> Unfortunately, when you’re starting out, the idea of running a registry is a really tough sell. Now, on top of the very hard engineering problem of writing the code and making a world class tool, plus the social one of getting it adopted, I need to worry about funding and maintaining something that serves potentially a world of traffic? The git solution is intoxicating through this lense.
So you need a decentralized database? Those exist (or you can make your own, if you're feeling ambitious), probably ones that scale in different ways than git does.
Please share. I’m interested in anything that’s roughly as simple as implementing a centralized registry, is easily inspected by users (preferably with no external tooling), and is very fast.
It’s really important that someone is able to search for the manifest one of their dependencies uses for when stuff doesn’t work out of the box. That should be as simple as possible.
I’m all ears, though! Would love to find something as simple and good as a git registry but decentralized
Or one could omit signing all together, so long as you have a Merkel tree with hashes for all publishing events. And the latest hash entry is always fetched from your server along with the mirror list.
Having all publishing go through a single service is probably desirable. You'll eventually need to do moderation, etc. And hosting your service or a mirror becomes a legal nightmare if there is not moderation.
Package registry in an SQLite database, snapshotted daily. Stored in a cloud bucket. New clients download the latest snapshot, existing clients stream in the updates using eg Litestream. Resolving dependencies should now be ultra fast thanks to indexes.
I'm just a stupid systems programmer who just discovered Cloudflare. How much do you think that'd cost? Serving a pretty heavily cached SQLite database (i.e. everyone grabs the same bytes). I realize the answer depends on scale, so let's say what if Cargo or Homebrew or some such did this?
> There are legitimate criticisms of a pure free market, but this is "state capitalism" not a free market.
Yeah, that's what OP said. I hate these sort of comments where the poster acts like they vehemently disagree with what was said, but then just restate what was said in a slightly different way.
No, OP lectured us about the evils of free markets and how they need to be regulated... presumably by the same corrupt, captured government he's complaining about. The one who's giving Ellison his orders to pass along to Weiss. Because that's who'll do the regulating, in the world OP is implicitly asking for.
The problem isn't the money or the market. The problem is the power.
Trump's and the Republican party's whole shtick is deregulation. The financial tumors in the economy love it when the white blood cells look the other way. That's why folks like Ellison and Elon bought this election. These are the types of orders they are happy to comply with for favorable treatment.
If you don't regulate, you're just opening the door for the free market to birth a tyrant or cabal that makes up their own power structures.
If you don't regulate, you're just opening the door for the free market to birth a tyrant or cabal that makes up their own power structures.
Perhaps, but right now the only tyrants and cabals I see around me were elected democratically. I don't have to use Facebook or Amazon, but I have to pay taxes to Trump's treasury department.
The fact that stupid people can be easily herded into voting against almost everyone's best interests, including their own, is not an indictment of the free market. If anything, it speaks to the apparently-unresolvable incompatibility of social media and democracy. I'm pretty sure we'll have to give up one or the other before long.
Democracy is not the problem, it's a deliberately misinformed populace shaped by undeserved money that's the core issue. Folks who pollute the information in the market or the political field steer the market away from a symmetrical information equilibrium -- they are huge drains on human potential. Trump did both and evaded trial for sedition because of how much he cheated in business and engaged the law in bad faith, and due to favors he promised to others like Elon and Ellison who had more money. Before he was a "democratically elected tyrant" he was a regular free market one.
Money is power. High concentrations of money controlled by few people serve the whims of those people, who use that power to influence politics, in 2024 through one of the most dishonest campaign trails and propaganda operations in my living memory of American politics. I'm surprised you don't see the connection.
Money is power the way religion is power. Traditionally, religion is what the American right wing has used to herd its supporters, but it wasn't enough by itself to capture the entire electorate. More recently they've found that leveraging social media such as Facebook and friendly "news" outlets such as Fox gives them enough influence to take over national politics completely. If such immense power wasn't up for grabs, the money wouldn't matter.
If I said the problem was religion, I'd rightfully be taken to task. But if I were to call out the effects of evangelical subversion and abuse of protestant Christianity in America, you'd probably find room to agree. It's exactly the same with money.
We aren't going to get rid of either money or religion, but we can say that the Federal government -- and yes, the billionaires behind it -- shouldn't have anything close to this level of power.
How does this rule anything out? It is totally possible actual usage of THC didn't increase after legalization. It wasn't one of the hardest things to find when it was illegal.
I think you’re misunderstanding. The paper says that the rates of dead drivers having THC in their system above the threshold did not change significantly after legalization. So legalizing isn’t the culprit, exactly for the reason you cite: people could get it just fine before.
In our case if we're spending a lot of time on something that doesn't improve the product, it just takes away from the product. Like if we put 800 engineering hours into sensor fusion and lidar when the end product doesn't become materially better, we could have placed those 800 hours towards something else which makes the end product better.
It's not that we ran into problems, it's that the tech didn't deliver what we hoped when we could have used the time to build something better.
I'm not sure why you would need to have "heard of that". If I was getting Linux to work on my computer as many people have, and got xeyes or xterm to work, I would expect other X11 apps to work as well.
So you need a decentralized database? Those exist (or you can make your own, if you're feeling ambitious), probably ones that scale in different ways than git does.
reply