Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more programmarchy's commentslogin

For one, ffmpeg is 9 years older than Go. Plus, when dealing with video files a garbage collected language probably isn't going to cut it. C++ and Obj-C also feel overkill for ffmpeg.


Apparently someone has not read the article, otherwise you would have had understood my point about Go.

Secondly, Apple and Microsoft, do just fine with Objective-C and C++ for their video codecs, without having to manually implement OOP in C.


CoreVideo and CoreAudio are both implemented in C on Apple systems. There are higher level APIs like AVFoundation implemented in Obj-C/Swift, but the codecs themselves are written in C. Even the mid-level frameworks like AudioToolbox and VideoToolbox are written in C. I’m not as familiar with Microsoft but imagine it’s similar.

Also the article doesn’t actually mention OOP. You can use polymorphism without fully buying into OOP (like Go does).

The great thing about C is its interoperability, which is why it’s the go to language for things like codecs, device drivers, kernel modules, etc.


I bet they are actually C++ with extern "C" public APIs.

Additionally Metal is implemented in Objective-C, with Swift and C++ bindings.


One explanation would be an agreement with Putin softening support for Iran in exchange for US softening support for Ukraine.


Lol, Russia has long sold Iran whatever it wants in exchange for drones.


Right, and if US made a deal with Russia to cease their support for Iran, then they become much more vulnerable to an attack by Israel and US.


I don't think Iran is buying anything that can be turned off.

There is no trust between players in the axis of evil.


"lol" is not evidence. There is no evidence IRI is getting anything from RF.

Khamenei studied as a student in USSR prior to the revolution. He is likely a Russian asset. Nothing else can explain the decisions of that "ayatollah". The other day an Isreali news site reported Iran is not on the list of invitees to the May 9 goose stepping show in Moscow. (Israel is invited). IRI got sanctioned for giving drones to RF and now Russia will get off the list while IRI sanctions remain. Russia supports UAE regarding their bs claims on 3 strategic micro-islands in the Persian Gulf. The fabled S-400 have never ever been offered to IRI, and IRI previously had to sue (yes) Russia to finally get the S-300s that they had long ago paid for, which then promptly got bombed by Israel. The list goes on and on ..

"Back to school now" for Ali Khamenei - I bet you didn't know this. In fact curious as to where you even get actual news about IRI if you don't speak Persian ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN_oEJEp9Ro [1:38 ..]


Glad to hear this. I’m planning to use Vault in a new project that has sensitive security concerns. I liked Hashicorp’s concept of “encryption as a service” as a way of protecting engineering teams from cryptographic footguns.


I’m not super familiar with browser notifications, but I want to use them in my next project. Does this library make it easy to add push notifications to my web app similar to airship for mobile app push notifications?


Great post. I discovered SSE when building a chatbot and found out it’s what OpenAI used rather than WebSockets. The batteries-included automatic reconnection is huge, and the format is surprisingly human readable.


Is anyone using Prometheus / Grafana for LLM metrics? Seems like there’s a lot of existing leverage there. What makes LLM metrics different than other performance metrics? Why not use a single system to collect and analyze both?


Don't see a problem with YC "dutching" and spreading their bets across multiple forks/teams.


I just forked the vs code repo and didn't screw up statements on a license for a business model. I'm clearly the superior hedge and I'll be waiting for my check.


"Fork you"


Nah, go fork yourself.

But seriously, this has got to feel pretty shite for continue. What is their impetus to roll out new features when they know that pear can focus on only the icing on top of that milestone, inherently making continue look like a less polished version of pear, when in fact they were the innovators?

I think what we have here is an antisynergy of the incentives baked into open-source and capital speculation. It’s a recursion bug that undermines the incentive structure, and YC was foolish to be so disloyal to their partners.


I have no clue man. Dial me in when you do.

I don't see many AI companies reaching billion dollar valuations and I don't see any AI company retaining billion dollar valuations in the next five to ten years.


Yeah, building on AI is tricky, because no matter what you are up to, gpt12 is coming to eat your lunch lol.

I think the safest bet is in niches where you bring unusual or hard to obtain datasets to the table. Training data is the only moat.


What you need is a good value added Spork.


you're obviously joking, but it'd be interesting if you actually tried :)

people seem so caught up in founders' particular ideas at the pre-seed stage and forget that YC is investing in people - specifically: people who try. you can jokingly quip that you'd be better at forking vs code, but at the end of the day they're doing it - not "waiting for their check" - and you're making fun of them on the internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


> people seem so caught up in founders' particular ideas at the pre-seed stage and forget that YC is investing in people - specifically: people who try.

Are they? Seems like based on this YC alum [0], the reality these days is otherwise.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697032


You're right, I am joking. I have my own ventures that carry some dignity. It's also premature for a claim that they are "people who try" as they have not produced anything except mistakes and apologies.

Also, maybe consider you're spending your time baselessly defending strangers on the internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


When there's gold rush, sell shovels: create a startup with an AI product for defending other AI startups' blatantly unimaginative idea.


It does dispel the myth that YC is simply investing in founders. They are really investing in the ideas that the partners like and then finding teams who are capable of delivering on it.

Which is of course fine but you see Dalton's Request for Startups and I've not seen only a tiny handful in the last two batches.


Due to YC's large batch sizes and the consolidation of industries such as AI, increasing numbers of YC startups are now directly competing with each other.


When 98% of your "product" is a thin wrapper around chatGPT, you will of course end up competing against every other product that is a thin wrapper around chatGPT.


As someone (not YC funded) who is developing exactly such an app, I've wondered about this ...


Not really. The medical ChatGPT wrappers don't compete with the legal ChatGPT wrappers or the code editor ChatGPT wrappers. It has been argued (ad nauseam) that ChatGPT itself competes with all the wrappers, not that the wrappers compete with each other.


> . It has been argued (ad nauseam) that ChatGPT itself competes with all the wrappers, not that the wrappers compete with each other.

This makes more sense now that I think about it.


They don't compete right now, but surely the architecture of the system will be quite similar, or solve very similar types of challenges. So it should become easier to jump domains when these solutions mature.


This seems completely wrong.

A legal wrapper will use domain specific legal expertise to structure and develop their product and functionality. It will likely have many functions that are specifically optimized for the legal use case.

If a wrapper can easily move across many domains, then the wrapper likely adds little value to the base model.


VCs will frequently invest in competing startups to hedge their bets.


It's not an either-or, though, is it? Why can't we both improve developing the native population and siphon the best and brightest from everywhere else?


The linked PDF (Storm-2035 [1]) from Microsoft is more detailed and interesting than the blog post. However, what's missing from the reports is how they detected those operations and how they tied them to different groups. There's a lot of claims being made without showing all of the supporting evidence.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, they likely want to keep their detection methods secret to make circumvention more difficult. And it all sounds totally plausible of course. But at the same time, a degree of skepticism is warranted because Microsoft has a huge incentive to fearmonger about AI so they can lock it down and capture the market. And what better way is there than to use the usual bogeymen to do so.

[1] https://cdn-dynmedia-1.microsoft.com/is/content/microsoftcor...


Having worked at Microsoft for almost a decade, I remember chatting with their security people plenty after meetings. One interesting thing I learned is that Microsoft (and all the other top tech companies presumably) are under constant Advanced Persistent Threat from state actors. From literal secret agents getting jobs and working undercover for a decade+ to obtain seniority, to physical penetration attempts (some buildings on MS campus used to have armed security, before Cloud server farms were a thing!).

Microsoft is one of the few companies that goes toe to toe with world governments every day of the year.

And I imagine balancing that next to all the engineers who demand admin access everywhere is a royal pain!

Although the best Government VS Business story I heard was during intern orientation at Boeing about French agents breaking into Boeing employee's hotel rooms during a conference in France while the employees were out to dinner, and going through laptops. One of the employees returned earlier than expected, and the men in suits shut the laptop, turned around and walked out of the room w/o saying anything!


> Microsoft is one of the few companies that goes toe to toe with world governments every day of the year.

It's also the company which was the first and longest member of PRISM, meaning very deep ties to the less savory parts of the US gov and {five,nine,fourteen} eyes. I know it's a boring advice, but I'd take this kind of declaration with a truckload of salt.


I remember a blogpost from OpenAI maybe a year ago that went into great detail about how they find these bad actors.


Wow, that's an amazing achievement.

At one point, UE had an option to build for HTML5, which was later deprecated and offloaded to a community fork [1] which was abandoned. So I thought it'd never happen. Well done!

[1] https://github.com/UnrealEngineHTML5


A friend and I forked UE4 a while back and stripped all of the bloat to try and get it running well on a shit-tier Chromebook. We only stripped it down to 30 mb, but the end result (physics + terrain) ran way smoother than any Unity game I've played on that ToasterBook.

Plot twist: people stop writing casual games in Unity and switch to Unreal to target low-end hardware.

Needless to say: as someone who spent my teens and early 20s working on multiplayer web games, I'm incredibly excited for this.


The problem is the editor, it still needs too much RAM when Unity doesn't, and that makes people drop it. Whether UE reduced the bloat indies would move instantly.


Oh please. Any gaming laptop can run the ue5 editor.


Yeah, I guess Epic expects indies to have plenty of resources. They can keep waiting for mass adoption of UE.


If I were an indie game dev, I'd rather pay for hardware resources than Unity license fees. It's $2K/year even if you're not making money yet. There is a free version but it's heavily limited (no physics, no VR).


Unity is free, can publish for free, it includes physics.


Unity is not free if you're part of a team that has made $100k in the last 12 months. Including funds raised.

Unreal is free, per project, until that specific project has earned over $1M in revenues.


Epic probably does expect the indie devs to have laptops, yes.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: