It’s real weird to see people argue that LLM output is no different than random gibberish and then handwave over the fact that it’s clearly not with terms like “training”, as if a steam of random garbage is trainable.
I disagree with you in principle. I think a town that accepts a donation of land for a specific purpose should be as bound as anyone else to the terms of the deed.
In practical terms, it’s not clear that an entity with the power of imminent domain can meaningfully be constrained by deeds.
In principle, I think there aught to be a rule against perpetuities. Including conservation easements. The community should be able to decide where their parks will be, not some former landowner. There is another 55-acre park (Fannie Robinson Park, 1009 E MLK Jr Blvd) about 1/2 mi down the street from the datacenter site (1601 E MLK).
It’s a shame that the deed was poorly granted. Perhaps it would have been better for everyone if it had been held privately and taxed as such.
And as far as newsworthiness is concerned, the actual deed lost its restriction in 2003, and the city transferred it to the Economic Development Corporation in 2008. It could have then been sold to any industrial purpose. This is not really a national story about datacenters. It is the story about a 2008 sale for industrial purposes. The fact that this is recirculated as a datacenter story is meant to poison the public on any mention of the word datacenter. I think this trend of biased news is intentional.
According to opus 4.8, here’s the chain of title for the 87.797‑acre Taylor tract:
1. 7/7/1999 — Bonnibel Bland Cromwell & family → Texas Parks & Recreation Foundation (deed carries the "held in trust… for parkland" restriction). Recorded #199947198. Consideration: $10 (charitable donation).
2. 10/7/2003 — Texas Parks & Recreation Foundation → Williamson County Park Foundation, Inc. Recorded #2003100356. Consideration: $10 (nominal/recited).
3. 11/20/2003 — Williamson County Park Foundation → City of Taylor. Consideration: $10 (nominal/recited).
4. 11/12/2008 — City of Taylor → Taylor Economic Development Corporation. Recorded #2008084718. Consideration: $15,000 cash + a land swap — the EDC also conveyed two tracts back to the City “by exchange” (a ~22.708‑ac tract in the Samuel Pharass Survey + a 16.658‑ac tract in the Coursey Survey); no dollar value stated for the swapped tracts.
5. 11/19/2024 — (Plat Map Recording Sheet; not a transfer)
6. 4/11/2025 — Taylor Economic Development Corporation → NCP Travis TPP Project, LLC (Blueprint Data Centers). Consideration on the deed: "Cash and other good and valuable consideration" — no figure stated; reported at ~$10 million in the press.
You call this a rumor at the top of your comment. It’s all hearsay and you can’t really criticize people for assuming something different than you assume. There’s no factual information here to discuss.
2. The functions in question here operate on raw memory. void * conveys the same information as byte *. It’s not untyped vs typed. It’s two different types that convey the same information but require slightly different mechanics to obtain.
3. The author explained his reasoning for preferring void * over byte * (or uint8_t *)
4. A reference also isn’t the same thing as a pointer in C++
> whereas with std::span you get more of a hint what's going on just based on the type
You don’t if it’s a span of bytes (or equivalent).
Encoding the length in a span is a meaningful thing. But the fact that it holds a random memory pointer labeled “byte” instead of “void” doesn’t change anything.
> instead of no type, as is normal in Ruby, or `void`, which is the C equivalent*
“void *” is not the equivalent of “no type” from Ruby. “void *” says “I operate on raw memory”. It says exactly the same thing as “byte *”.
For sure you should generally not write a function that accepts a “void *” and then internally casts it to some concrete pointer type and operates on that type, but the problem there is the internal behavior, not the choice of byte vs void pointer.
You’re really citing a mess in a Ruby code base caused by lack of typing as evidence for why void * is problematic in C/C++?
These are so wildly different cases that the comparison isn’t meaningful. This is like saying you should wear a helmet while playing tennis because sometimes helmets save bicyclists lives.
> later on it's not that easy to understand which shape it should have in the specific conditional branch you're trying to fix
This is not idiomatic C. I have no doubt that someone (likely many someones) have written a function that takes a void * and then internally does some insane half baked dynamic typing. But I’ve never seen it and it’s not common.
You also cannot fix this behavior by changing the pointer type. The type of the pointer is essentially meaningless in this case.
> That is exactly the purpose of void *. By design. It's a pointer to an unspecified type. The unspecified type is exactly why this thing is used.
This is also the purpose of byte * in the examples. Coercing an arbitrary pointer from void to byte doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s lipstick on a pig at best.
People beat the hell out of cables. People yank on cables to unplug instead of the connectors, wad them up in the bottom of a bag and drop books on them, etc.
I don’t think I’ve ever had an Apple cable fail, all the way back to the 30 pin.
Even if you haven't, searching up dimensions on the current foldables takes all of 15 seconds.
It should be obvious to anyone who cares about phone hardware even a little that older foldables won't be the end-all of how thin the packaging is ever going to get.
The assumption that even future foldables will feel like holding two typical 7-8mm phones together is just an obivous case of no research and stereotypical hn complaining.
I don’t know why you’re so uncharitable toward someone who holds a different opinion than you. The idea that someone needs to research device dimensions in order to share their personal experience with foldables is a bit much. Instead of accusing them of complaining for the “dopamine hit”, you could have said “hey, your experience is out of date”.
That’s what jayd16 did, and then you rolled in with a complaint about people who complain, which is pretty rich.
Maybe because on hacker news, you expect slightly higher quality comments. Or at least a more forward-thinking opinion on consumer hardware.
Holding a different opinion is great, but dismissing on a modern cutting edge form-factor, one that has lots of love (as you can see even just in this thread), one that has painfully obvious benefits for reading, all because of "thickness" is daft considering the current crop of foldable.
Price would make 100% sense. But thickness? C'mon.
Some people genuinely go online just to complain. If he'd made a reasonable argument, I'd happily respond charitably.
Nice mate. Everything I said has been in support of apple, or anyone else, pursuing and developing a foldable. I'm 100% a fan of foldables, and my point was that they're just going to get thinner. Thus making the "thickness" complaint even more of a non-issue than it already is with the currently available foldables. Almost entirely <11mm across the industry btw.
If you think that's just complaining, I don't know what else to tell you.
Since someone else had already covered the size info, what you've added to the thread is fundamentally an unhelpful complaint. Being a supporter doesn't make your post a non-complaint.
Let’s be honest, though. That’s firing from your team.
reply