Yes, 100% agree. Without more details on how they got their data, it's very hard to understand why they don't value DS Flash 4.1 as much as pretty much every other analysis I've seen (and my own experience).
I can have 2-3 sessions running at the same time for pretty much the entire working day with DSF4.1 where the responses are fast, cost is pretty negligible, and the results are good enough 95% of the time.
On an overall speed/cost/quality comparison, it seems unmatched in my experience these days.
I've been using GLM 5.3 Flash as the planner and DS 4.1 as the task worker over the last month and the results have been very good, predictable, ridiculously cheap.
Why this model split? And are your work volumes so high that you prefer these cheaper models over a subscription or are you simply trying to avoid the 200/m? (which will only go up).
Thinking it's atrocious to take away someone's citizenship just because of where they previously came from is in no way a uniquely American thought. In fact it's shared by most people around the world who have a bit of empathy, compassion, and aren't racist.
I think what they were saying is that America is generally more tolerant of cultural and ethnic diversity (i.e. it’s the default here) than many other countries.
The United States is unusually ethnically diverse for a European colony but globally just about the middle of the pack. Most of the world is more ethnically and culturally diverse.
What the Swedish party in question is proposing, mass denaturalization and deportation of citizens (i.e. ethnic cleansing), is a human rights violation and violation of international law and wouldn't be done even by otherwise intolerant or autocratic nations. This harkens back to the darkest days of the Soviet Union and expulsions by Communist regimes towards the end of Yugoslavia, or early 20th century regimes.
Africa, Latin America excluding Argentina, South East Asia, most of the Middle East and Central Asia and on most dimensions India.
The US is still a fairly homogenous place. Only 20% of the population is bilingual compared to over 60% of the world, only 7% follows non-Christian religions.
Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Singapore, the 'stans', Lebanon, the UAE of the top of my head places where within probably an hour of arriving you'd notice you are in a much, much more diverse place.
By granting someone citizenship, the government makes a serious promise to that individual. To break that promise because you don't like where they came from prior to that promise being made is stunningly unethical and lawless behavior.
And trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away.
> By granting someone citizenship, the government makes a serious promise to that individual. To break that promise because you don't like where they came from prior to that promise being made is stunningly unethical and lawless behavior.
100%. I don't think that's happening in the USA today. There are grumblings in the far right red corners about the possibility, though.
> trying to cover blatant racism with justifications like "tolerance of cultural and ethnic diversity" is cowardly. Just say you judge people who are different than you and are willing to break fundamental promises in order to make them go away.
Are you accusing me of this? I assume you're not, but I'm not entirely sure what your angle is.
Yup, this is much more likely to lead to more offshoring than companies hiring more American workers. Which also means that communities in the US with a large amount of workers on visas will also suffer.
Offshoring it hardly new. Take Microsoft for example. They offshored heavily over 20 years ago. Allow more immigration or the jobs will be offshored is an idle threat. Companies have done tons of offshoring and reshored many things after it didn't work out. More or less immigration isn't going to move the need on offshoring much either way.
Of course it's not new. And of course it never really stopped. But there is a new incentive for execs to give it a much bigger push given all the recent remote work tooling and when they now think a programmer is just monitoring AI output. So why not pay the monitor SE Asian wages rather than US wages.
The trend is away from remote work though. So much more stuff is hybrid then it was a few years ago. SE Asian wages means a 12 hour time zone difference and that carries a real cost on efficiency (I personally experienced this at two companies). Future poorly thought offshoring attempts will go just as badly as they have in the past. If anything AI makes it worse, since each individual dev is responsible for a bigger slice of the output they need to be in the loop on business / customer needs and significant timezone differences make that harder.
Real example: my company is US based, top and middle management is in US, some middle management and lower in Europe, managing workers in India and Manila. Same scheme with Costa Rica, but managed directly from US.
If managed correctly though it means you can have effectively a 24 hour work day. US workers/management goes to sleep as the Asian workers are starting up
Plenty of offshoring to both Central America and South America has occurred in recent years. It was a somewhat untapped offshoring location, but that no longer seems to be the case.
A key difference is that at least one isn’t competing for limited housing with offshoring. That is the number 1 driver of the affordability crisis atm.
I’m a fan of the YIMBY types but we aren’t building enough annd, until we are, it’s a problem to put more people where we already have little housing!
For starters, compensation is almost entirely location-based now. Situations where a person lives in cheap city / country but paid close to US rates were never common, but in last 5 years or so they disappeared almost entirely. Moreover, every company seems to know about local rates, they all source this data from the same sources, so if you're job hunting they all give you the same offer. And, since there are so much competition for positions companies are very reluctant to bid on candidates, and most offers do not allow negotiations. Even if paying you slightly above market would still save the company quite a lot of money they don't do it. So, situations where you receive the same offer from multiple companies, and all of them are "take it or leave it", became pretty common.
I haven't been on a job market for a long time, but this is what I hear from people around me.
Offshoring (form the US) to Europe, especially eastern Europe is not new either. The newish offshoring location was Central America and South America, but those have been tapped as well.
I'm old enough to remember when people gnashed their teeth about the U.S. taking talent from abroad being 'brain drain' that hurt those countries. Which is it? We want to take the rest of the world's best and brightest and screw those other countries in the process, or we feel bad about that and don't want to do that? EDIT: Cynically, it could be both!
Well it depends if you live in the US or you live in a country that is hemorrhaging your best workers to the US. No idea why you are trying to lump both groups together as if they should both have a single opinion.
People in the U.S. used to complain that we drain the rest of the world's brains. That has stopped. I was referring to that.
If you put yourself in the shoes of people in other nations, then... a) individuals might really like the option of emigrating to the U.S., but b) their nation might be better off with them staying at home. Interests conflict. The question is whether we should have selfish policies (such as putting a company's bottom-line ahead of a nation's, or one nation's development ahead of another) or not, and, of course, which is is which because one could argue that the only ones being selfish are the Americans who object to all these visas (I don't think they would be the _only_ ones being selfish, and arguably the 'nation' exists in part to protect its citizens, but yes, this is a case of selfishness).
I want to know: does the HN commentariat think that brain drain is a problem or not. Elsewhere in this thread we have people urging that we do drain the rest of the world's brains to "win the talent war" [0].
Now, I can totally see that maybe draining our adversaries' brains can be a good thing, unless it's a way of bringing in a fifth column, in which case... no. And it's definitely not good for countries we're on good terms with -- there that "win the talent war" comment shocks the conscience as a thoughtless, unnuanced, jingoist-but-dumb, and immoral/destructive as to our allies comment.
Consistency was not the issue. The question was: what has changed that so few seem to care about brain drain as a negative externality?
Ok, let’s say it leads to 60% offshoring and 40% hiring more Americans.
That 40% is a win for Americans. It means more new grads will be hired instead of losing out to “experts” from TATA to copy and paste from ChatGPT. Our vibe coders will be home grown, corn fed.
The argument works no matter what you think the breakdown is, 70/30, 80/20 etc.
No, that is the incorrect take. Offshoring isn't easy or cheap. Especially when Trump is basically trying to get companies to hire American workers by any means.
It is risky to invest in offshoring when the outcome isn't guaranteed to save you money.
Unless I'm missing something, the current plugin registry [0] is pretty useless compared to WordPress or even Envato without stats for number of installs, ratings, and reviews/comments.
We launched the plugin registry last week, and our focus has been on safe, decentralised plugin distribution and discovery. Stats, ratings etc are valuable, but they need careful design to prevent abuse. We will definitely add them later.
Appreciate the context. But my larger point is that all of the sandboxing and plugin permission security features falls flat until you can easily evaluate the plugins themselves from social signals and even looking at the code on Github. It's one of the main aspects the people overlook when trying to replace WordPress is the developer network, reviews, ratings, etc.
Otherwise you just have to trust the random plugin publisher and the permissions/sandboxing doesn't really matter.
The permissions/sandboxing (and Clef review) IS the reason you can have a reasonable confidence in trusting a random plugin publisher.
samtp - I think you're looking for the answer to two or more problems here.
- Can I trust that a plugin is (relatively) secure?
- Can I trust that the plugin will be maintained?
- Can I trust that the plugin will be good quality and work as described?
So far EmDash has an answer to what I think is the most important question (IMO). Can I trust that a plugin is (relatively) secure? Yes.
That's something WordPress haven't been able to do - so I'd say well done to the EmDash team!
And, if I wasn't building my own CMS (with a very similar permission model) then I would probably be trialling it right now :)
Don't get me wrong, I would love for another CMS to overtake WordPress and the features EmDash has launched with around plugin security is great.
I've spent a lot of time browsing and using plugin/extension marketplaces. One of the main questions that you have when deciding on a plugin is your last one question - specifically the quality of the plugin and if does what it says it will do. But when I look at the EmDash marketplace, there is almost no way to judge the quality of the plugin (especially the UI/UX without screenshots) or if it actually does what it says it will do. And that is usually the first question you ask before going into the security and maintenance. Because if it looks terrible, slows down your site, and doesn't really work - who cares if it's maintained and secure?
All of the plugins I looked at have a "view source" button that takes me to a github repo (though the payments plugin link is broken). Presumably you could install the plugin from source as well... would that not be a better signal than number of users?
At this point you could probably just run it through an LLM yourself and ask it if it does what it claims, if the code is straightforward, or if there are any seemingly obfuscated bits. If something is on a safety-critical path, you should probably do the review yourself.
This is a valuable insight - and you are probably in the majority. Thanks for taking the time to explain, this is probably valuable user research for the EmDash folks :)
What you're actually saying is that network effects are strong. Those network effects are the only reason Wordpress is still so commonly-used.
But, that has very little to do with the work described in the OP. Maybe EmDash will fail to gain sufficient traction to have their own network effects, but in the meantime, doing moderation on plugins in their marketplace is still important work. Automated moderation to prevent abuse and malware is useful, and is orthogonal to the social proof you're talking about.
Thats not what I'm saying at all. I really like a lot about EmDash and would love for a different default CMS to overtake WordPress.
What I am saying is that there are different levels of types trust when it comes to incorporating outside code into your project (in the form of packages/plugins/extensions):
1. Being able to quickly understand what the code does and what effect it will have (screenshots are pretty big here for CMS plugins)
2. Being able to examine the code before installation
3. Seeing feedback from others on the quality of the code and how well it meets the objectives
4 Limiting what the code can do once you install it
Right now the EmDash plugin catalog really only does #4. I don't see any screenshots of the UI of these plugins, there is no link to the repo, there is no indication if a plugin is used by 100 people or no one, and there is no feedback from anyone who has used it.
The bottom line is that there are several layers of trust that outside code has to pass before you even install it and consider what permissions to grant it. Ignoring that makes it very difficult for someone to start trying out different plugins. And it also makes me hesitant to develop a plugin, because it seems like it has very little chance of standing out from all the rest, even if it becomes popular.
Sure! There are definitely some overlapping use cases, and we've seen folks using/abusing queues for use cases that are more appropriate to something like k2.
Queues are great when you have a unit of work that needs to be completed, retried, and tracked individually. For example, a shop might need to call a payment processor API that can fail or timeout, and retry it until it succeeds, while polling on the frontend for the state of that particular message. With a queue, you can insert a message tracking that payment, and have a queue processor that keeps getting sent it until it succeeds or has failed too many times.
In a queue each item is its own thing that's important to someone, and queues give you APIs to interact with that particular item.
K2 is for moving large volumes of data around. Pricing is per GB, not per message. Records are produced and consumed in bulk, and what matters is that all records are processed, but no one is querying the state of a particular record. K2 also supports multiple consumers for the same record, and long term retention. For example, all of your applications may emit events when things happen, and those events need to be read by an alerting system, a system that durably stores them, and a system that uses them to build ML features.
One thing thing I am curious about. You mentioned polling for the state of that particular message (CF queue world). Is that really possible? I would have assumed it requires the developer to track the message using D1
My understanding: Distributed queues are generally good for when you have multiple workers processing chunks of work. Each queue item usually needs to be processed to completion exactly one time, so the queue provides the mechanism for the workers to coordinate state of each item at the item level (which allows for time-outs and re-tries if, say, a worker dies during processing, like if you were using spot instances for your worker pool)
Event streams are for multiple consumers, and can offer different guarantees. As far as I can tell, K2 is designed to ensure all consumers receive all events at least once (it's unclear to me whether this means they're continuously storing all events from the stream origin, or if older events age out at some point, or are dropped when they've been consumed by all known consumers).
Other types of guarantees with streams might be "at-least-once", "at-most-once", and "exactly-once" delivery, for different needs. Redis streams used to be at-least-once but it looks like they support all 3 use cases now. Some relational DBMSes also have the option to replicate by streaming their transaction logs to all servers in the cluster so each node maintains its own understanding of the database state (though stale reads can also occur in some/all? DBMSes that replicate this way, when a server is queried before receiving an update)
A stream can have up to 100 subscriptions. Each one has its own cursor, so every subscription sees every event independently. Events aren't dropped once they're consumed; they stay until the stream's retention period runs out, so you can replay or add a new subscription later.
Within a subscription, any number of workers can consume, with up to 128 batches in flight at once. Each batch is a lease owned by exactly 1 worker, and if that worker polls again it gets the same batch back. When it acks, the batch is done and the cursor moves forward. It can also nack to hand the batch back right away or extend the lease if it needs more time. If it does neither, the lease expires after 5 minutes and the same records go to the next worker that polls, as a new batch. That's where the "at least once" comes from, a late ack from the original worker is just ignored.
reply