> Under EU rules, if the goods you buy turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised, the seller must repair or replace them at no cost. If this is impossible or the seller cannot do it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to you, you are entitled to a full or partial refund. You always have the right to a minimum 2-year guarantee from the moment you received the goods. However, national rules in your country may give you extra protection.
> The 2-year guarantee period starts as soon as you receive your goods.
> If a defect becomes apparent within 1 year of delivery, you don't have to prove it existed at the time of delivery. It is assumed that it did unless the seller can prove otherwise. In some EU countries, this period of “reversed burden of proof” is 2 years.
When the founders are also the lead engineers, incentives are aligned. I asked the Ableton CEO at multiple events and expos to fix repeatable bugs, and add proper PDC, and he mocked me.
Yeah, I think four of the founders/initial employees were ex-Ableton people, it was a thing that was highlighted when Bitwig first launched (around 2014 maybe?), together with that they were also Berlin-based (because that matters...) and it had Linux support from day one :)
I'm not finding any first-hand sources about it, but remember that most articles at the time mentioned it one way or another.
On the other hand I once opened a ticket for Ableton Live 9 asking to fix an extremely annoying windows-only race condition when using midi at the same time from a Komplete Kontrol Instance and a regular track session session using an M-series Native Instruments keyboard, and they fixed it after a few weeks.
I did the same with Bitwig in 2022 and the bug it's still there.
He mocked you? Well, I am sure we would like to know more. In another comment someone said "at least developers have thought of others" because they dump their stuff in plaintext, but then you come out with such a story which makes me want to stay away from anything related to Ableton.
>but then you come out with such a story which makes me want to stay away from anything related to Ableton.
Knee-jerk responding like that to a random anecdotes by a random person on the internet, who might as well be total bullshit, is not exactly the most prudent software evaluation path.
Perhaps the "mocking" was just the CEO not placing the importance that the person thinks their request should. Or the CEO responded to rude incessant tone. Or the CEO had a bad day, and the parent was like the 10th person nagging their balls with their pet peeves at that show.
The amount of information to that comment is almost zero, and we don't know tons of context.
Oh geez, wonder what was wrong out of these 3 sentences.
1st: Bad?
2nd: Bad?
3rd: Bad?
Please bots, help me clear this up. :)
Down-vote afterwards, or I am sorry, is the down-vote for the 2nd? Cry me a river, then, for not liking Ableton. sighs. I prefer FL Studio.
I swear these down-votes are utterly useless. I will apply the previously mentioned uBlock rules so I will not see these pointless (!) down-votes.
God forbid I do not like the software you like. God forbid I am aware enough to realize it might be a bias. God forbid I ask for elaboration. God forbid I voice any of this.
Admission of "confirmation bias" doesn't make the comments about the software more valuable, it makes them less. Probably that's what drove the downvotes.
> doesn't make the comments about the software more valuable
I admitted to having confirmation bias, which influence my decisions. I think it is valuable to recognize and to admit to one's biases, regardless of the subject matter.
I never liked Ableton, and I still do not know if I should believe the guy, I would really like some details.
Seconded, I think even one such a story on HN for this specific topic, where big tech incentives aren’t that high, is a high quality signal of company rot.
sure, base your software decisions on random anecdotes on HN, from people who might had been rude themselves, misreading the response they got, or worse...
When you feel real love for your favorite celebrity convict, whose incompetence is beyond denying, you'll put your mind to work to search for any device that will enable you to excuse anything he does and who he nominates.
People will talk about "politicians being incompetent", or act like actually anyone who has ever been in the office was like this. It's a pretty close and comforting way to deal with the reality of supporting a fraud without having to admit that you were duped.
"A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed, faulty, or false reasoning"
What is the faulty reasoning here? Apart from "My side good, your side bad."
You can find incompetence in previous cabinet officials. This batch of cabinet officials has far more people who are far more incompetent and unqualified than any previous cabinet.
The faulty reasoning is saying that "this is just like previous administrations". It's not.
But the previous president was in the advanced stages of alzheimers and struggled to form coherent sentences. I think he alone beats anyone in the current organisation.
As opposed to the current guy, who hasn’t completed a sentence or a thought in twenty years and regularly goes off on tangents about black people eating pets. Great take. Love when you folks make it clear you’re just here to shitpost dishonestly.
Nor can the current guy remember things for more than the day and the then he admitted it live on tv after taking a dementia test!
Perhaps one of the more depressingly funny thing to learn is that in the first Trump term people would just steal papers and etc from Trump because by the end of the day he'd forget about something if there wasn't a sheet in front of him. And this would keep him from doing something crazy.
Maybe you're going to find out how much more immoral warlordism is. "Not having a government at all" is a weird fantasy of teenagers.
(the really odd combo is people who hold both the "government is immoral, especially the US federal government" and the "the US federal government should go to war with China" combo, which a few moments thought will show the contradiction)
Let's imagine we do go to warlordism and I do get to see how immoral it is.
At least I won't have to pretend that the coercion and theft is actually moral and good, right? At least I won't have to doublethink myself, turn myself inside out to justify the unjustifiable.
Ackonwledging the problem (immoral government) is just the first, esxential step towards making an actual difference. Why continue to pour in more effort to support an already failed system?
> I won't have to pretend that the coercion and theft is actually moral and good, right?
Of course you will. Not praising the warlord as moral and good will result in real physical consequences for disloyalty, maybe even summary death. As opposed to saying the same thing on HN when just your position is attacked.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
He did not say "companies vs individuals", he said "single maintainer", which is obviously a high risk factor to consider IMHO.
I wonder why they all start their own projects instead of putting their heads together. They could achieve so much more and make a bit more money on the side, while each of them would have to spend less time on it. It would also attract risk-averse companies.
This is true for most alternatives, but not for Coolify.
I am the second maintainer of Coolify and Andras and I maintain most of Core Coolify while we have 4 other maintainers helping with support and the docs and a few other maintainers who help with CLI and some other stuff.
Second this! I just got hired for a short-term project to extend a payment solution I once wrote when I was employed by that company.
I was amazed to find that a) nobody maintained the project after I left, there were only two minor fixes because their house was on fire, and b) I really took the time to write almost complete documentation on all the important topics, which helped me get back on track faster.
You are absolutely right, and I have experienced this most of the time. The problem is that it is an uphill battle to explain to most stakeholders why you are "wasting" so much time on non-customer facing documentation.
It is hard enough to convince even technical stakeholders (e.g. product owners) to write automated tests.
While at the time I mostly think it's bad, later on it forces them to pay me twice as much, so I guess it's not as bad as I always think in those moments :D
OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques.
I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit
Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.
Actually, not. These market makers are often prop shops. That means they use their own fund (prop = proprietary) to do the trading. They can do that because they don't need much capital to run.
So the story here is that over the last twenty years they stole the lunch from the traditional market makers like eg banks.
Of course, they got rich in the process. But they started from relatively modest means, compared to the companies they took on.
Michael Lewis's 'Flash Boys' is an hilarious account of this process. Well, it's involuntarily hilarious, because to tell his story, Lewis needs to cast Goldman Sachs (!) and other big banks as the victim. See the rebuttal 'Flash Boys: Not so fast' by Peter Kovac for more insight.
Perhaps some start this way. But in terms of the general trend of talented engineers and mathematicians being sucked into this quant vortex, it is a matter of making wealthy people wealthier.
Automation in trading makes all investors wealthier via lower fees. Trading costs basically nothing nowadays, and that is because far fewer people are employed to do it.
Obviously, the people who own the automation will want a cut of the rewards, like any other business.
Obviously NASDAQ and electronic trading systems are a good innovation. But firms basically doing arbitrage or exploiting uneven network latency are not that economically productive.
Well lowering market spreads is all about increasing the returns for capital, and incenctivising overfinancialisation. It's hardly curing cancer is it?
At worst it's actively harmful if you believe that the current state of turbo-financialised capitalism has its drawbacks.
> Network latency
Not really sure what you're talking about but surely spending billions of dollars to bring rtt latencies to 50 micros or whatever is not really a great use of money and top engineering talent. Again, it's playing an arbitrage game but not really delivering any value.
lol I said "closeted dictator" for the record. But alrighty why don't we start over and see if we can both argue in good faith. I can certainly be a dick on the internet sometimes.
I honestly can't tell what your concrete points are. I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. If people can find ways to profit off market inefficiencies, they should! The HFT/Quant firms make their arbitrage money (value for them) and all market participants in return see: (non-exhaustive list)
If your bar is that "all smart people should be working on curing cancer or andrepd-approved endevours" then almost nobody in the economy is providing value. Is my lowly SecEng job at $MEGACORP good enough? What about my buddy who writes firmware for toothbruhes? Are professional starcraft players wasting their talents?
> EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol
This debate has been going on for ages, and it's silly to pretend that it's been settled and everyone agrees with you.
> I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled.
This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me.
For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities. We've moved on from Victorian-era child and slave labour for good reasons, even though such a situation was "naturally occurring" at the time. Moreover economic activity is dictated by cultural mores - if your service is morally reprehensible in some way then you won't get much business whatever your matgins are. Economies are inherently subject to the laws and customs of the agents.
Secondly, some regulation is pretty clearly beneficial. For example, there's a recurrent tendency for market power to concentrate in modern economies; we need robust anti-trust regulation to prevent consumers from getting ripped off and to prevent fragile supply chains. A well-conisdered balance of public and private provision supports the least well-off in society while allowing room for the fruits of individual flourishing.
Thirdly, we must consider what makes one economic system better than others. One way to measure this is to look at how efficiently it converts resources to social utility. I'm far from convinced that it's efficient to employ our brightest minds to build trading models with brief lifespans so that investors who are already well-off become slightly more so. It's worth investigating what regulations and incentives could put those minds towards things of greater value - solving climate change, cancer, sending humans into space etc... .
> This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me.
I really do not appreciate this mischaracterization of my position. Focus on my actual words. I don't care about 'winning' this online argument. I take effort to engage because I am disturbed by the number of intelligent people who believe if only _THEY_ were in charge (or at least the right person), we would be able to fix all of society's problems.
> For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities...
I agree with everything that follows. Government needs to be around to keep the peace. I want to be explicit: When I say "centrally planned/controlled economies" I am NOT talking about the general concept of regulation. If you are debating in good faith, this should be obvious. Look at all the history of failed states who tried to implement top-down control of their economies.
Also, YSK that not all regulators are government entities.
> Thirdly, we must consider what makes one economic system better than others. One way to measure this is to look at how efficiently it converts resources to social utility.
Never before in history has mankind been so prosperous. What system would you like to emulate? The US capitalist system is not perfect (and never will be)...but it blows all of its peers out of the water in terms of economic prosperity. Here's a couple data points: (Please read the technical definitions if you are truly interested in this subject)
> I'm far from convinced that it's efficient to employ our brightest minds to build trading models...
This is where my "closeted dictator" quip comes from. Nobody is "allocating" these minds...they are acting on their own free will. Why should you or anyone else be the arbiter? What if individuals disagree with your beliefs? Space exploration is a great example of a debatable "worthy endeavor"
Do you mean that high salaries indicate a demand in the market? Not much argument there, although it is sometimes the case that large companies hire talent purely to starve competition. But what I'm really questioning is whether those high salaries translate to value to society.
Some fraction of young minds, not all. I was happy to work at a small aerospace company with extreme concentration of brightest minds. Only because they loved the domain, and didn't mind a salary cut. What a joy and relief it was for me after FAANG!
No, I eventually left because money, I needed to save for a house.
Most of the staff were locals, so already had own/inherited property to live in. After FAANG it was new to work with mostly locals, way more stories about the surroundings.
Absolutely. The moral aspect is certainly questionable. Although, I wouldn't say "all brightest minds" are going to neglect their moral concerns for getting rich
To be honest, even this is morally questionable. It makes superficial sense in that someone else will do the work if you don't. But this happening on a large scale is still a drain on talent that could hopefully be used for work of greater social value.
Is the problem with the system or with the minds? The minds that want to scroll are the same as the ones that make money on the scrolling, that made the scrolling itself, and that made the system we're in. Why is it that defeatist comments always focus on the capitalism part and not on anything else? I don't think it's perfect like we aren't perfect but unless you have some particular suggestion this type of comment just reads "boohoo the world is bad and it's not my fault".
> Why is it that defeatist comments always focus on the capitalism part and not on anything else
Because endless growth is the only reason these once fun spaces have been hyper focused to be as addictive and stressful as possible to the "whales" of scrolling. That's why, when their own internal reports say "people spend unhealthy time on our platform and it's making them unhappy," it gets passed up the chain of command and whittled down by internal incentives until it dies as an issue.
Individuals hold some blame, but to put most of it on them is to ignore what growth demands. You're supposed to doomscroll and engage and worry. That's the business model. Facebook is in the same business as Cigarettes and Casinos. When I see someone on an air tank playing slots, literally crying when they spend their last dollar, I will not waste my breath blaming them. Just like I won't blame the doomscroller, anxious that they need to stay "informed," who hasn't met the basic needs in their own life.
> The minds that want to scroll are the same as the ones that make money on the scrolling
No? Where are you getting this? I don't think the people guiding these companies want to spend 6 hours scrolling TikTok. This is not the way most people live their lives.
> No? Where are you getting this? I don't think the people guiding these companies want to spend 6 hours scrolling TikTok. This is not the way most people live their lives.
I meant they are all humans. We're all sort of the same. If you disagree just think of your opinion of any other species, or about a group of people a thousand years ago, and you see what I meant.
Would they also change the aliasing assumptions to something close to C/C++? Otherwise I imagine it would be relatively easy to make mistakes and get "surprises" at runtime thanks to the optimizer.
I’m guessing you navigated to the https://mise.jdx.dev/environments.html page and saw the TOML syntax (which looks an awful lot like INI), and confused yourself.
Mise (like a lot of software) uses TOML as the format for its config files (as opposed to something like JSON). Mise reads that config, to automatically export environment variables on a per directory tree basis.
When the docs refer to environment variables, they very literally do mean environment variables. The values of which are taken from a format that resembles INI, as you have noticed.
Environment variables are key/value pairs that are passed from parent process to child process when the child is first created. A convention has also arisen where these can be put into environment files so the overarching system (for example, docker) can load them from a consistent place (without having to add them to your shell and risk leakage across projects) and then pass them down to child processes in typical environment variable fashion.
Also there are no sections like there are in ini files.
