Naw there are tricks you can use to pipeline these things so that apparent latency is under 500ms even with significant game state history awareness, and also to interrupt ongoing but freshly out of date commentary.

I couldn’t get it under 250ms though (for rocket league), but the tech should be better now than 2024.

Have done an interactive commentator for rocket league that is also simultaneously your duo partner. Works quite well. This was in October 2024 so the tech is there and even better now.

Hmmm any specific syntax examples of pain points in Sqlalchemy? Having used both, they feel similar to me so I’d love your view!

`from sqlalchemy.orm import and_`

`options(selectinload(...))`

to name a couple goofy ones

Sqlalchemy definitely is more verbose.

Is pretty equivalent to alembic autogenerate, no?

Why moving away from Python at that threshold?

The threshold is arbitrary, and likely higher in reality. But we found that we want something with more sound type checking and mypy has lots of rough edges. The Python ecosystem has a lot of catching up to do here.

Any reading on the topic you could point me to? Whenever I head about vestigial DNA, I’m reminded of the preserved wetlands which forced the roads to arc the long way around it. And in so doing, structurally affected traffic despite no cars ever going inside its bounds.

I guess what I’m wondering how we can be sure that structure is function but non-coding structure has no function and exerts no selective pressure - isn’t the Golgi apparatus analogously “non-coding”?

> If you know the hash of some data, then you either already have the data yourself, or you learned the hash from someone who had the data.

Don’t think so - the article mentions you can use the short prefix on GitHub, so you have a search space of 65536.

Does any variant of this apply to DMCA’d repos in the repo network?

For example if the root repo is DMCA’d, or, if repo B forks repo A, then B adds some stuff that causes B to get DMCA’d. Can A still access B?

I believe the entire network is suspended.

A downstream dmca suspends the upstream? That astonishes me. Anyone down to shut down react?

According to https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic..., even an upstream dmca doesn’t suspend downstream by default (unless the copyright owner claims they believe all forks violate copyright) — so I would be surprised if downstream dmca suspended upstream.

NB: according to https://www.gtlaw.com/-/media/files/webinars/ian-ballon-may-..., page 4-470, it’s possible that failing to process a DMCA notice may only lead to losing safe harbor for the material identified in the notice, not for the entire service.

So GitHub might just choose to ignore the notice for React, get sued, and win, all without losing the safe harbor.

For less popular repos, I would not be surprised if you could take down any repo literally by submitting a completely bogus notice.

But honestly I still don’t know how much leeway - legally - service providers have in applying their own technical/legal expertise when evaluating DMCA notices. I’d appreciate any sources (court decisions, textbooks, whitepapers, descriptions of actual industry practices, etc) on the topic.

> So GitHub might just choose to ignore the notice for React, get sued, and win, all without losing the safe harbor.

It wouldn't be React getting the notice. It would be say, someone forking React, then adding a pull request with some clearly DMCA-violating material.

Then, if downstream B DMCA shutdown doesn't affect upstream A's availability, there's still the question of A normally still having access to B's non-merged commits even in the case of B's deletion. So, A should still be access the DMCA-violating material.

And, if A's access to B's non-merged, DMCA-violating commit is truly revoked without affecting A otherwise... why can't we have a "Strong Delete" button on GitHub? Would seem they'd have to have "Strong Delete" functionality to comply with downstream B hitting DMCA.

Basically, I'm feeling either a violation of principle of least astonishment, or a violation of "strong-DMCA".

Unless this is to support a feature in Git/GitHub that I am too noob to understand. :shrug:

Imo, ZMQ is more of an abstraction with which to design protocols, rather than a message queue ready to use, Kafka-style. I found unexpectedly that I needed to really read the entire manual and work through the worked examples and some of my own to start getting it, rather than the usual incremental read.

So, you can set up a protocol using ZMQ such that you become aware when a client times out, and you can set behavior regarding the high water mark, and other things, but you have to actually do it explicitly - it's not required that you do it, because you can choose to maximize throughput or minimize latency instead.

But, whatever protocol behavior / performance you want, you can pretty much build it with ZMQ. In Python, ZMQ was the only "feasible for my not-a-network-engineer-self" to get a system with 100μs latency with sufficient throughput and guarantees (when used for IPC, although not using the IPC transport type). gRPC was a lot less performant for me, granted it would've been more convenient, but the low latency was a hard need.

Although, networks are one of my noobier areas, so I might be blind in many ways here.

I don't see what ZMQ abstracts that you don't get in TCP already.

Is this all just about having a common cross-language API for TCP? Wasn't "BSD sockets" supposed to be that?

For me, the benefit was a lot of convenience.

And, the component was just "a component" and not "the purpose" of what I was building, so went with ZMQ.

I'm also highly inexperienced in that area, so ZMQ having a singular, well-written, linear manual was a huge benefit.

Unless it changed very recently, which from my reading it didn’t, that’s not correct.

The $375k is an uncapped safe with mfn, but you do get the whole $500k upfront.

Source: https://www.ycombinator.com/deal

Also sourced from getting said $500k, thus the confusion on my end.

> In a typical scenario where you raise your next safes at a $15M post-money valuation cap, the $375,000 MFN safe would convert into $375,000 / $15,000,000 = 2.5% of the company.

Maybe, I misunderstood then! I thought they were referring to next funding round to hand over rest of $375k. But in fact, it was just the calculation to explain the valuation of the company in ref to that balance.