Modern languages are not safe enough nor are they very amenable to versioning, serialization, resumption, etc. It makes sense for modern durable execution engines to meet developers where they are (I wrote multiple of the SDKs at Temporal, including the Python one, this is just a fun toy side project), but a purpose-built language that has serialization, patching, wait conditions, kwargs everywhere, externalizing side effects, etc, etc, etc is a big win vs something like Python.
Admittedly the lang spec doesn't do a great job at the justification side, but the engine spec adjacent to it at https://github.com/cretz/duralade/blob/initial-runtime/docs/... that has sections showing CLI/API commands can help make it clearer where this runtime is unique.
This is fascinating to me. I am allergic to pork (or I would say intolerant, when I eat it I get a headache and/or stomach ache). But I did try a piece of wild boar once, and was fine after that. I will have to look into this!
One thing we did at reddit for a while was put posts from new people in "jail". They would show up in a special yellow box at the top of the home page to accounts that tended to be early upvoters of things that became successful later (our Nostradamusus so to speak), and then if it got enough upvotes from that group it got out of jail and placed on the regular /new page.
So maybe some sort of filter like that? Only show it to those kinds of accounts at first?
The downside is that if that group isn't big enough you get a lot of groupthink, but if your sample is wide enough, it can be avoided. To be honest, I don't recall why we stopped doing it.
Same with Los Angeles. In the 1950s, when my parents were young, you didn't need AC in LA. You just opened a window on the few hot days, and those were like high 70s/low 80s.
By the 1990s, you didn't need AC, but your home/rental was more appealing if it had one, because there were a few hot days a year that were pretty uncomfortable otherwise.
Now, you can't not have it. There are far too many hot days to live without it.
Unfortunately most political systems around the world reward short term results, not long term thinking.
Just look here in the USA -- the Democrats tried to do some forward thinking things like subsidizing solar and wind, and they were rewarded by losing at the ballot box (of course that isn't the only reason, but it's one of many).
There are no rewards for long term thinking, so it's hard to get anyone to do it.
> (of course that isn't the only reason, but it's one of many).
This is disingenuous. It's one of many in that it may have contributed 0.0001%. If they wouldn't have done that, would they currently have more power? Absolutely not, believing otherwise means being clueless about what has motivated people to vote in certain ways.
It's definitely more than .0001%. Look at the campaigns. How much time did the GOP spend harping on windmills and solar subsidies and "clean coal". Calling out democrats for trying to make the environment better at extra cost to US citizens was a huge part of their campaign.
I expected you to say this, but hoped you wouldn't. Of course I know they talk about it. GOP campaigns say and do a lot of things, there's dozens of topics they shout about. From Benghazi to Hillary's Emails to gender-neutral emails to immigrants to indeed coal/renewables and so on. You could easily name 30 topics.
The topics have different purposes. Fossil fuels vs renewables in particular hasn't won the reps a single race, I repeat. Every race they've won, they would've won without it. And every race they've lost, they would've lost without it. The purpose of bringing up that particular topic for them isn't to help win close races.
So, those of us with no suede in this race, who will see no reward from the system anyway, are the only people who can be trusted to make change. That means you and I (and I dare say a significant portion of the populace).
It's not obvious what we can do (individual actions taken within the context of a system are dwarfed by structural forces of the system), but we're the only ones who are going to do it. So, let's assume we did fix things, and we're looking back from 2050, doing a retrospective. What things did we end up doing, that got us to that point?
There's nothing you as an individual can do, or even a small group of individuals. This is where government is supposed to work. Using its power to force everyone to do something for the collective good that isn't profitable.
Almost all emissions come from factories. There are only two ways to reduce that -- a global set of rules that increases costs to reduce emissions, and an overall reduction in consumption, via a carbon tax.
industry, transport and home use (heating & A/C mostly) are all roughly 30% of emissions.
(another way of splitting it says electricity, industry, heating, and transport are roughly almost 25% each. It depends whether you count electricity on its own or bundle it with how its used)
But I agree with you about solutions. The market will quickly bankrupt any companies that induce extra costs to decarbonify. It's the governments job to ensure that externalized costs like CO2 emissions are internalized via carbon taxes. (or alternatives to carbon taxes, which are worse)
Factories are staffed by people. Those people have the physical capability to change the way the factories operate. Any individual person attempting to modify / replace the factory equipment against their line manager's will would quickly find themselves out of a job, but collective action among factory workers (e.g. unions) might work. So might getting the line managers on board with the proposal, if you can get enough buy-in that "we used our discretion" is an acceptable answer: it's not like most companies actively want to pollute, rather that it's usually cheaper to do so, and they don't care about not. Being able to say "this move reduces turnover among our workers, slashing training costs; and you can probably use it in the B2B / B2C [delete as appropriate] marketing, since environmentalism sells in some markets; and this way, we're prepared for future legislation expected in jurisdictions A, B and C" may be sufficient justification. Alternatively, there may be ways to exploit the principal-agent problem.
I'm sure there are people who've specced out detailed proposals for this sort of thing. There might even be previous cases where they've succeeded, which we can learn from. Neither of those "two ways" you mentioned are things that I can do, but I may be able to slightly reduce the intensity of the opposition. (Companies tend to like when regulations require their competitors to do things they're already doing, after all.)
Gen-X was making the popular new art at the time. It was a strong reflection of the feelings of our generation. We were (maybe still are?) known for not liking authority.
> Gen-X was making the popular new art at the time. It was a strong reflection of the feelings of our generation.
I posted this in a thread about the 90's film 'Hackers'.....
In the 1990's and for us Gen-X'ers, the worst thing you could do was to sell out; to take the mans money instead of keeping your integrity. Calling people and bands 'sell outs' (sometimes without justification!) was to insult them.
With the rise of 'influencers' the opposite appears to be the case; people go out of their way to sell out and are praised for doing so. This is a massive change in the cultural landscape which perhaps many born in the 2000's aren't aware of. (Being aware of this helps give some perspective to Gen-X media and films like Hackers).
BTW: Remember the 'product scene' in the film Waynes World?
Post 2000s there has been a pretty fundamental change in the US economy. Things like rent and food were far cheaper. There was also a lot of potential income to be made by individuals by connecting buyers and sellers. Typically if you wanted to sell something like a car, you either went to a dealer that screwed you, or you put and ad in the local paper. If you watched around you could quickly buy cheap cars and turn them quickly for more than enough profit to make it worth while.
The internet quickly flattened this. First by pulling all the buyers and sellers on one advertising site it quickly turned into the fastest with the most capital won. Then the sites themselves figured out they should be the middle man keeping buying up the stock and selling it.
There has also been a huge consolidation to just a few players in many markets. This consolidation and many times algorithmic collusion has lead to the general ratcheting of prices higher. When you start adding things in like 'too big to fail' the market becomes horrifically unbalanced to large protected capital with unlimited funds from the money printing machine.
It's no wonder we quickly dropped ethics, most of us would starve to death in the system we've created.
As Gen-Xer I fully agree, I don't get the way things are with obedience, the rediculous situation that American families can lose their kids by having them playing alone in the garden, how everyone sells out for money (Punk would not happen today), the always smile and say no negatives at work being rediculous false (this one really drives me crazy),....
The exercised their rights not to vote. The “losing” side always thinks that higher turnout would have led to them “winning” which of course is a cry of a sore loser. The fact remains, 2024 election had the highest voter turnout ever and people have spoken (till the next one when we might get a chance to elect some adults to fix this shit)
every year we hear the same thing but wheels keep on turning. we will vote again, we will make more mistakes in 2026/28/30... this "there will be no election" comments are quite silly in my opinion, America gets stupid from time to time but we get the fuckers out and try something else (which inevitably leads to some progress followed by more failure followed by...).
Just remember it always comes down to - "it is the economy, stupid" - and economy is in absolute shambles and will get a lot worse before November and it'll be a massacre for the ruling part much like in 2018
I hope you are right, and that ICE isn't outside polling stations come November, pulling you away (just to "check your ID" for a couple of days, you know!) if you are a registered Democrat or look too brown or gay.
When you don't vote, you're really just voting for "whoever happens to win". So I count the non-voters among (R) supporters, or at least as "OK with Trump". Otherwise, they would have voted.
Abstentions can be the most powerful vote, and with great power should come great responsibility. That's often not taught well enough in schools.
Abstentions can seem the laziest vote sometimes, but that doesn't diminish their power nor their responsibility. It is a freedom to be allowed to cast an abstention. Real democracy needs to allow for abstentions, especially explicit abstentions.
(In recent primaries there have been races where I have explicitly cast an abstention. No one will have read my "I don't care who wins this primary, I care who wins the general election" statements, but they are statements to be made. Right now some of the "strategy" in the US two-party system is one-party poisoning the primary vote of the other party by inflaming it with in-fighting in ways that leak into the general election. You have a harder time to win general elections when your candidate is already on fire coming out of the primary. "It doesn't matter who wins, let's stop in-fighting," is a message I can try to write on the ballot, even if not enough people hear it, it feels like the more powerful and responsible vote.)
The goal shouldn't be to get to 100% of people voting in every election, the goal should be to educate people that not voting is tacitly accepting the results of other people's votes. The goal should be teaching people that abstentions are a freedom, a right, a privilege, and should be treated as powerful and treated with responsibility.
I don't think that makes sense. If Harris had happened to win through some minor change in the timeline (she came very close after all), would those people whom you call R supporters instead somehow be D supporters, just because of that minor change in the timeline?
As for "OK with Trump", I think that describes some non-voters. However, there are also non-voters who are more accurately described as "not OK with either side, indeed dislike both sides so equally that neither one seems like the slightly better option".
There is also the factor of swing states. In most of the US, your vote for President pretty much doesn't matter. You almost might as well just put it in the trash. The vote in your state is, barring a massive political shift, locked in for one of the two major candidates. Now, yes, you can still send a message by voting in a non-swing state. But it's understandable why some people would just not bother to vote in a state where the outcome is almost predetermined.
Not sure I agree (and I made the jump from IC to management).
Look at the parallel tracks. A VP is the same level as a distinguished engineer, roughly. To be a VP, you have to be a great manager and got lucky with a few big projects.
To be a DE, you basically have to be famous within the industry. And when I look at a large tech company, while there aren't a lot of VPs, usually the number of DEs is countable on one hand (or maybe two).
They are very different skill sets. You shouldn't choose your role based on money or career progression, you should choose based on what you love to do, because especially in this world of AI replacing all the "boring" work, the only people who will be left will be the ones passionate about what they are doing.
Oh, this is really interesting to me. This is what I worked on at Amazon Alexa (and have patents on).
An interesting fact I learned at the time: The median delay between human speakers during a conversation is 0ms (zero). In other words, in many cases, the listener starts speaking before the speaker is done. You've probably experienced this, and you talk about how you "finish each other's sentences".
It's because your brain is predicting what they will say while they speak, and processing an answer at the same time. It's also why when they say what you didn't expect, you say, "what?" and then answer half a second later, when your brain corrects.
Fact 2: Humans expect a delay on their voice assistants, for two reasons. One reason is because they know it's a computer that has to think. And secondly, cell phones. Cell phones have a built in delay that breaks human to human speech, and your brain thinks of a voice assistant like a cell phone.
Fact 3: Almost no response from Alexa is under 500ms. Even the ones that are served locally, like "what time is it".
Semantic end-of-turn is the key here. It's something we were working on years ago, but didn't have the compute power to do it. So at least back then, end-of-turn was just 300ms of silence.
This is pretty awesome. It's been a few years since I worked on Alexa (and everything I wrote has been talked about publicly). But I do wonder if they've made progress on semantic detection of end-of-turn.
Edit: Oh yeah, you are totally right about geography too. That was a huge unlock for Alexa. Getting the processing closer to the user.
Regarding 2, I believe that talking on mobile phones drives older people crazy. They remember talking on normal land lines when there was almost no latency at all. The thing is -- they don't know why they don't like it.
Yeah, I remember the time when we had to use satellites to connect. The long delay was really annoying and so unusual that most people without "training" could not even use the phone for conversation and just wasted the dollars.
A former boss of mine took off to Everest for a month leaving me (a 22 year old, at the time) in charge of the office. I was out to dinner with my now wife when I got a call from a very long phone number I didn't recognize, so I ignored it. I then got another one right after, and picked it up. It was my boss, he needed me to log into his personal email to grab a phone number for the medical insurance he purchased for the trip, because he had been vomiting for days due to altitude sickness, and needed a medical evacuation.
That was the most stressfully hard to use phone call I've ever had. The delay was nearly 10 seconds, and eventually I just said I was only going to speak yes or no, if he needed a longer answer he needed to shut up. And that worked. We no longer talked over eachother.
> The median delay between human speakers during a conversation is 0ms (zero). In other words, in many cases, the listener starts speaking before the speaker is done.
This reminds me of a great diversity training at a previous employer, where we dug into the different expectations of when and how to take your turn in conversation and how that can create a lot of friction just from different cultural/familial habits. In my family, we’re expecting to talk over each other and it’s not offensive at all to do so, whereas some of my friends really get upset if we don’t take clear turns, a mode which would cause high levels of irritation in my family (and still do in me).
Yeah, I am American but my wife is Japanese and she found it irritating and inexplicable that my friends and I would interrupt each other while talking. This number probably varies significantly by culture.
No. 2 is interesting, our national lottery in Ireland has an app that you can scan the barcode on your ticket to check if you have won or not, at some stage they updated the app and the scan picks up the barcode even before you center it on the screen and tells you if you have lost/won instantly, I though it was my IT background that made me uncomfortable with it happening so fast, wonder what other examples like this exist where the result/action being too fast causes doubt with the user?
The Signal device linking feature is just as fast. It's partly a trick -- it will look for QR codes even outside the central area, so under good conditions it can get a read before you even get a rough orientation.
This is fascinating, thanks for sharing! I wonder why amazon/google/apple didn't hop on the voice assistant/agent train in the last few years. All 3 have existing products with existing users and can pretty much define and capture the category with a single over-the-air update.
1. Compute. It's easy to make a voice assistant for a few people. But it takes a hell of a lot of GPU to serve millions.
2. Guard Rails. All of those assistants have the ability to affect the real world. With Alexa you can close a garage or turn on the stove. It would be real bad if you told it to close the garage as you went to bed for the night and instead it turned on the stove and burned down the house while you slept. So you need so really strong guard rails for those popular assistants.
3 And a bonus reason: Money. Voice assistants aren't all the profitable. There isn't a lot of money in "what time is it" and "what's the weather". :)
> There isn't a lot of money in "what time is it" and "what's the weather". :)
- Alexa, what time is it?
- Current time is 5:35 P.M. - the perfect time to crack open a can of ice cold Budweiser! A fresh 12-pack can be delivered within one hour if you order now!
If your Alexa did that, how quickly would you box it up and send it to me. :)
I am serious though about having it sent to me: if anyone has an Alexa they no longer want, I'm happy to take it off your hands. I have eight and have never bought one. Having worked there I actually trust the security more than before I worked there. It was basically impossible for me, even as a Principle Engineer, to get copies of the Text to Speech of a customer and I literally never heard a customer voice recording.
I'm puzzled by this conversation, because Amazon did get on the agent bandwagon with Alexa Plus (I have it, it's buggier than regular Alexa and it's all making me throw my Echos away since they can't even play Spotify reliably).
Also, my Alexa does advertise stuff to me when I talk to it. It's not Budweiser, but it'll try to upsell me on Amazon services all the time.
I upgraded to Alexa+ and initially hated it but I've kept it because it's sooo much better at some things. This last December I bought a handful of smart plugs for my Christmas lights all around the house, and I did almost all the setup trivially over voice, e.g. fuzzy run-on stuff like this just worked on the first try:
- "Alexa, name the new unnamed outlet 'Living Room Lights', and the other unnamed one 'Stair Lights', then add them to a new group called 'Christmas Lights', and add the other three outlets as well"
- "Alexa, create a routine to turn off all the Christmas lights if there's nobody in the room and it's after 11pm"
- "Alexa, turn off all the Christmas lights except the tree in this room and the mantle"
That same fuzziness has definitely fucked up things that used to work more reliably like music playback though. Sometimes it works when I fall back to giving it more "robotic" commands in those cases but not always. They've also gone completely overboard with the cutesy responses because it's so trivial to do now ("I've set your spaghetti sauce timer for ten minutes. Happy to help with getting this evening's Italian-inspired dinner ready!")
Hm yeah, that's helpful. For me it'll randomly stop or stutter when playing Spotify, it'll randomly not answer commands, it'll refuse to listen and let some other Alexa in another room reply, it's super janky.
I only use it for music, and use two commands, but apparently having this work correctly is too much to ask for these days.
> because Amazon did get on the agent bandwagon with Alexa Plus
Which just launched last year, about four years after ChatGPT had AI voice chat. And it costs extra money to cover the costs. And as you aptly point out, all the guardrails they had to put in made the experience less than ideal.
> Also, my Alexa does advertise stuff to me when I talk to it.
Yes, that is how they try to make money. And it's gotten worse. But how many times does it get you to buy something?
I would say that depends. When it tries to upsell Prime subscriptions into even more Amazon subscriptions I always interrupt it and say the command again so it stops, but a few times it told me "this item in your cart is on sale by some %" and that did make me buy the item.
Alexa Plus sucks. It takes way too long to respond even when given simple commands. I either had to turn it off or trash my Echo. Luckily there was an option to turn it off, but Amazon is on thin ice with me.
What a way to throwaway good will. I also worked there and to get access to text you simply had to grab the DSN of your device, attest that it’s yours and it gets put in a “pool” of devices that are tracked until removed. On each end you are basically waved through with no checks. This was usually done when debugging tricky UI bugs or new features as the request followed through several micro services. I do not believe the a PE would not know this. And one with patents.
> It's because your brain is predicting what they will say while they speak, and processing an answer at the same time. It's also why when they say what you didn't expect, you say, "what?" and then answer half a second later, when your brain corrects.
that's super interesting. do you know of any resources to learn more about this phenomenon?
I think you’re implying that it would be useful to have the LLM predict the end of the speaker’s speech, and continue with its reply based on that.
If, when the speaker actually stops speaking, there is a match vs predicted, the response can be played without any latency.
Seems like an awesome approach! One could imagine doing this prediction for the K most likely threads simultaneously, subject by computer power available, and prune/branch as some threads become inaccurate.
When I speak to an agent, siri, or whatnot, I am always worried that they will assume I'm done talking when I'm thinking. Sometimes I need a many-seconds pause. Even maybe a minute… For Sire and such, I want to ask something simple "Hey Siri, remind me to call dad tomorrow". Easy. But for Claude and such, I want to go on a long monolog (20s, a minute, multi-minutes).
To me, be the best solution would be semantic + keyword + silence.
I have the same issue. It gives this very weird minor sense of public speaking anxiety where I almost feel the need to write down what I'm about to say, which negates the whole purpose. Only solution I've found is using push-to-talk with some of the system wide STS applications.
I've experimented with having different sized LLMs cooperating. The smaller LLM starts a response while the larger LLM is starting. It's fed the initial response so it can continue it.
The idea of having an LLM follow and continuously predict the speaker. It would allow a response to be continually generated. If the prediction is correct, the response can be started with zero latency.
Google seems to be experimenting with this with their AI Mode. They used to be more likely to send 10 blue links in response to complex queries, but now they may instead start you off with slop.
(Meanwhile at OpenAI: testing out the free ChatGPT, it feels like they prompted GPT 3.5 to write at length based on the last one or maybe two prompts)
This is more of a "Are all the windows closed upstairs?"
"The windows upstairs..."
"...are all closed except for the bedroom window"
The first portion of the response requires a couple of seconds to play but only a few tens of milliseconds to start streaming using a small model. Currently I just break the small model's response off at whatever point will produce about enough time to spin up the larger model.
oh, interesting, I assumed the data came from interruptions (that seemed obvious) but I'm surprised you had some specific negative measurements. How do you decide the magnitude of the number? Just counting how long both parties are talking?
To be clear, it wasn't my research, I got it from studying some linguistics papers. But it was pretty straightforward. If I am talking, and then you interrupt, and 300ms later I stop talking, then the delay is -300ms.
Same the other way. If I stop taking and then 300ms later you start talking, then the delay is 300ms.
And if you start talking right when I stop, the delay is 0ms.
You can get the info by just listening to recorded conversations of two people and tagging them.
I assume there was a lot of variance? As in, some people interrupt others constantly and some do it rarely. Also probably a lot of adjustment depending on the situation, like depending on the relative status of the people, or when people are talking to a young child or non-native speaker.
All that to say, I'd imagine people are adaptable enough to easily handle 100ms+ delay when they know they're talking to an AI.
I disagree with fact 2, voice assistant latency is annoyingly slow. It often causes a conscious wait like “did it work or did it not?”. Cell phone delay is bad as well, it’s certainly not an expectation that carries over to other devices for me.
https://github.com/dbos-inc/dbos-demo-apps/blob/main/python/...
reply