Isn’t that kind of an “implementation detail” of the cheese? Like you can’t categorically say one way or the other for some without knowing the process used? Obviously some forego that altogether, but for the majority it would simply depend, no?
(I have many close friends that are similarly pedantic though for other reasons.)
Anyway, the site lets you categorize by processing method. All the acid cure options should meet your requirements, no?
Police know which side their bread is buttered on. Target is famous for being to get local cops to do exactly what they need post-facto (now prosecutor is another story).
I.E. just because police don’t “waste” time investigating a crime with $1000 of damage to your personal property does not mean they won’t dedicate the time to pursue $200 in losses for the local mega mart.
What Target is famous for is doing their own investigations rather than expecting the police to do the grunt work. They operate such a sophisticated forensics lab that they actually do contract work for LE agencies across the country.
If you funded your own private investigation which unambiguously identified the culprit and demonstrated damages sufficient for a felony I imagine the local police would readily act on your behalf as well.
Breaking and entering into a home is more serious of a crime than $1000 of property damage. But regardless of that, it’s a point just to highlight how little policing resources exists and tells a broader story. At least in my city, cops don’t do anything for minor crimes. On my local Reddit, I see people mentioning that you have to mention that you have a gun in your hand if you ever want them to actually show up. I think our police force has half the personnel they’re supposed to have given our city size. I think this is becoming more common in the US.
There’s plenty of documented cases where local police are the basically henchmen for large corporations, but I’ve seen no evidence of this and believe it’s kind of a fear mongering meme to think they have enough power over them to dictate them to do roundups after the fact. They may however give all the evidence they collect on you to the police with a bow on it and the cops may decide to take it seriously. Where I am, I do not see this happening. The police will have expected the retailer to have protected their inventory. Off duty police officers make a lot of money working private security and they don’t want to disturb that dynamic.
He didn't flop. He's had a number of high-status bespoke projects, including the coronation logo for King Charles and a redesign of Christie's (auction house) podium.
He's not doing commoditised consumer design any more. He has enough money now, so he no longer needs to. The most consumer-oriented work recently has been an interior for the new Ferrari Luce EV.
I agree his post-Jobs years at Apple were somewhere between mediocre and hopeless (gradients...) and not many people seem to miss him.
Although to be fair, he wasn't responsible for Liquid Glass, which has set the bar for design failure at Apple to new depths.
Liquid Glass is fine for me and the people I talk to, I didn't even notice it happened when the upgrade happened and so many people have been complaining.
Ive got way more credit than he deserved. And he had to run all his ideas by Jobs. Once Jobs was gone we got to see Ive's true colors (it was garish pastels and a butterfly keyboard).
He has designed 4 consumer prodocts that a good portion of humanity use every day. By every measure he is the most successful product creator in the history of humanity, no single other product comes close to impact and quality. (Believe it or not the Dorritos Locos Taco is likely the closest 5th place product)
The arrogance on hacker news is insane, or the self agrandizement and misunderstanding of how rare that is.
You have likely never done 1/1,000,000,000th of the scale or impact of this designer and then make flippant remarks that belay your ignorance of the matter.
I really would like to understand what your thought process is here. This is quite litterally like saying Michael Jordan was a pretty poor Basketball player and claiming Jerry Reinsdorf was somehow the real reason he succeeded.
Big difference is comparing to sports is millions of people can see with their own eyes the performance of a player in arena. All motivated media can't create a narrative of brilliance when bad performance is there to see.
In case Jony Ive or others like him, we simply do not know how many dozens or hundreds of very talented engineers and designers worked relentlessly under him so he can do beautiful presentations in British English.
Another person comes to my mind is Marissa Meyers. "Brilliant Executive" known for keeping Google Home page clean that's visited by billion people. But we all know how great she was when ended up at Yahoo.
> He has designed 4 consumer prodocts that a good portion of humanity use every day.
Yes, but how much of that was luck and how was extraordinary talent?
It's like saying "Donald Trump is really rich, ergo he must be a financial genius"... getting really rich isn't that hard if you're born into money and invest in New York real estate.
Now someone like Jobs who had fairly working class parents and founded a multi-billion dollar (now trillion dollar) company that radically changed the modern world, that, I would argue, is extraordinary talent.
While I don't personally have much an opinion on Ives's skill as a designer, I understand the GP's point of view - any "good but not great" designer could have done what he did, Ives was just lucky enough to win the lottery w.r.t. what company he worked for.
For a similar example, consider the case of Hollywood - you'll have plenty actors as talented as Brad Pitt (or whatever big name you'd like to choose) that don't end up staring in massive blockbusters, not because they lack talent, but because they weren't quite as lucky to get that first big break, which led to more recognition, more job offers, all of which compounded into making him a proper movie star. Obviously Pitt is a really good actor, but part of his success is likely due to luck as much as it is acting talent - he has tons of talent, but others might have equal talent and less luck, and therefore be less successful/have fewer people influenced by their work.
To use a software metaphor, consider the relative popularity of FreeBSD and Linux. Both are good OSes, but Linux got "luckier" because they didn't have to deal with a lawsuit, which meant it got more attention, more features, which led to a compounding "Matthew effect" where it now has a far larger market share than FreeBSD, despite them originally having roughly the same 'quality'.
This take is so hardworkingly naive I dont even know where to start. After having the undesputed greatest set of products designed in a row, you dane to call it luck.
Asside from your complete ignorance of the history at play, (Ive refounded Apple with Jobs) you seem to not understand what a 'mediocre' designer is capable of and how mind-bendinly hard it was to design the imac, ipad, iphone and apple watch
I genuinely can't believe you could be so wild to beleive such a thing. It becomes frankly stupid to the point of disrespectful of the work individuals put into their craft and the success they can find.
There is no person in the world outside of someone in this forum who would claim that somehow this was 'luck'.
HN has truly become one of the most toxically stupid places on the web.
The products were not conceived/designed by Ive. He was VP of industrial design only, with a team of people under him, such as Richard Howarth who seems to have been lead designer on the original iPhone and replaced Ive when he left.
Your take on crediting Ive with the success of Apple's product line would be exactly like crediting some designer at Nike with the success of their never ending line of sneakers.
If your theory of Ive's design genius being such a game changer was true, then why has Apple continued to flourish since he left 7 years ago? It seems pretty apparent that it's the brand/image established by Jobs that is successful, just as it's the Nike brand (bootstrapped by MJ & Nike Air) that propels Nike, not the magic of their designs.
People age and change; Jony Ive overstayed his tenure at Apple, through no fault of his own. Cook, not being a product guy, kept Ive with massive incentives. Build Apple Park, take care of software, here's a bunch more stock. That led to very misguided products. Laptops without MagSafe. Ever so thin phones for no benefit. A pen that charges in the most insane way.
Ive should have left shortly after the death of Steve. He was creatively spent at Apple.
Apparently it required someone with the personality and product taste of Jobs to rein in Ivy. Cook on the other hand being a logistics/operations guy didn’t have the similar skills and we ended up getting absolute shitshow of hardware products from apple in late 2010s.
Thankfully he was fired and sanity prevailed which coincided with Apple Silicon line professors. The MacBook Pro that was immediate predecessor to M1 series was by far Apple’s worst hardware. It was bad on nearly every count.
For what it's worth, the Intel MacBook Pro Espresso Machine and Milk Foamer Expansion Dock that water cooled the CPU while making you a hot fresh latte was pretty useful. The M4 just isn't capable of working up a proper head of steam.
I have one such mac. Things I like: the keyboard feels smooth, the speakers are great and the touchbar (yes you read correctly). Things that make me partially agree with this post I am responding to: annoying overheating, including when I plug an external monitor (!); the camera was really subpar, it always seemed as if I was facetiming using a 2002 cybershot rather than a 2019 MacBook Pro; the screen has nice colours but very easily feels smudgy. Other than this, I love using that computer as a secondary device.
Not sure how I feel. Anna’s Archive turned into a profit-seeking beast a long time ago. They’re also rolling in it thanks to he massive deals to “license” the content to AI companies.
Fred, nice to meet you. The grading model had no idea what was being tested. We used separate accounts to compartmentalize. The Claude grader was guessing GPT-3.5 Turbo or GPT-4 by the end. On the coding block it consistently scored responses as GPT-4o level. We followed the MT-Bench grading guidelines as published by the team that created them. Did the research, followed the book, had no horse in the race. Every score and every response is published in the tape so you can regrade the whole thing yourself if you want. And this is me typing, I'm just a guy in LA who spent a weekend running 80 questions through a 2B model and thought the results were interesting enough to share.
Seems to be llm written article and the tooling around the model is undeniably influenced by knowledge of the tests.
In all cases, GPT 3.5 isn’t a good benchmark for most serious uses and was considered to be pretty stupid, though I understand that isn’t the point of the article.
really appreciate you reading the article. the benchmark data, grading, and error classes were all done by hand though. the ~8.0 is the raw model with zero tooling, and the guardrail projections are documented separately. and yeah gpt-3.5 isn't the gold standard anymore, we're on the same page there. we just wanted to show that the quality people are still paying for can be free, private, and customized to whatever you need. thanks again for taking the time to check it out.
We actually just ported SecureStore to go, it’s sort of like this but with cross platform clis and intended to also allow sharing secrets across services and languages, in a secure and embedded fashion! It’s available in rust, php, .net, JS/TS, Python, and golang and easy to port to others.
The approach to crypto is very different, we went with what’s very well understood and very well supported on all platforms with little or no dependencies (eg we can use web crypto in JS frontend or backend with no external libs or crypto JS library nonsense).
The original .NET and Rust code is from over a decade ago and carefully architected (well before vibecoding was a thing), the secrets are stored in a human readable (json) vault that can be embedded in your binaries or distributed alongside them and be decrypted with either password-based or key-based decryption (or both).
That’s actually a pretty interesting tradeoff — especially going with “boring crypto” that’s widely supported vs pulling in heavier deps.
The JSON vault + cross-language portability is nice too, especially if you’re embedding secrets across services without tying yourself to one runtime. Curious how you handle key management at scale though — that’s usually where these systems get tricky more than the crypto itself.
SecureStore is an open spec/protocol for managing secrets in a secure and portable manner, while it defines the decryption key formats (currently: key-based, password-based, or a mix of both interchangeably) it doesn't get into the mechanics of key management, which are "trivial and left as an exercise for the reader."
More seriously though, you're supposed to use separate vaults (with the same keys, where "keys" is the name of the secrets, not the decryption keys) for testing/staging/production, e.g. perhaps secrets.{testing,production,staging}.json and the same secrets.{testing,production,staging}.key for the decryption keys, and store both the username and password in them (after all, it's just an encrypted, glorified KV store) so that you don't have to hard-code any usernames and conditionally load them based on the environment in your code (so db:username is one "secret" and db:password is another (actual) secret).
The secrets vaults (the secrets.json files) are non-sensitive and can be versioned and pushed to your server the same way you push the binaries. Now how you move the secrets to the server is up to you. You could do it the old-fashioned way and just have it as an environment variable, in which case even when your env vars leak at least you haven't leaked your api keys, only the key to decrypt them (which you'd then rotate), but that's not a recommended option. Ideally you'd instead use whatever secure channel you use to init/stage the servers to begin with to transfer the secure key files - the key files are generally immutable, even as the secrets change, so you only have to do this once (ideally via a high-friction, high-auth mechanism, for most people not at FAANG scale, probably manually).
You can also use whatever additional layer of abstraction on top of the symmetric SecureStore decryption key you like. For example, you could asymmetrically encrypt the keyfiles and then each host would decrypt it with its own private key, or have a secrets side channel that's just used to obtain the static decryption key over the local network, or use your operating system's encryption facilities to transmit it, whatever works for you at whatever point on the complexity/security curve you desire.
(These are all just options, none are official recommendations.)
reply