You need to install psycopg2, or perhaps more likely psycopg2-binary to access postgres databases. After hiichbindermax and mrbump helped me out upthread, I was able to get it working via:
uvx --from sqlit-tui --with psycopg2-binary sqlit
If you're not using uv, then you'll need to install psycopg2-binary in whatever environment you're using (probably via `pip install psycopg2-binary`).
One of your merits listed is "Pure JavaScript developer experience". I don't think most devs, even JS devs would consider this a merit lol. Cool project either way.
I'm skeptical of formal verification mainly because it's akin to trying to predict the future with a sophisticated crystal ball. You can't formally guarantee hardware won't fail, or that solar radiation will flip a bit. What seems to have had much better ROI in terms of safety critical systems is switching to memory-safe languages that rely less on runtime promises and more on compiler guarantees.
Most, if not all the points made in the article, seem to stem from a sense of "we need to optimize the code to be readable by mathemeticians, not programmers" which is fair, depending on what you're doing. But goes a bit overboard with the safety argument, which we've seen much better ROI by focusing on memory safety, rather than abstract mathematical proofs.
In fact, the entire safety argument is undermined by the author themselves:
> The engine is closed source. You cannot see how fft or ode45 are implemented under the hood. For high-stakes
engineering, not being able to audit your tools is a risk.
What's the point of optimizing your code to be easy for physicists/mathematicians to read for safety, when you can't even verify what the compiler will produce?
I suppose it basically boils down to whether your orgs engineering is run by academics or software engineers, but Matlab doesn't really do anything that python can't for free. And python is more accessible, has more use cases, and strong academic support already.
Elmo already cancelled out any progress made by buying a social media platform and getting the most anti-science anti-NASA admin in history elected. He's done a net negative on the world at this point, even if the scale is vastly larger than most people.
I'm not really interested in the problems that can come with orbital compute. We've seen them listed ad nauseam.
Have we seen any benefits to orbital computing by launching a cluster of raspberry pis to LEO? Surely this isn't an impossible task to test out on a smaller scale?
There isn’t really much benefit to having compute on orbit unless you’re working on VERY specific applications that have such tight latency requirements where you need to process the data immediately as it comes out of the sensor. In which case you just implement the algorithms in ASICs or FPGAs anyways.
There have been NVIDIA Jetsons or better on orbit since at least 2021 and that had no meaningful impact on any actual meaningful compute workloads beyond proof of concept demos.
The amount of people who think because something has a few useful edge cases being incompatible with a bubble is staggeringly high. Dot com was a bubble, and yet we still use the internet widely today. Real-estate was a bubble, and people still need a place to live and work.
Just because YOU find the technology helpful, useful, or even beneficial for some use cases does NOT mean it has been overvalued. This has been the case for every single bubble, including the Dutch Tulip mania.
UBI isn't about making financial sense it's about keeping the last traces of society duct taped together before it all collapses. Remove all pathways to a middle-class life and you're left with a populace on the precipice of violent revolts.
What I mean is that it simply would not work. The math doesn't add up. It would directly lead to Weimar levels of hyperinflation. Which is a far worse outcome.
Depends on how you define it, I suppose. The State of Alaska has been providing a universal basic income to its residents for almost half a century now, and that seems to work just fine.
Not enough to live on. In 2022, the payment was $3,284 per eligible resident, and the 2023 payment was $1,312. I could not easily find the 2024 figure. This is is paid once a year, not monthly.
Also - importantly - it is not an income tax revenue funded payment. It is a distribution of proceeds from a productive business.
Think of it this way: the entire world pays Alaska residents for the use of their oil, as a sort of tax that is worked into every energy intensive step of industry or petroleum-derived material.
Alaska's oil is only ~1% of world oil production, but its population is approximately 0.01% of world population, so Alaska residents get approximately 100x what the global per capita oil dividend would be. Oil industry is approximately 2.5% of global GDP. Stack all these multipliers together and we could expect a global per-capita total-GDP dividend of between $525 - $1325 per person per year. Exceeding this (as we did with PPP "loans" during COVID) would have compounding economic effects that lead to hyperinflation.
This is napkin math with spherical cow assumptions. Other factors would further limit UBI dividends to be less than this. But it shows that with existing national dividend systems as model, we can't even get within an order of magnitude of the low end of what UBI proponents are advocating.
I'm familiar with it. My point is that one needn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good: a UBI does not have to offer a full living income to be worth doing.
This is a highly recycled talking point that only applies to people lucky enough to live in the vicinity of Standford, UCLA, Mass Gen, Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins AND afford a visit and is extremely dismissive of the millions of other Americans who can't. Rural hospitals have been shuttered and some people have even been turned away at emergency rooms now. This claim simply does not match up to reality, no matter how many graphs you put together.
First error: "Connection failed, no module named 'psycopg2'"
reply