There are plenty of things to live for, but that’s not even the point. There is a difference between choosing to be social and having to be social because you will get depressed if you aren’t.
I think this need for social interaction is harmful. We did see this in action during the COVID pandemic. So many people who weren’t able to abide by a short lockdown. Lives were lost due to our pathological need for social interaction.
Imagine how many communicable deceases we could eliminate by simply having a 3 month lockdown every other year.
I'm not a big fan of eating, so yes please? Even if I then want to indulge in something tasty every now and then, the option to just 'top up' without actually eating is hugely attractive.
You live for others? As in remove those others and you lose whole purpose of life? I am not trying to be rude, seems like retirement homes house plenty of such people but it doesn't make sense for younger folks... although this is hardly a choice, is it. But - I believe one can work on this and move themselves quite a bit if wanted.
My 2 cents - mountains and nature and activities in them are always beautiful, as in it doesn't get boring or mundane, not for anybody I know. Working out on oneself, experiencing various adventures, backpacking around the world, sports, adrenaline/risky activities that make you feel alive, seeing cultures and history and food... those are done for oneself and they are absolutely 100% fulfilling that no career could ever deliver.
Saying above as one such person, and also father of 2 amazing kids (and a pretty decent wife to complement) whom I love more than anything. But I don't live for them despite doing various hard sacrifices for them, I live for me and do those things for me, to be happy, content, recharged, better father and husband and when looking back at my life being fine with various choices made.
All of these things still require interaction with other people? If you remove all the others you also don't get to enjoy the things that you claim to enjoy by yourself
Being able to hike the mountains without the equipment that others have tried/tested/packaged/sold is not possible either.
Imagine that you're traveling space and you get stuck on an empty planet, that's the logical conclusion of "removing the need for human connection"
I feel like this just further reinforces the point - that need for social connection is a weakness.
I love my husband dearly, and I’d morn him if he vanished, but it wouldn’t make my life hard to live by any means - I lived just fine before him, and I’ll live just fine after him. I didn’t marry him because I needed somebody, I married him because I wanted him. I love him and I’m lucky to have him, but I also love myself and am lucky to be me - and as I said, that was true before I met him, and it’ll be true after he’s gone.
I don’t need someone else to make my worthwhile, or to make my life worth living - I am sufficient. He’s a (much welcomed and deeply appreciated) bonus.
What you’re describing sounds like romanticizing mental illness to me.
> every time you try something innovative the "policy people" will climb out of their holes and put random roadblocks in your way
This is so relatable. I remember trying to set up an LLM gateway back in 2023. There were at least 3 different teams that blocked our rollout for months until they worked through their backlog. "We're blocking you, but you’ll have to chase and nag us for us to even consider unblocking you"
At the end of all that waiting, nothing changed. Each of those teams wrote a document saying they had a look and were presumably just happy to be involved somehow?
One of the lessons in that book is that the main reasons things in IT are slow isn't because tickets take a long time to complete, but that they spend a long time waiting in a queue. The busier a resource is, the longer the queue gets, eventually leading to ~2% of the ticket's time spent with somebody doing actual work on it. The rest is just the ticket waiting for somebody to get through the backlog, do their part and then push the rest into somebody else's backlog, which is just as long.
I'm surprised FAANGs don't have that part figured out yet.
To be fair, the alternative is them having to maintain and continuously check N services that various devs deployed because it felt appropriate in the moment, and then there is a 50/50 chance the service will just sit there unused and introduce new vulnerability vectors.
I do know the feeling you're talking about though, and probably a better balance is somewhere in the middle. Just wanted to add that the solution probably isn't "Let devs deploy their own services without review", just as the solution probably also isn't "Stop devs for 6 months to deploy services they need".
The trick is to make the class of pre-approved service types as wide as possible, and make the tools to build them correctly the default. That minimises the number of things that need review in the first place.
Yes providing paved paths that let people build quickly without approvals is really important, while also having inspection to find things that are potential issues.
From my experience, it depends on how you frame your "service" to the reviewers. Obviously 2023 was the very early stage of LLMs, where the security aspects were quite murky at best. They (reviewers) probably did not had any runbook or review criteria at that time.
If you had advertised this as a "regular service which happens to use LLM for some specific functions" and the "output is rigorously validated and logged", I am pretty sure you would get a green-light.
This is because their concern is data-privacy and security. Not because they care or the company actually cares, but because fines of non-compliance are quite high and have greater visibility if things go wrong.
I want to do some improvements on my house. So I take out a home equity loan. Oops! Actually since my house is worth $500K more than when I bought it, now I have to pay $100K to the government since the gain is now realized by using the asset as collateral!
You get points for effective use of rhetoric, but it's more of a solvable challenge and not a deal breaker.
The goal of a borrowing tax would be to prevent someone with a a $200 mil stock portfolio living off the "buy, borrow, die" strategy and not home equity loans on mere middle class millionaires.
Capital gains, for example, on a primary residence already have an exclusion of a certain amount. There's no reason a borrowing tax can't kick in only after one has let's say 10mil in assets or securities.
Heck, you could even exempt primary residences regardless of value, so you should be fine
I mean most taxes like this have an 'above X amount' clause. Such as the gains you get taxed on when selling your home. California it's $500K in gains if you are married so extrapolating that your scenario would be covered.
@rayiner Do you understand that justifying his 5 month detention without due process means you are justifying your own 5 month detention without due process?
He is getting due process. He admitted to a federal court that he came to the US in 2009 under a Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10.").
By contrast, I'm a naturalized citizen. My dad came here on a valid H visa because he's an expert in public health and a U.S. company wanted to hire someone with his qualifications.
Qdrant is also a good default choice, since it can work in-memory for development, with a hard drive for small deployments and also for "web scale" workloads.
As a principal eng, side-stepping a migration and having a good local dev experience is too good of a deal to pass up.
That being said, turbopuffer looks interesting. I will check it out. Hopefully their local dev experience is good
Qdrant is one of the few vendors I actively steer people away from. Look at the GitHub issues, look at what their CEO says, look at their fake “advancements” that they pay for publicity on…
The number of people I know who’ve had unrecoverable shard failures on Qdrant is too high to take it seriously.
I’m curious about this. Could you please point to some things the CEO has said, or reports of shard failures?
The bit about paying for publicity doesn’t bother me.
Edit: I haven’t found anything egregious that the CEO has said, or anything really sketchy. The shard failure warnings look serious, but the issues look closed
There used to be a benchmarking issue with a founder that was particularly egregious but I can’t find it anymore.
The sharding and consensus issues were from around a year and a half ago, so maybe it’s gotten better.
There are just so many options in the space, I don’t know why you’d go with one of the least correct vendors (whether or not the correctness is deception is a different question that I can’t answer)
For local dev + testing, we recommend just hitting the production turbopuffer service directly, but with a separate test org/API key: https://turbopuffer.com/docs/testing
Works well for the vast majority of our customers (although we get the very occasional complaint about wanting a dev environment that works offline). The dataset sizes for local dev are usually so small that the cost rounds to free.
> although we get the very occasional complaint about wanting a dev environment that works offline
It's only occasional because the people who care about dev environments that work offline are most likely to just skip you and move on.
For actual developer experience, as well as a number of use cases like customers with security and privacy concerns, being able to host locally is essential.
Fair enough if you don't care about those segments of the market, but don't confuse a small number of people asking about it with a small number of people wanting it.
As someone who works for a competitor, they are probably right holding off on that segment for a while. Supporting both cloud and local deployments is somewhere between 20% harder and 300% harder depending on the day.
I'm watching them with excitement. We all learn from each other. There's so much to do.
Yep, we're well aware of the selection bias effects in product feedback. As we grow we're thinking about how to make our product more accessible to small orgs / hobby projects. Introducing a local dev environment may be part of that.
Note that we already have a in-your-own-VPC offering for large orgs with strict security/privacy/regulatory controls.
having a local simulator (DynamoDB, Spanner, others) helps me a lot for offline/local development and CI. when a vendor doesn't off this I have often end up mocking it out (one way or another) and have to wait for integration or e2e tests for feedback that could have been pushed further to the left.
in many CI environments unit tests don't have network access, it's not purely a price consideration.
(not a turbopuffer customer but I have been looking at it)
> in many CI environments unit tests don't have network access, it's not purely a price consideration.
I've never seen a hard block on network access (how do you install packages/pull images?) but I am sympathetic to wanting to enforce that unit tests run quickly by minimizing/eliminating RTT to networked services.
We've considered the possibility of a local simulator before. Let me know if it winds up being a blocker for your use case.
Look into Bazel, a very standard build system used at many large tech companies. It splits fetches from build/test actions and allows blocking network for build/test actions with a single CLI flag. No hassle at all.
The fact that you haven't come across this kind of setup suggests that your hundreds of CI systems are not representative of the industry as a whole.
I agree our sample may not be representative but we try to stay focused on the current and next crop of tpuf customers rather than the software industry as a whole. So far "CI prohibits network access during tests" just hasn't come up as a pain point for any of them, but as I mentioned in another comment [0], we're definitely keeping an open mind about introducing an offline dev experience.
(I am familiar with Bazel, but I'll have to save the war stories for another thread. It's not a build tool we see our particular customers using.)
you pull packages from a trusted package repository, not from the internet. this is not rare in my experience (financial services, security) and will become increasingly common due to software supply chain issues.
So I can note this down on our roadmap, what's the root of your requirement here? Supporting local dev without internet (airplanes, coffee shops, etc.)? Unit test speed? Something else?
It just goes along with whatever "language" you type into the query parameter
reply