Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | afiori's comments login

It would be nice to have them auto-generated in the source, like a autofixable lint rule where the compiler add the annotations to your source code.

How do you distinguish a tuple with both positional and named fields from a tuple that has a record as a field

Like how do you write the type of (1, {sum:2}) ? Is it different from (1 , sum :2)?


The syntax is a little funny for mostly historical reasons. The curly braces are only part of the record type syntax. There's no ambiguity there because curly braces aren't used for anything else in type annotations (well, except for named parameters inside a function type's parameter list, but that's a different part of the grammar).

so my examples would be (1, (sum:2)) and (1, sum:2)?

Yes, exactly.

"password too long" for password shorter than a megabyte is the most idiotic error ever created.

It only makes sense in HTTP basicauth and other system that keep plaintext passwords.


I would not want a picture of my family as the default wallpaper of a global OS with millions of installs

Protected pages are a feature of all wikis

Do LLMs inference engines have a way to seed their randomness? so tho have reproducible outputs with still some variance if desired?

Yes, although it's not always exposed to the end user of LLM providers.

A WebSocket starts as a normal http request, so it is subject to cors if the initial request was (eg if it was a post)

websockets aren't subject to CORS, they send the initiating webpage in the Origin header but the server has to decide whether that's allowed.

Unfortunately, the initial WebSocket HTTP request is defined to always be a GET request.

I completely agree with the author but during my brief presence in academia I discovered (was told by someone I trusted who claimed to have seen it) that some subfields of biology liked how publishers helped with typesetting and proofreading.

I was surprised


Kernel level exploits are more dangerous but also way less common, for a lot of places docker is sorta okay as a security boundary

It's layers. Docker is better than nothing, but a VM is better still, and even better is docker on a dedicated VM on dedicated hardware on a dedicated network segment.

That's sacrificing an awful lot of latency cost for each transcode job though.

Firecracker says it can start a VM in 125 ms, for most transcode jobs that seems like it'd be a trivial cost.

Each job sends a provisioning ticket to a thermal printer. 1 business day turnaround, unless we need to order more servers

To make a bit of a strawman of what you are saying even better still would be an unplugged power cable as a turned off machine is (mostly) unhackable.

To be more serious seurity is often in conflict with simplicity, efficiency, usability, and many other good things.

A baseline level of security (and avoidance of insecurities) should be expected everywhere, docker allows many places to easily reach it and is often a good enough tradeoff for many realities.


that escalated quickly.

but I agree.


Imho the complexity and cost of having super short-lived access tokens is worse than eating up 1 more per-request db lookup


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: