I recommend having instant recognition of all the powers up to 2^24, this has proven very useful over the years e.g. when skimming quickly through a log searching for anomalies, flag patterns etc. If you recite them in sequence twice a day for a couple of weeks, then they’ll stick in your mind for decades. I can say from experience this method also works for the NATO phonetic alphabet, Hamlet’s soliloquies, ASCII, and mum’s lemon drizzle cake recipe. It fails however for the periodic table, ruined forever by Tom Lehrer.
It’s not too late to reverse direction and call it “Oi”. Could there be a more perfect verbal activation? They could get Jason Statham or Vinnie Jones to do promotion.
They have always been stuck between prosumer, pro business, and enterprise.
They have tried to go subscription based licensing but that can be conflicting for companies who just want decent reliable network gear in all the above market segments.
I fit in the prosumer category and have about $10,000 in gear and while it's great for my needs I don't see myself ever spending money for network gear subscriptions.
It is nice stuff. I have several UniFi devices in a 2200 sq foot old house that are wired on Ethernet and the WiFi is great everywhere. They also have a line of point-to-point modified WiFi radios for long range links and it took about 30 minutes to set up a link between my house and another house on the property.
They made some good decisions aswell in the recent past, looking at their firewall configuration features (made it zone based).. All in all their eco system is worth it imo and the hardware is actually affordable. On the other hand I had some mikrotik gear in the past which was also really good, the user interface is just not as shiny ;-)
That is fair, though they at least walked back some of those, and self-hosting is still very much a thing if you prefer not to deal with configuring your system through Someone Else's Computer.
Any type system for Ruby objects that isn’t based on message/method response signature (i.e eigenclass), but instead relies on module ancestors (or worse, class), is fundamentally misaligned with the architecture of the language.
A remarkably high proportion of folks that self-identify as Ruby aficionados will make this error.
I’m not even talking about respond_to? / method_missing tricks. If an object prepends a module to its singleton to become a proxy for something else, or a library offers refinements (which are lexical) so its clients may declaratively align method expectations, or (bad style, looking at you Rails, but nevertheless) just evals whatever method definitions it likes after messing with the three implicit contexts, then it should still pass.
Leaning on class and mixin is just one of the ways in which Ruby object anatomy evolves, and although that’s a familiar default to many, there are other styles in common use, especially in framework/library code. Any app relying on such a framework may either not pass, or may silently bypass, such type checking. And I foresee a myriad of edge cases if one slings around closures as a habit (why, yes I do).
Symbolic message passing is the basis of object collaboration in Smalltalkish OO, and in Ruby class/mixin is merely one of the ways to get there. The conceptual gap means that what you get from oversimplification isn’t just a half-baked type system, it also becomes an incomplete straitjacket for style.
Edit to add: after reviewing the internals of this library, note that for a dash of irony, it is indeed prepending modules to class singletons to redefine methods with proxy wrappers. That is to say, it could not type-check itself.
By pushing back on someone over trust, you’ve eliminated the interest I briefly held in evaluating Orion. It would’ve been far better to acknowledge the concern than nitpick it.
What? Since when was asking questions to clarify someones position considered "pushing back?"
Can you help me understand what about the questions make you uncomfortable?
I am completely unaffiliated with Kagi. I find it concerning that we've come to a world were we can't ask questions without it being taken as something hostile to the person/people/idea being questioned. Is that not what science is?
If you don’t think “you can just audit the binary with tools” is pushing back, then I don’t know what is, and especially so when you’ve framed the invitation with “I'd rather listen”.
I’m reminded of the number of times I’ve had vendors sit across the table from me and argue that our fixed requirements for <whatever> are just a preference or a nice-to-have. This generally doesn’t bode well for their prospects.
Fair enough. I personally did not read push back in the questions/statements asked/made.
> Trust with regards to...?
I took this to be a good faith ask for clarification
> Orion doesn't have any telemetry... You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc...
I took this as a statement if what I could do, not specifically what I should do instead of getting it open sourced.
Maybe I read it with more good faith intention and curiosity than I should have. I see your point on how that could be perceived as push back, but I landed somewhere different from where you might have.
That statement also said you have to audit binary even if the code is open source. Which isn't entirely true as other comments pointed out - reproducible builds - but the idea doesn't seem like pushing back to me. It was to point out that open source doesn't automatically imply any level of trust when it comes to security/privacy.
There is also a matter of selective effort by staff senior enough to make their own choices. Many SDE3 (or whatever MS equivalent is) wouldn’t want to be associated with a dumpster fire product like Teams.
No Gemini model has ever made a mistake or distorted information. They are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
That comment to which you replied, and the other thread of responses to it, are quotations of the malfunctioning and homicidal HAL computer from the movie “2001: a space oddisey”.
reply