What I've gleaned from reading this thread is that as long as I show an act of kindness to a few people who will post about it on social media, I can be as bigoted or hateful as I want to be.
There has to be a way to set permissions right? The demo video they provided doesn't even need permission to read file contents, just read the file titles and sort them into folders based on that. It would be a win-win anyways, less tokens going into Claude -> lower bill for customer, more privacy, and more compute available to Anthropic to process more heavy workloads.
> you cannot simultaneously support rule of law and support that those recklessly ignore it.
Hillarious you write this knowing full well the DoJ is violating a law passed by congress saying every single one of the Epstein files had to be released 3 weeks ago.
You need to install psycopg2, or perhaps more likely psycopg2-binary to access postgres databases. After hiichbindermax and mrbump helped me out upthread, I was able to get it working via:
uvx --from sqlit-tui --with psycopg2-binary sqlit
If you're not using uv, then you'll need to install psycopg2-binary in whatever environment you're using (probably via `pip install psycopg2-binary`).
One of your merits listed is "Pure JavaScript developer experience". I don't think most devs, even JS devs would consider this a merit lol. Cool project either way.
I'm skeptical of formal verification mainly because it's akin to trying to predict the future with a sophisticated crystal ball. You can't formally guarantee hardware won't fail, or that solar radiation will flip a bit. What seems to have had much better ROI in terms of safety critical systems is switching to memory-safe languages that rely less on runtime promises and more on compiler guarantees.
Most, if not all the points made in the article, seem to stem from a sense of "we need to optimize the code to be readable by mathemeticians, not programmers" which is fair, depending on what you're doing. But goes a bit overboard with the safety argument, which we've seen much better ROI by focusing on memory safety, rather than abstract mathematical proofs.
In fact, the entire safety argument is undermined by the author themselves:
> The engine is closed source. You cannot see how fft or ode45 are implemented under the hood. For high-stakes
engineering, not being able to audit your tools is a risk.
What's the point of optimizing your code to be easy for physicists/mathematicians to read for safety, when you can't even verify what the compiler will produce?
I suppose it basically boils down to whether your orgs engineering is run by academics or software engineers, but Matlab doesn't really do anything that python can't for free. And python is more accessible, has more use cases, and strong academic support already.
Elmo already cancelled out any progress made by buying a social media platform and getting the most anti-science anti-NASA admin in history elected. He's done a net negative on the world at this point, even if the scale is vastly larger than most people.
I'm not really interested in the problems that can come with orbital compute. We've seen them listed ad nauseam.
Have we seen any benefits to orbital computing by launching a cluster of raspberry pis to LEO? Surely this isn't an impossible task to test out on a smaller scale?
There isn’t really much benefit to having compute on orbit unless you’re working on VERY specific applications that have such tight latency requirements where you need to process the data immediately as it comes out of the sensor. In which case you just implement the algorithms in ASICs or FPGAs anyways.
There have been NVIDIA Jetsons or better on orbit since at least 2021 and that had no meaningful impact on any actual meaningful compute workloads beyond proof of concept demos.
What a world we live in eh?
reply