I think your points 1 and 2 are exactly spot on. And, assuming that both Rebble's and Eric's are being relatively forthright, that Eric is the one that is actually trying to come to an agreement that accomplishes that. Whereas Rebble is taking the position of "only we can be trusted".
And with all the people replying to the original Rebble post with "I'm canceling my preorder", I'm pretty worried that Rebble has created a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. :(
I'm torn here. I love that Rebble folks have kept things alive. I also love that Eric underwent the effort to make new hardware.
I'm also a bit sad that this is the first we're hearing of this tension, because it likely would've changed my decision to purchase a new Core 2 Duo watch, and I would've preferred this sort of falling out happen before a lot of devices have been purchased.
Can you cancel the preorder? Or is the device you mentioned already out and too old to return? Some credit cards will refund you if terms changed after a purchase as well.
As someone who owns both a couple Vorons and a couple of Bambu's printers, I do think for a lot of people the difference between the two can be "3d printers are my hobby" vs "3d printers are a tool". It's not that Vorons can't be reliable, in fact a lot of the reason why say the X1C is so reliable is because its design essentially started life as a Voron. But because you have to assemble them, they just aren't as "plug and play".
I only buy portable Li-ion batteries from manufacturers with a history of product recalls in my country or directly from major retailers that regularly recall defective products.
I also only buy portable battery models that I believe will sell or has sold many thousands of units so any widespread manufacturering defects should become apparent sooner.
Interestingly I just talked to several lawyers who were annoyed at how many mistakes were being made and how much time was being wasted due to use of LLMs. I suppose that still qualifies as radically changing — you didn’t specify for the better.
My complete _guess_ (in which I make a bunch of assumptions!) is that generally it seems like the Ruby team has been more willing to make small breaking changes, whereas it seems a lot like the Python folks have become timid in those regards after the decade of transition from 2 -> 3.
> Python has made many breaking changes after 2->3 as well.
Aside from the `async` keyword (experience with which seems like it may have driven the design of "soft keywords" for `match` etc.), what do you have in mind that's a language feature as opposed to a standard library deprecation or removal?
Yes, the bytecode changes with every minor version, but that's part of their attempts to improve performance, not a hindrance.
Why do you exclude the standard library like it's a small thing? If it's not part of the language, why do they host the documentation on the same website and ship it with the same package?
In C, dotnet, Rust or even Javascript, stdlib breakages are basically the same as language breakages. Python is an outlier for this.
Minor breaking changes in the standard-lib are normal in python. They have always been there, and are usually communicated over a long timeframe, so people have enough time to prepare. The point is, they are usually won't affect many people, unlike major breaking changes in the language itself.
The standard library is maintained and delivered by the CPython-team itself, but at the end of the day it's just a better maintained 3rd-party-collection you have to trust over your own code, and it's not much different in that regard than any other 3rd-party python-code on pip.
> In C, dotnet, Rust or even Javascript, stdlib breakages are basically the same as language breakages. Python is an outlier for this.
That might be because C and Javascript have no serious standard-lib. For python it's more comparable to the builtins, what they deliver out of the box.
I used to think it's cool the same company makes a pencil and an F-16 derivative ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2 ), but alas, the pencilmaker is not the same company.
I once had a PM who loved the Pareto principle a little too much, and would constantly push us to "apply it" even after we already had. I got frustrated by this and drew the graph that goes along with your sentence, showing that miraculously about 99% of the work can be done with 60% of the effort!
My PM did not take the correct lesson away from the encounter.
You aren't renaming tables at scale because there are 27 downstream services that will break if you even think about fixing the name of the revnue_dolars table, and it's not in anyone's OKR to fix it
Take a closer look at how some min downtime tools work. They often use a drop-swap strategy to replace an old table name with a new one that has schema changes.
There are sometimes temporary views to keep the old and new code working during gradual transitions.
You clearly have not worked at global companies with concerns that go beyond “can I do it?”. I’ve used percona and I’ve used these tools before and percona is great. But when you’re at scale something as trivial as a table name change is not something you ever do because it’s not worth the risk of taking your entire site down. Just use the existing name no matter how bad it is.
I’m not sure if this is a joke (ref to OKR was funny, for example), or just naive and not understanding the parent comment. I found it funny either way though.
> As a result, once o1 becomes generally available, we will likely notice the persistent hallucinations and faulty reasoning, especially when the problem is sufficiently new or complex, beyond the “reasoning programs” or “reasoning patterns” the model learned during the reinforcement learning phase.
I had been using 4o as a rubber ducky for some projects recently. Since I appeared to have access to o1-preview, I decided to go back and redo some of those conversations with o1-preview.
I think your comment is spot on. It's definitely an advancement, but still makes some pretty clear mistakes and does some fairly faulty reasoning. It especially seems to have a hard time with causal ordering, and reasoning about dependencies in a distributed system. Frequently it gets the relationships backwards, leading to hilarious code examples.
And with all the people replying to the original Rebble post with "I'm canceling my preorder", I'm pretty worried that Rebble has created a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. :(