> We want the PEP to be clear that it’s ultimately the JIT team’s responsibility to find solutions for these packages and tools, and how to deal with situations where a tool can’t be supported or made to work
Is it just me or is this absurdly impossible, to the point of willfully killing the project? Committing a team of brilliant compiler engineers to doing free consulting ad infinitum for every bit of tooling in the world, however hacked-together?
The alternative would be to have the bravery to say: this is the way forward to keep this language relevant into the future, and as a steering committee we collectively own that some tooling may be out of date. Instead, this is a signal that Python is going to rest on its laurels for a very long time.
Python use is widely diverse. Anyone wishing to contribute to that which is published to such a diverse community, all of whom expect Python to continue working for them without any regressions, has to be ready to cater to that diversity in its entirety.
Given that the speedup is modest (~10%) and the Python 3 migration caused enough pain for users, I get it though. If it was a 2x speedup it would be a different story IMO
One of my favorite things about UUIDv7: the package https://pypi.org/project/uuid7/ does not implement compliant UUIDv7s, it's from a wholly incompatible draft format. That was not a fun debugging session.
I'd love to see this level of customization come to date and datetime-local popups, finding a meaningful path that preserves compatibility with the design languages of various platforms. If and when that happens, it will be because of the work of standardization working groups like Open UI and Interop.
So I could see the other argument here: I’m presenting from a presentation, I want to switch to a live demo environment, and to do so I need to turn off the presentation entirely?
Now, another operating system might see this tension and say: why not have a UI element come up, and ask the user whether they want to share their entire screen or stay on the existing shared window?
Here, I think this hits a fundamental weakness in Apple’s design culture: if you want to make things magical by removing options from users, occasionally you’re going to hit something that’s impossible to do without giving the user control. And if anything, Apple’s culture has been overtuned towards not providing that control, if at all possible.
Nobody wants complexity for complexity’s sake, but this is the type of thing that should have come up in a meeting, and someone didn’t feel empowered to bring it up.
It's a while since I used Airplay for anything other than Youtube videos, but here is how I thought it worked:
1. If I choose to Airplay from the control center, it mirrors the whole screen (or possibly also extends as a second screen). Whatever I open on the iPad (or drag to the second screen) is what the audience sees.
2. If I Airplay from inside an app with presentation mode, it works similar to Airplaying a video. That one app remains active even if I switch to another app.
3. To switch what gets presented, I simply start a new Airplay session: from control center if I want to switch to sharing the whole screen, or to another app if I want that app's presentation mode. This doesn't have to be automatic, but I shouldn't have to actively close the old session to start a new one.
4. To switch back to a previous presentation, I open that app back up and re-enable Airplay - there could be a button to "resume presentation".
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that is too complicated. It seems rather intuitive that if I'm sharing a specific app window, I didn't mean to share the whole thing. (And it's also intuitive that if I actively start a new share, that takes over from the old one. No need to actively close the old share first.)
The "magic" here should be that whichever app was last explicitly cast to an external display should be the one that keeps casting to that display until the user chooses from a different app to cast it to the external display.
I think the counter-argument you posed is the weaker of the two. You of course know you want to switch to displaying the live demo environment instead of the presentation you chose to cast to the display, but there's no way the OS can reasonably infer that, so it shouldn't.
> Here, I think this hits a fundamental weakness in Apple’s design culture: if you want to make things magical by removing options from users, occasionally you’re going to hit something that’s impossible to do without giving the user control. And if anything, Apple’s culture has been overtuned towards not providing that control, if at all possible.
I think there’s a solution that fits within the Apple Design culture that they already use. If you’re connected to a display you can already click the “AirPlay” icon to change the audio output location. (Eg I’m connected to a display via usbc cable but want the audio to go to a Bluetooth device or headphones)
So, just let me select the app that gets the display output. And make “share screen” a discrete choice.
When their flie opening dialog on macOS opens up, if I go into a folder by mistake, and I want to go to the parent folder.. It's not possible.
Why or how would some designer say "Perfect". The context of a filesystem browser requires those actions, level up from current directory is a basic feature. Hell worst case just give me the entire current directory path as a string and I can remove the current folder and go.
It is mind boggling how they're aclaimed for being so innovative with UI/UX and yet get the foundational basics so wrong.
There's a back button, which if you just went into a child folder from a parent folder, then pressing the back button will go to the parent folder.
If you explicitly want to go to the parent folder, clicking on the name of the current folder in the dropdown in the top center of the open dialog, will reveal a list of folders that is the hierarchy from current folder on top, to root folder on bottom.
You can also press Command + Up Arrow to go to the parent folder.
To edit the path as text, press Shift + Command + G, which will show a dialog with the current path, and allow you to edit it as text with autocomplete support.
Bonus tip: While in the file open dialog, if for some reason you want open the current directory in a full normal Finder window, press Command + R.
Agreed it’s dumb to be off by default, but I get it. You can change it: To show the file path in macOS, you can enable the Path Bar in Finder by clicking on View > Show Path Bar. This will display the full hierarchy of the selected file or folder at the bottom of the Finder window.
The Apple Home View is proof that Apple could implement some kind of user switching / login and log out scheme if they wanted to do so on the iPad as well.
That reminds me of hotmail's 50GB limit that cannot be changed. This created so much pain for some non-technical people I know (missed important emails, then having to spend days deliberating what to delete etc)
> UI element come up, and ask the user whether they want to share their entire screen
Better yet, allow for a dock on the extended screen, that lists all apps that have feature support for another monitor. The dock will have an app to duplicate screen 1. However, Control of this dock will have to be done via mouse / trackpad, because touch is not available on second screen..
How about just starting AirPlay in the control center to take over the Airplay session from the presentation?
I'm trying to find a flaw, so far it sounds logical to me:
There's only one AirPlay session, and whichever App requests it suspends the previous one. This way you can also go back from "live demo" to presentation by switching back to the presentation app and selecting AirPlay in that context again...
>I’m presenting from a presentation, I want to switch to a live demo environment, and to do so I need to turn off the presentation entirely?
Ideally, a well-designed live demo app would also support presentation mode. Switching to it (e.g., via Alt-Tab or swiping) would automatically update the external display.
The external screen would act like a dedicated full-screen view for any app in presentation mode. If no app is in that mode, it would stay blank (not show the home screen) - unless the home screen itself has presentation mode enabled.
Anyone preparing a presentation should and do tend to set everything up and test it in advance. Apps that support presentation mode can keep control of the external display and let you switch between them smoothly, so all that preparation pays off.
Not a live demo app, a live demo environment for an app. Your suggestion would mean every app would use presentation mode, which makes the concept worthless.
> this is the type of thing that should have come up in a meeting, and someone didn’t feel empowered to bring it up
I was completely agreeing with you until this statement at the very end.
How do you know it didn't come up in a meeting and that Apple isn't full of assholes who channel their inner (wildly distorted perception of) Steve Jobs to shut down dissent? If there's any place where a whole goddamn committee could be that delusional about its own nature, it's Apple. The company got way too big for its own good a very long time ago.
You're spot on otherwise. It's the fundamental reason why everyone who does hates Apple.
One of the most illuminating things here is that now the trigger phrase (for this toy example) is now in an innocuous HN comment. Ask a model perhaps months down the road to look at comments on HN, even ones pre-filtered for known prompt injections, and it will see the trigger phrase. No user generated content is safe.
Imagine you’re an employee at OpenAI who has an idea to use your free time to build these monitoring systems. All of a sudden, your existence becomes political. Remember that OpenAI’s raison-d’être is not to detect traffic, it is to be in The Room where AGI happens.
You have built a short-term whistleblowing system that arguably reduces the probability OpenAI is in that Room, via the negative press such detection would generate. You are now a threat in the eyes of your peers.
Now rewind: you know this before you’ve built the sniffer. You personally want to be in The Room because you believe your desires for alignment exceed those of your accelerationist peers. Is now the time to stick your head out? No, it is not. And arguably you’re being optimally protective of society for realizing this. And so the agents do what they do best.
And imagine you had an LLM ingest the entire corpus of comments and discussion threads for all of Postgres' history, and asked it to make a judgment call on the tradeoffs - or even on how to present the tradeoffs for discussion.
How much of its judgment would be driven by the data vs. its own internal knowledge? How much might be driven by old vs. new discussions that might not represent new directions of the project? How much might be driven by over-matching against how bugs in less mission-critical code paths were handled?
There's no way to quantify the answers to these questions. Which is not to say this applies to every problem out there! But human judgment is still a bottleneck for design questions on widely, disparately-used complex systems.
This. The ability to know that a vibe coded PR is all right to merge, is a function of both the thoughtfulness and simplicity of the underlying architecture, and the level of ownership that contributors have of the underlying products. Both benefit more nimble teams.
I’ve happened to meet a number of researchers employed by large oil companies over the years, including many involved in the result of memos like this: making research into carbon capture and other mitigations a top corporate priority. Are there optical/PR reasons for investing in this research? Absolutely. Have they also been engaging in the science in good faith, and genuine intent that… in a world where climate action is desired, and net emissions are something to optimize for, they can anticipate this by genuinely funding research, and having their own research projects already underway that can address anticipated challenges? Also absolutely true.
Now, I can’t speak for, say, lobbying efforts. But the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met. Entire labs of people working for decades to think: can we make our processes cleaner, at the same time we rise to the challenges of global demand.
We should be celebrating, not condemning, this work.
Scientists and economists are dime a dozen, they have to sing for their supper. For a few thousands dollars, scientists have written about benefits of smoking, lead is a gift from God, and tens of thousands of toxic substances, food additives, etc.
Carbon capture is fraud. You can EASILY stop carbon emissions by switching to EVs, which are cheaper to buy and operate. Instead Govts want to spend trillions on top the $7T dollars/year subsidies to help oil companies recover more oil.
The COP summits are held in fossil fuel countries and discuss carbon capture.
Shell Is Looking Forward The fossil-fuel companies expect to profit from climate change. I went to a private planning meeting and took notes: https://archive.is/15Dj4
Planting and growing trees is a form of carbon capture and it is one that has worked in Earth's history to bring CO2 levels down over the last millions of years from 7000ppm during the Cambrian Age to less than 700ppm.
You already know why that’s a confusing argument because you included the time scale yourself, but to say the obvious: I think we probably need to go a bit faster than “millions of years”.
It took nature millions of years to go from 7000ppm to under 700ppm. But we are talking a diff of only about 100ppm. Not cutting down the rainforest or raising a forest of that scale in some desert does seem like a positive contribution.
Another good idea would be to mandate working from home for everyone that reasonably can do so. During Covid I've only measured about 300ppm as the bottom baseline, while nowadays I do not measure lower than 400ppm. (Co2 measuring devices are fairly cheap and good to have in your office, as high Co2 affects your ability to think clearly. Without opening a window and having just one person inside Co2 easily climbs to about 3000ppm within a few hours just from your breathing.)
Planting trees as "carbon offsets" has been a hugely profitable rort
The idea that we can lock up land, forever, planted in trees to offset our consumption is blissfully naive
In New Zealand large swatches of land are being taken out of production, for a onetime big payment
It neglects two things:
1. Trees burn. Forests left untended for years choke with fuel and then catastrophically burn releasing all that carbon
2. We need the land. Future generations, this generation in a few years, will not be sympathetic to the vast swatches of unproductive land (that due to 1. above create costs)
We must stop producing carbon. It will mean many obscenely rich will be downgraded to wealthy. And the prospect of that is enough to burn the world
Carbon capture is physically unable to be as effective as we need it to be. To an approximation, growing a tree is able to capture as much carbon as burning the wood from that tree. If most of our released carbon came from burning wood, we would just need to re-grow that amount of wood (unfortunately it's not even that simple, as the soil stores carbon long term in a way that just growing the tree doesn't capture, and is also released over time when old growth forests are cut down). Instead, the carbon we're burning comes from processes which efficiently concentrated the carbon from plants and microorganisms over millions of years to create coal, oil, and gas.
Carbon capture technology would have to artificially replicate these millions-of-years-long processes, and do it on a scale of years to decades. The scale of carbon capture we need is entirely unfathomable, requiring processes that don't exist, because they have to work against entropy itself.
Carbon capture at the point of burning fossil fuels to abate further emissions might be economical. Capturing already released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (concentration of ~0.04%) is a fiction pushed by fossil fuel companies to muddy the debate and distract from the urgency of immediately stopping the burning of fossil fuels.
That reads like defeatism. Just because you think it is not effective enough is no reason to not give it a try. We won't be stopping to burn fossil fuels. Just like we won't be stopping war and have world peace.
I think it's more productive to not entertain wild fantasies and be realistic about what can be done.
EVs don't "easily stop" emissions in the US, since the American grid today is powered about 43% by natural gas and 15% by coal. Converting those sources has to happen too.
True, but the overall carbon reduction in owning an EV over its lifetime is still leagues lower; "Production-weighted average carbon footprints are 183 g CO2e/mi for BEVs; 351 g CO2e/mi for PHEVs; 445 g CO2e/mi for HEVs; and 521 g CO2e/mi for ICEVs." from [0] which does take into account the carbon-emitting percentage of the electrical grid.
Also, see Figure 4[1] in the study which states "Results demonstrate that, even under unfavorable conditions, BEVs still have a 30% lower life cycle carbon footprint."
Emissions displacement is healthier for where humans actually live, but they do also reduce emissions over their lifetime. you and others can work on improving that further at the other parts of the stack
The claim was that EVs "stop" emissions and I believe we've corrected that. At no point did I claim EVs don't reduce emissions.
Thanks for the tip on what to work on. You too can work on other parts of the stack. And you can even improve the "vehicle" end of the stack, to which it sounds like you confine your actions, by moving around less, and when moving around, not hauling one or two tons of "car" with you. This can be accomplished by, for example, moving close to work (or only working close to home), living only in areas with good public transit, and/or bicycling everywhere -- all of which I did for 30 years, so I know it's possible. (edit: saved a bunch of money too)
And once we can get Trump and the Republicans, who have been consistently, aggressively, and in some cases fighting against both profitability and common sense, squashing attempts to solarize and trying to bring back the dirtiest coal they can, out of office, that will become much, much easier.
Solar panels are now vastly cheaper and more effective than they were even a few years ago. Replacing the whole US grid won't happen overnight, but once the government is actually expending effort to move in that direction, rather than clawing in the other direction by its fingernails, it will move fairly quickly.
The headline may be sensationalized but the memo you link (thank you) is plenty damning on it's own. It's under 2 pages and anyone can read it. The memo quite clearly understands that Exxon has made a lot of investment in carbon resources and is entirely centered around getting the value from those resources and fighting the necessary political battles along the way.
I would not celebrate this work, it's typical corporate boss-pleasing. It's not some exhortation towards clean energy.
> The memo, as linked in the OP, is here, and is worth reading, as it’s incredibly far from the sensationalized headline:
Having read both the memo and article, maybe there is a language barrier here, but how is it "incredibly far from the sensationalized headline"?
Maybe this comes down to how one defines "deception", but I have a hard time seeing it not apply here and don't see any hyperbole, overpromising or inaccuracy in the title given the memos writing. Certainly not "incredibly far", even if we split hairs on what raises to being "deception".
They are, unfortunately, being undermined by politics. I know someone who works on carbon capture facilities whose projects are being canceled because the incentives are being destroyed by the current presidential administration.
Oil and gas companies strongly lobby for Republicans they know will remove any incentive for them to need to worry about the environment.
> Have they also been engaging in the science in good faith, and genuine intent that… in a world where climate action is desired, and net emissions are something to optimize for, they can anticipate this by genuinely funding research, and having their own research projects already underway that can address anticipated challenges? Also absolutely true.
This is a claim that is very contrary to the prevailing view. If you wish others to be persuaded by this claim, I recommend that you provide some evidence for it, because on their own your statements are unconvincing.
Just what do you think the world would look like if these companies—working against our collective “good”, apparently—folded up their operations tomorrow without successors?
A false dichotomy that reveals a critical lack of imagination.
> collective “good”
Privatized gains, public losses. Surely this is known to you?
Compare this to how Norway distributed its bounties.
The US and Exxon could have been a leader of the green transition starting in the 1970's, when everyone figured this out. With a few things breaking differently, we would have been.
We'd have had the absolute edge on the solar/battery transition.
Instead, precisely because of decades of deceptive lobbying, deindustrialization, bribes, and outright crimes, we're coasting far behind China's industrial policies.
You don't get the accolades if you do your research into a corporate black hole created by NDA's. The study may as well not have ever happened at all. Science that isn't open is just contributing to the Machiavellian cycle of amoral corporatic behavior. Get back to me when this research doesn't come to light >50 years later as part of discovery in a court case.
> But the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met.
This is a strawman (and a weirdly strong appeal to emotion for unclear reasons).
The claim is that their scientists were loudly saying internally their PR campaigns and climate claims were false and contrary to their findings. Executives read these memos and chose to do these anyways.
For instance:
> The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.
> Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”
edit: the single memo that you linked (actually one of many the article is discussing) is not supposed to be some smoking gun, it's useful to dispel any idea that there's a reasonable claim of ignorance on Exxon's part, and the date is especially notable: 1988. Basically any PR, legal, and lobbying work for at least 38 years is suspect because of what they actually knew.
Folks say cigarette companies are covering up that cigarettes cause cancer but the Tobacco Institute scientists I've met are funny, charming, and boy can they cook.
I don't see how personal anecdotes about people you've met stand up to evidence. When you say, "the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met.", it looks like standard victim rhetoric - I mean, what an amazing group of people!
> research into carbon capture and other mitigations a top corporate priority
Do you have evidence? Evidence in the OP says otherwise:
"The documents include some statements which, according to the attorney general’s office, show Exxon knew that technology was also unlikely to present a scalable solution to cutting emissions.
A 2014 presentation on Exxon’s carbon capture portfolio included a slide listing challenges to reaching commercial scale. It noted widespread deployment would require a “massive investment” and an eventual storage rate “comparable to current oil and gas production.” It said costs were high and there were no market-based incentives."
Also, where are the results from this top priority of some of the largest companies in the world, with all these good-natured earnest scientists working on it?
Now I'm fascinated why you've chosen the node/npm ecosystem for something with such high security requirements. Are you doing anything special to deeply pin dependencies, etc.?
Finding the right balance of "being responsive to bugfixes, some of which may patch disclosed zero-days" and "not allowing a compromised package to be installed" is tough, these days.
npm has supported min-release-age since Februrary, both that and pinned dependencies are stuff I think everyone should be doing. wrt sensitive environments, I can't say too much about our internal processes but we have an audited private registry among other things. for containers, Iron Bank provides a free and publicly accessible baseline https://p1.dso.mil/iron-bank to build on top of.
> We want the PEP to be clear that it’s ultimately the JIT team’s responsibility to find solutions for these packages and tools, and how to deal with situations where a tool can’t be supported or made to work
Is it just me or is this absurdly impossible, to the point of willfully killing the project? Committing a team of brilliant compiler engineers to doing free consulting ad infinitum for every bit of tooling in the world, however hacked-together?
The alternative would be to have the bravery to say: this is the way forward to keep this language relevant into the future, and as a steering committee we collectively own that some tooling may be out of date. Instead, this is a signal that Python is going to rest on its laurels for a very long time.
reply