Same, and agreed. It’s also annoying for everyone else who has to listen to the same few unit movement confirmation sounds hundreds of times in an hour.
I think the logistics of calculating cost in real time is something that is extremely hard. I don't think there is one big cloud service provider that has hard limits instead of alerts.
As long as they revert the charge when notified of scenarios like this , and they have historically done so for many cases, it's fine. It's an acceptable workaround for a hard problem and the cost of doing business ( just like Credit Cards accept a certain amount of loss to fraud as part of business)
Why would it be hard to calculate cost? Multiply a fixed price * requests/time ? It doesn't have to be exact in real time, it just has to report something approximately useful in realtime.
It's absolutely not fine to be at the mercy of other people, that's what we buy cloud products or really any products for: So that we are not at the mercy of hardware faults, bad weather, bad teeth, hunger, thirst, [insert anything]
I'm guessing the answer is simply money. It's less expensive to deal with people like this this than it probably was to prevent it. Right now, they seem to run very sparsely, so ramp that up (if it's every 3 hours and they want to change to 5 minutes that's like a 6000% increase) and they're probably paying more than it costs to employ people to return credits or fears of people leaving.
It sucks, but that's unfortunately the world we live in until something changes.
The US could rely on an agency like the CFPB to prevent this, but that was gutted under the current admin.
Cutting off at the exact cent is difficult, but a hard limit that triggers within one dollar of the actual limit should really be possible
If for some resources you can't sample measurements fast enough you could weaken it to "triggers within one dollar or five minutes after cost overrun, whichever comes later". But LLM APIs are one of those cases where time isn't a factor, your only issue is that if you only check quota before each inference a given query might bring you over
Ridiculous. They are clearly not trying at all. A hard wall preventing going over budget by 100x in a couple hours is not some devilishly complicated decentralized system problem.
Don't tote the party line.
Same reason why Azure AI only has easy rate limits by minute, not by day or week or month. Open source proxy projects do it easily tho. Think about the incentives.
Going over a hard cap by 3% would be a reasonable failure to make, not by 30000%.
The extra line supposes that being smart reduces the chances of getting caught.
Which from what I gather isn't very true - being smart can often lead to over confidence and making mistakes, and also a lot of crime is not premeditated.
And 80-90% of the adherence to 80-90% of those laws are self-imposed.
Once upon a time I used to buy tamales from a guy on the street corner. He was probably breaking half a dozen business licensing and preparation laws by doing his little street corner business.
HN dwellers would mostly debate for days about getting the right license or some other silly nonsense. Meanwhile tamale man is cooking, tamale man is selling, tamale man is doing his thing. Is he paying his taxes? Who knows. No one ever bothered to find out and from what I can tell nothing ever happened to him.
There's also probably the majority of the US who just make up laws that don't exist and then enforce it against themselves. Most people think they have to give an ID to a cop if he asks for it on the street.
They assume everything is illegal and self police because that's what the tyrant programmed them to do.
Same effect in HN comments also. Many people hold back from expressing their real views here because they are afraid to run afoul of the Flag Police.
They actually did change that law. Citizens of the Great Empire are now required to identify themselves to any cop who asks their name. For the childrens.
The "show him your government ID which you are now required to keep on you" part hasn't yet been instated, but it's coming. That will be introduced along with a whole heap of other big anti-freedom changes (like Central Bank Digital Currency) during the coming World War.
No, crime does not mean violation of morality. It only means violation of the law.
Now some people, say, look at a pair of expensive shoes and comically blurt out "these prices are criminal!"
That type of usage is a linguistic device known as "exaggeration", but these types of comical exaggerations don't actually change the meaning of words. Like when someone says "You're robbing me!" when a seller proposes a high price, they are not actually changing the meaning of the verb "to rob" and this does not mean that the definition of "to rob" involves charging high prices. That, too, is just an exaggeration.
You don't get to decree whatever it is that you like and then call it "law". If a "law" is un-Constitutional, as most US "laws" are--or in violation of the highest laws of the Universe (the Laws of Nature), as the most US "laws" are--then it is not law. It's the scribblings of a tyrant.
There just might be an entire army of goons ready to enforce that so-called "law." With an Empire, there always is. But any so-called "law" enacted without permission of the The People are in fact the workings of a tyrant and deserve no serious consideration among free individuals, except whatever minimum is necessary to protect oneself from the tyrant while awaiting (and planning for) his inevitable downfall.
This is called a "strawman" argument. I am not decreeing anything and calling it a law, so you must be responding to some interlocutor that lives only in your imagination, and then pointing out flaws in this imaginary conversation makes you feel better I guess. Or it gives you some kind of virtuous thrill. Why would you do this? Imagine yourself winning verbal victories with imaginary debaters in the shower, don't do it in public in social media.
And now you are going off on some laws being unconstitutional and that "most US laws are", when the point I made had nothing to do with a particular jurisdiction or nation, but when laws are deemed unconstitutional they are struck down and are no longer laws, so by definition you have now positioned yourself as a one man supreme court, voiding most US law, when the actual supreme court does not do this. Wow, what an active imagination you have. How you glorify yourself. But please do all that stuff in the privacy of your own home, no need to do it online. Here, e.g. outside of your imagination, people make arguments and you can if you want respond to that argument. Think about it.
"I am not decreeing anything," he said, as he attempts to argue me into the grave concerning the definition of the words "crime" and "law." As if the tyrant's definition should be the only definition and God's (or Nature's, if you prefer) can just be ignored.
It's going to surprise the shit out of you one day when you wake up to find that this entity called the "US Supreme Court" no longer exists, and has been replaced with some other entity which has vastly different ideas about things.
This will likely be accompanied by many people being put on public trial and convicted of various crimes that you and they will vehemently insist weren't against this "law" that you believe you understand the definition of. Yet despite your protestations they will be tried and convicted nonetheless, and in many cases executed.
On that day you will finally understand the definition of Law.
>>kdhaskjdhadjk is a 1 day old account pushing anti-US and soverign citizen BS
I'm shocked no one has figured out who this is. For anyone that hasn't figured it out -- hi weev!
>Your Empire murdered my Cherokee ancestors and made up lies about them; said they were all a bunch of dirty savages.
Weev has native american ancestry.
>Your Empire murdered my Confederate ancestors and made up lies about them; said they were all a bunch of inbred racist losers.
Weev is well known for southern / confederate rhetoric
>Your Empire has fucked me over personally in numerous ways that I will never, ever forget or forgive. And no, it wasn't my fault, as you Imperial goons always like to claim about your victims.
Weev was falsely convicted under fraudulent jurisdiction, then the morons that did it were forced to release him, and then essentially run out of the country before it could happen again.
>Your Empire continues to murder people around the entire world in my name, which despite being against everything I stand for, will in the end only bring more destruction to my doorstep.
Weev also has jewish ancestry.
>I am only one of a giant growing horde of Others who feel exactly the same way about the crookedness of your dying Empire. Finally, hundreds of years of murder, robbery, and lies are coming to their ultimate conclusion. Many are much less kind and charitable than I. Some of these guys and girls have entire warehouses full of axes to grind, and are establishing machine shops just to grind those axes.
Weev used this rhetoric during his trial.
>You accuse me of being a bot, but in fact the mindless automaton is you. Your nation is doomed, but you are incapable of perceiving this information as it conflicts with your programming. I predict your future will be a difficult one.
This sort of high IQ, boisterous, machine-gunned shock rhetoric followed by Revelations sort of premonitions for his enemies is the exact sort of unique rhetoric weev uses, and the unique application of it is pretty obvious on inspection. There is no on else on HN I've ever read that uses quite this same method of speech in this exact style with the same background (look up user 'rabite' for other examples).
It's probably a better system for what to live by. The government can and will imprison anyone they want by a variety of methods they have for putting anyone they want away at any time. If you follow "god's / natural law" as they put it, it is a better guide to whether you will anger some victim who will call the police on you. Most of the rest of the law are just the excuse the powers that be will use for putting you away if the powers that be find you threaten their order. The vast majority of victimless crime laws are selectively chosen to be "enforced" for the actual reason that you've done something to challenge the ruling class, trying to adhere to them as if they are applied as 'rule of law' is probably irrational.
I make it a point to keep a healthy distance between myself and Imperial Officials.
During any unavoidable interaction with Imperial Officials, I always pretend subservience and submission. I am aware that many others do also.
The result is a large and growing body of people who secretly despise Imperial Officials, while said officials are under the increasingly detached from reality impression that everyone loves them. It usually doesn't end well for them.
Or being disliked by a DoJ who can pressure a judge (who's other legal experience is being a career prosecutor for the feds as well) to not allow many forms of defense, while expending millions upon millions of their own money and "expert witnesses" to tell lies that you can't afford to defend against, and if you will only sign on the dotted line you will only get 3 years instead of a gazillion.
This is how they got Samourai Wallet guy to admit to "operating an unlicensed money transmitter" business despite FINCen saying he wasn't even a money transmitter which means how would he even get a license?
Likewise a lot of crime isn’t “crime” at all. Kill someone by putting lead in their lungs by means of a firearm and we call it murder and you go to prison. Do it by dumping lead into the air from your factory smokestack and we call it business and you get rich.
Murder some foreigner at the behest of your empire and they'll call you a hero and pin shiny medals to your chest. Kill the guy who ordered you to murder the foreigner and they'll call you a murderer and feel self-righteous when they murder you.
This is literally the best ux pattern you can have. It is intuitive - user immediately discovers it when performing the obvious action, it increases the user experience (more text to read) without any real downside.
It is the first thing I suggest to anyone when I see someone didn't implement it.
This is only true if you assume users always scroll down while reading and the only reason they scroll up is to find the header... but many of us scroll up and down while reading and find the re-appearance of the header to interfere with our goal of reading the content. So there is a clear downside for us "up and down" readers.
I don't know what portion of users we are though, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one!
Seriously, have you ever used one? Because most people do not read monotonically downwards. We often scroll back to see something in a previous sentence referred to in the spot we are reading. So we want to go back one or two lines. Bot NOOOOooo, the header pops up, covers 1/4 of the screen, so now we have to scroll that much more, pushing off the screen the other text we hoped to keep on the screen, and it might even go through a few adjustments. So, now, what was a non-event less distracting than turning the page in a book or magazine has now become a fully distracting scroll-fest.
Is that clear enough for you?
>>This is literally the best ux pattern you can have.
NOT EVEN CLOSE. The best User Experience pattern is to give the reader what they asked for AND NOTHING MORE. Nothing more for you, nothing more for your advertisers, and nothing more for them. We click to read the content, LET US READ the content, ALL the content, and NOTHING BUT the content. We'll even understand if some proper STATIC adverts are placed in the content, and we might even click thru if you've shown us something relevant and interesting
But as soon as you start putting motion and other distraction in the adverts, my priority becomes NOT reading the advert, but figuring out how to get it out of my face. And if by some chance I remember it, it is filed among "companies to avoid".
Why does it seem everyone who deals with advertising, from the execs down to the programmers, so stupidly thinks only of the first-order effects — "Grab Their Attention!" — and not the second-order effects, where being so offensive — surprise! — offends people...
I consider it context-dependent. If a site is intended for users to jump around to different pages often, then sticky headers make sense. If it’s designed for long-form articles or scrolling through feeds, then non-sticky headers make sense. When I have implemented them on my own sites, I try to keep them minimal and unobtrusive. But I also have never heard this complaint specifically, until now.
It's awful for the user. There is no reason why scrolling up should perform any other action then scrolling up the content. Zero benefit for anybody involved.
When a user wants to return to the navigation bar at the top he scrolls up. The navigation bar then immediately gets nearer.
The user discovery happens because the act he performs provides the exact intent you need to give him the shortcut.
Also for clarity this is only relevant for content based sites and not apps.
It is vanishingly rare for users to scroll up when reading content unless they want to reach the top
>It is vanishingly rare for users to scroll up when reading content unless they want to reach the top
This assumption is the problem. No, it is not rare for users to scroll up while reading. People are not perfect machines that read everything in one pass and understand it fully.
They may go back to re-read, or look at an earlier image or figure in the text, or otherwise. Sometimes people zone out for a minute and find they 'read' with their eyes but didn't actually take in the content. That requires going back.
For me, scrolling up to re-read is a basic use case of a web page. If it can't do that properly, it has failed.
On what basis do you make the claim that "It is vanishingly rare for users to scroll up when reading content unless they want to reach the top"?
If I were to judge from the comments here (and my own behaviours) it is quite common for users to scroll up when reading content for other reasons that wanting to "reach the top".
no. Scroll already does that. The header can stay where it is. The most intuitive thing you can do is have the content scroll in the direction the user asked for, when they asked for it.
If they want to go up to the top, they can already scroll. To the top.
That’s not why user scrolls up, or at least not the only reason. For example, reading this discussion I constantly scroll up and down to center the text on screen.
If the header only appears after scrolling up for a bit then it’s not so bad, but most implementations show the header after scrolling 1px up. That’s infuriating.
Apparently Israeli media is reporting that the price is so high that the government is requesting the founders will pay their taxes in USD and not Israeli Shekels in fear that such a large foreign exchange transaction will affect the exchange rate. ( Which is already unusually low and hurting exporters)
This would be the first time taxes are paid in a different currency in Israel history.
Pretty wild that it's such a large acquisition it can affect a nation's monetary policy.
There are multiple founders getting billions of dollars each. It's not so unreasonble to fear what could happen if daily trading volume suddenly had a significant increase from them collectively dumping billions of dollars onto the market on the same day to settle the tax bill.
The name “Calcalist” is indeed a play on “Economist” (it is not a proper Hebrew word, but fuses the Hebrew word for economy “calcala” with the English suffix for a professional work “ist”.
However, it is just an expanded version of Ynet’s business/economy section, and Ynet is probably the closest equivalent to USA Today or The Sun.
How can a word come from the Bible? It must have existed before the Bible in order to have a meaning inside of it. Or did you mean to write it came from Aramaic?
I mean that it already appears in the Bible, in old Hebrew (which is close to, but isn’t exactly Aramaic), with the meaning “to feed and provide” - and I did not find any documentation about how it formed (or came into) Hebrew.
Which means of course m, that it was already in use before the Bible was canonicalized.
I hate these studies. They make such bold claims and then when you dig deeper they basically gave a few students some questionuerre with leading questions and then claim they figured out how people work.
Building a C compiler should not have this problem. There is probably a million test suites coming from outside the LLM that it can sue verify correctness.
Are you saying principal engineers and tech minded PMs make lateral moves into director level manager without going through being entry level EMs first?
I've never heard of something like that. Usually the requirement for being director level manager of engineers is to at least have managed people as an EM for several years before.
The pay is aligned with the level whether or not you’re a people leader. To your point though, it may be difficult to go from Principal to Director. I see the lateral moves happen more at the Lead/Sr. Lead levels. They might do a Principal to a Sr. Manager as a trial period with the expectation that you’d be Director after a short time if you perform well. I’ve definitely seen directors become principals as well, so it goes both ways.
We mostly played games on it. It's really not fun playing games in the living room while everyone is around you doing other stuff.
It's like being the only one watching TV on the sofa while others are reading or working.
reply