criticisms do come from imaginations, since I could see the contrast first hand. Nobody could tell exactly the consequences of all actions, most of the time it's just a buncha folks trying to figure out what to do, experimenting, iterating. Have you tried executing a conspiracy, like a surprise party? Good luck keeping a secret with more than 5 people.

There's also the problem of perspective. To a less technical engineer who don't know what they don't know, having their deliverable rejected time and again could feel like a conspiracy against them. If you read a blog post from them you'd think the culture is very toxic when everyone is doing their best juggling to be considerate while keeping the quality high.

As with others commenting on this, I've no idea how true the book is, in fact I have never read it. OTOH, even without the book, researches saying social media is making teenagers depress look convincing to me, and, although it's a losing battle, privacy matters a lot to me so I've personally stopped using social media for many years.

None of these give me full confidence to trust nor distrust the narrator, for things that you can't observe externally. It's all percentage.

The fate of every whistleblower

I think the view you put here is legitimate, Greenwald had an article about Frances Haugen kind of saying the same sorts of things

Redis, four dbs, container orchestration for a site of this modest scope… generated blog posts.

Our AI future is a lot less grand than I expected.

How else will you get all those resume entries ! (/j)

Ironically, AI de-skilling results in a robust-sounding resume.

In my experience people feel the need to wrap axios too.

These are the kind of people I hope AI replaces

I have never consciously wrapped Axios or fetch, but a cursory search suggests that there was a time when it was impossible for either to force TLS1.3. It's easy to imagine alternate implementations exist for frivolous reasons, but sometimes there are hard security or performance requirements that force you into them.

AI was trained on Axios wrappers, so it's just going to be wrappers all the way down. Look inside any company "API Client" and it's just a branded wrapper around Axios.