The full story for those curious, from Plato's dialogue Phaedrus 14, 274c-275b:
Socrates: I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters.
Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. But Thamus asked what use there was in each, and as Theuth enumerated their uses, expressed praise or blame, according as he approved or disapproved.
"The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, "This invention, O king," said Theuth, "will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered." But Thamus replied, "Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.
"For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."
WSL2 with code inside the Linux file system? Because if you're doing Linux work on the Windows file system, it will be bad. It is at native speeds inside the Linux file system though.
I remember no questions being asked when I set up WSL2.
I really doubt that WSL2 will be at native speed with the Linux file system, because reads and writes still have to go through Windows kernel to be mapped into actual hardware reads/writes.
> I really doubt that WSL2 will be at native speed with the Linux file system, because reads and writes still have to go through Windows kernel to be mapped into actual hardware reads/writes.
No, Linux is running alongside Windows, not under it. Windows itself is virtualized when WSL2 is turned on, and both Linux and Windows run under Hyper-V. It's quite fancy actually.
> Windows itself is virtualized when WSL2 is turned on
Is there documentation/explainer for this? I've been trying to understand more about this (was this a change in Windows 11? Is it only when WSL2 is installed?) for a while now, but not found anything apart from stray HN comments every now and then.
It's the fundamental difference between WSL1 and WSL2. As designed in the 90s, the Windows NT kernel can have different subsystems that offer different userspace APIs to different software. Originally there were the Win32 subsystem, the Security subsystem, the Posix subsystem and the OS/2 subsystem. The latter two fizzled out, but WLS1 is basically just another subsystem that provides a linux-compatible API to the Windows kernel. As it turns out providing full compatability is really hard though, so WSL2 is a complete rewrite, ignoring the subsystem concept. It basically just runs linux in Hyper-V, and adds some UI/UX to make that convinient.
That Windows is then running virtualized is just how Hyper-V works, as soon as you turn on Hyper-V the host Windows runs as a guest in Hyper-V, though with special privileges [1]
> WLS1 is basically just another subsystem that provides a linux-compatible API to the Windows kernel
WSL1 is not an NT subsystem, either. WSU (the POSIX subsystem) was an actual NT subsystem, but with WSL, they abandoned this concept and went with a different design for performance reasons.
> I remember no questions being asked when I set up WSL2.
If the (WSL) path to your project is inside ~/ it's on the linux file system. If it's in /mnt/c/ it's in the Windows filesystem. In WSL1 those were about equally fast, both going throught the windows kernel. With WSL2, accessing /mnt/c/ from Linux has to go through Windows, and accessing \\wsl$ from Windows has to go through Linux, so where you put the files decides where they are fast.
> In WSL1 those were about equally fast, both going throught the windows kernel
Yes, WSL1 was great. I hope it will never be sunset, as I need good IO performance.
> where you put the files decides where they are fast.
I also also hope we'll eventually get an option to pass partitions to HyperV, which is currently possible only with full disks.
It would be a return to the previous WSL1 level of performance for files within a NTFS partition: even if you'd need a separate NTFS partition, that'd be a minor nuisance to guarantee performance.
> I really doubt that WSL2 will be at native speed with the Linux file system
I had the same doubts, but when I finally took the time to install it, I found
out that I was wrong. One Java program that I use, which is very heavy
on the filesystem and slow like hell under Windows it a LOT faster under WSL2.
As Java profiler support is poor on Windows, I now use WSL2 to run async-profiler
sessions and get results as accurate as on native Linux.
EDIT to add: you really have to run things fully in the WSL2 filesystem, be it for compiling
or using a program. The performance is awful if you run WSL2 processes under the Windows
filesystem.
So? You need a computer to run any code at all. I bought a used Mac for very cheap last year, the first Apple product I've owned in ~35 years of working in and around the computer industry. I don't feel ripped off.
> From a business perspective, you don't want to alienate developers who work to build your ecosystem.
This does not follow, in Twitter's case. If Twitter's API made them money, they wouldn't have shut it down, but it's the exact opposite, it costs them money while providing no monetary benefit. So in this case, from the business perspective, it is correct to start charging for it.
Now they could spend 3 months but with debt service payments of a billion dollars a year, I highly doubt that they have the patience to wait that long.
The number of users kept via the API is not as high as people might think, so I would actually agree that if that's the case, then Musk correctly shut off the API for people who weren't bringing in more benefits than the costs they were incurring.
Frankly the guy designed rockets that landed for the first time ever so I think he probably has the brain capacity to make this calculation.
He might not be great at decisions where people and politics are involved, but this isn’t one of those decisions. But some people here on HN really want to believe he’s an idiot, which he’s not.
Can we please stop saying that the CEO of a company did anything but lead a company (not to downplay the difficulty of leading a company). Musk certainly did not design rockets that land themselves. I highly doubt that he could even write down (let alone solve) the main important equations when asked. It's funny how some execs are attributed with doing everything (Jobs and Musk are the main ones), while nobody would say Adani dug up coal from the ground.
Watching even 1 video of an everyday astronaut interview with Musk makes it completely obvious you are completely wrong. And so do tonnes of testimonials on quora from spacex employees.
Musk is the chief engineer of spacex rockets. He's not just a CEO.
Do a little research before making comments like this.
Twitter API is what publishers use to bring content onto Twitter. That content is a reason why other users visit Twitter. With that content gone, Twitter is a lot less attractive to many.
Will be interesting to observe ... will publishers pay? Will users enjoy without those?
The gp comment is talking about the indirect benefits of having an API, which is a large number of free developers and researchers help you improve your product at a pretty low cost (compared to if you paid them directly
Human made objects will become more of a status symbol, and "content" will still be directed/produced/edited by humans, it's just the art/writing/acting/sets/lighting/etc that will be handled by AI. Humans will always serve as "discriminators" of model output because they're better at it (and more transparent) than a model.
It didn't allow me to tap anywhere at first, so I was a bit confused as well.
Once it did unlock interaction it seems fairly straightforward though. I am very much not part of the target audience though, but you write in each time block what you want to do (or have it as a break). And then, you follow it throughout the day. For people who really need something to follow, to get things done and to avoid procrastination.
Strange response, looks like the parent said (a few times even) they're not exempt morally but seems like you're still trying to insinuate that the parent thinks they are.
Please quote me the sentences where the parent says they are not morally exempt.
>"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?
Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality.
The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication.
The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.
What is inhumane about it? I've read your other comments too, it doesn't really seem like you're arguing in good faith when you state superlatives like "this is the most inhumane thing I've read today" or "this is the worst take I've seen in forever on this topic" or "I am going to be incredibly rude now." Please make your points without resorting to such extreme language.
Extreme language does not take away from any of my points I have written an entire essay worth of points and got zero engagement on it. Why will I try to write more?
