GCP charging for interzone traffic is an interesting financial choice. They own all the infra and in many cases this is literally moving from building to building.

There's cross-region, and cross-zone. If both boxes are located within the same zone (e.g. us-east1) then the bandwidth is free, since it's intrazone traffic. Cross-zone egress traffic (e.g. us-east1 to us-central1) is billed at a certain rate, and cross-region egress traffic (e.g. us-east1 to europe-west8) is billed at a significantly higher rate.

Amusingly enough, ingress traffic seems to always be free. So you can upload as much data as you want into their cloud, but good luck if you need to get it out.

I am referring to cross-zone within in the same region, so like us-central1-a to us-central1-b. These are building to building and often never cross public land.

Oh, yes! I forgot entirely about that case. You're right, egress traffic is charged there too.

Are the datacenters really located so close together? I assumed they weren't within walking distance of each other.

Correct, they're close in the sense of country-scale geography but physically spaced to avoid specific issues like location on a flood plain.

You don't need the source, the LLM has the source, it is called the binary.

Sure, but all they have to do is not hold up their end of the bargain. Who enforces that? These are just norms from 60 years ago that the rich decided they no longer have to follow.

They’ve started treating incorporation like a modern day papal indulgence, something that absolves whatever they do in the name of profit. It doesn’t. Limited liability buys you forgiveness in court but it doesn’t buy you forgiveness in the court of public opinion. Doing harm for a company is still doing harm.

I hope this was presented at SIGBOVIK.

I love a dog and a cat and tree. I can respect someone not as intelligent as other folks. I'd love it we started holding the crude, mean and willfully ignorant to a higher standard.

That is where I put systems programmers, they need to extract an abstract algebra out of the domain. If they are able to accomplish this, the complexity of the problem largely evaporates.

Use the wrong abstraction and you are constantly fighting the same exact bug(s) in the system. Good design makes entire classes of bugs impossible to represent.

I don't believe the trope that you need to make a bunch of bad designs before you can do good. Those lessons are definitely valuable, but not a requirement.

A great example is the evolution from a layered storage stack to a unified one like ZFS. Or compilers from multipass beasts to interactive query based compilers and dynamic jits.

The design and properties of the system was always the problem I loved solving, sometimes the low level coding puzzles are fun. Much of programming is a slog though, the flow state has been harder and harder to achieve. The super deep bug finding, sometimes, if you satisfactorily found it and fixed it. This is the part where you learn an incredible amount. Fixing shallow cross module bugs is hell.

Don't you have to be really seasoned to in good faith, attempt to couple two systems and say where that would be productive? You can't prove this negative. I would imagine a place like that would have to have a very strong culture of building towards the stated goals. Keeping politics and personalities out of it as much as possible.

The scariest things I have ever seen are super hard-working programmers.

So much code, it wouldn't stop. Refactoring was harder than rewriting. Unit tests metastasized into bone. And now another PR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G9DNx7xIIc share link wouldn't load

Have you thought about moving to a Clojure shop?

Isn't this like saying types mix poorly with ASTs?