This is exactly why I switched to Aurora. I couldn't even install Balatro from the Play Store.

I believe copyright timeframes have gotten WAY out of hand and need to be reigned in to something more sensible, but I still think it's a valuable concept and don't want to see it abolished.

Patents on the other hand have become a total joke and I'd be happy to see them gone.

As it is now, it’s a joke. Essentially new laws are continuously introduced to make disney’s junk forever inaccessible. No author, no animator, no one except disney share holders wants these shit laws.

A 10% reduction in cache size in exchange for a 4% slowdown doesn't seem obviously worthwhile to me, especially when it comes at an increase in complexity.

Percentages aren't always the right gauge. uv isn't something I run frequently or for long periods of time. It's like a couple seconds every month or whatever. I would rather spend an extra second waiting every year to have hundreds more megabytes all the time.

When actively developing Python projects, running uv a dozen times per hour isn't unusual. Those seconds add up fast. Whereas freed disk space remains unused.

warm cache case is only imperceptibly slower, no?

True, haven't read the source and only went by what the other commenter said. But one could argue 500MB more free space is similarly imperceptible.

There are still many environments with <=250GB, below that I wouldn't call it negligible. And let's not forget that the price per GB has appreciated a LOT!

They're likely the same environments that can't keep warm cache in memory, so the performance penalties are higher too.

You could reverse the last sentence to "freed disk space reduces the need to clean the hd". And I don't even mean physical limitation as much as the compulsion to manually clean ballooning cache dirs once in a while.

Overprovisioning also reduces the need to clean the disk. I've had a terabyte Macbook for over a year, developing in 7 different tech stacks simultaneously, never cleaning anything up manually, and I still have over 60% space left.

It's a tradeoff between wasting a little time everyday vs. wasting equally little time every year or so but also having the mental load of cleaning up plus maybe existential dread vs. spending more money to never have either problem. I do understand the last one isn't an option for everyone, but if it is, it's absolutely worth it.

Whereas I made a mistake and bought an underspeced MacBook and my 512GB disk is constantly on the brink of full as I reclaim the last 40 GB over and over from different caches, downloads, and wherever else and had to simply give up on several projects because of their disk usage.

Disk isn't free, especially now.

Exactly my experience, even worse because for me it's 2x256GB drives. Eventually I bit the bullet and upgraded one of them to 1TB, but not the one my root partition is mounted on (too lazy for that), so now I find myself moving various large directories across to my "extra" drive and symlinking them. Funnily enough I don't remember this ever being a problem back when 50GB was considered a lot.

Because when 50gb was a lot, by the time you filled it, 200 GB was cheap and a non event.

Yea, I remember when the family computer had a 40MB hard drive and it was never ever filled to capacity. Now I’m wondering how many new disks to add to my ZFS pool, and when. And how to budget for it.

We upgraded our 40MB harddrive to a 210MB, as it was constantly getting filled up. I was wondering what on earth to do with all this space, it seemed limitless.

A week later I was cleaning up disk space again...

I don't disagree. But if you're in that position, surely you'd be better off emptying the cache and disabling it?

The things which use my disk are things like package caches in several languages, build artifacts in both release and debug, multiplied by worktrees, things like iOS device support and release files + simulators, docker containers and related.

I had to give up on things like Lean theorem prover projects and VM projects because the disk space wasn't there.

The causes of disk waste are manifold and usually can't just be disabled and even when they can the result is constant rebuilding, redownloading, etc.

Too many developer products act like disk and memory is free to waste and the consequences have gotten ridiculous.

Making things faster is much easier than making things smaller. I'm sure we can win back a 4% slowdown elsewhere since we have so many more levers to pull from.

Yeah, my bigger worry here is more about if somebody direct edits a file in their venv and uv was unable to make the venv with reflink/COW semantics and fell back to hardlinks.

This could happen with a user asking their editor to show definition, and then not realizing the result was in some other package, changing it, and saving it, but only if the editor's normal atomic replace mode is disabled. So perhaps that sounds farfetched. But if an AI agent wants to patch some package in a venv, I've seen them bypass the editor and use command line tools to make edits often enough to be concerned. Like corrupting the cache for one package version is already not ideal, and this could potentially affect multiple versions now?

I suppose is this happens the right fix is to nuke the cache completely?

>especially when it comes at an increase in complexity.

Or (nasty) bugs hard to debug

What you describe is a goal we should absolutely strive for - and one we are clearly falling short of. At the same time it's foolish to describe the US as being on the opposite side of the spectrum. I dare say it's even dangerous, as it encourages a sense of hopelessness and disregard for laws and civility.

> it encourages a sense of hopelessness and disregard for laws and civility.

That is true. I hope that people sees my comment as a push to do better, not a reason to give up. Things are never perfect, anywhere. And that's why we should continue pushing for more equality, defending the environment and making better the live of working class people.

that's funny, i see hope (reproductive futurity/the child; see edelman, hocquenghem) as what keeps us under the yoke of capital and oppression, and a disregard for laws and civility as a brief act of jouissance and a moment out of time where one could experience actual freedom and liberty. positive nihilism as a praxis that rejects all external constraints, imposed social mores, authorities, etc. it's only dangerous if you're currently benefiting from the various systems of oppression the hold up capital and civ.

You put way too much faith in kids' desire to learn and their ability to make responsible choices.

> Homework should be optional material for self study, evaluated by teachers if you choose to do it but never forced.

My wife is a teacher and her school does this. The result is that nobody does homework. The kids who need the extra practice don't get it and they fall into a spiral of failure and apathy. This is especially bad for subjects like math that build on themselves.

IMO the better solution is to require and grade shorter homework and provide students with optional, supplementary assignments that can be used to make up for missed credit on homework for the same material. That way students who grasp the material quickly can demonstrate and move on while others who need practice are naturally encouraged to get it without being permanently punished for struggling initially.

Homework is no longer useful in the era of AI. Options are: treat kids like they are able to make responsible choices, and accept that much more of them will fail; or, keep the charade of grading AI-"assisted" homework and push kids farther along the track, even though they definitely don't know enough.

I much prefer the first.

School shouldn't be impossible, but you shouldn't have a charade of schooling.

Obviously, extra practice is a good idea.

It's not necessarily useless. If you make assignments short, provide some time in school to work on it, and do not allow students to use devices with access to general-purpose "AI", then there is a good chance most students will do the work like they're supposed to. Some will still cheat, but it's foolish to reorganize everything around the few who stubbornly refuse to learn.

> provide some time in school to work on it

Assignments students do in class isn't "homework". It's just classwork. All my math classes had both.

Perhaps you mean study halls? Those were uncommon until highschool where I grew up. And most of the time people spent there was not studying.

It's "homework" in the sense that it is not bound to the class. It is not due during class and if you can't finish it in class, you'll have to complete it out of class.

And I mean setting aside some time during the class itself, not a separate "study hall" period. Obviously class time is precious, so I don't expect there to always be enough in-class time to finish assignments. But even having a little in-class time for students to get started - and when the teacher is available for help those in need - would go a long way towards encouraging students to do the work themselves and not cheat.

And of course part of my strategy is to make "homework" shorter (5-15 min). That should also reduce the temptation to cheat and increase the likelihood students can even complete them in class.

Thanks for elaborating. That does seem worthwhile.

Git gets you 90% of the way there. Sounds like you just want a decentralized review solution to go with it.

Good. Git is a decentralized version control solution. It's built for this. The centralization around GitHub was beneficial for the initial proliferation of Git, but has long since become a net negative. The "community" you speak of was never bound to GitHub. Better alternatives have emerged and for many it's time to move to greener pastures.

If you're still using Facebook, it's because you're required to or you're the kind of person who won't be fazed by this.

Correct, for better or worse facebook is the meeting ground for many communities and if you are in those communities you have to use it.

Marketplace. It's horrible, but the area I live in has mostly abandoned craigslist and if you want to buy/sell used stuff, marketplace is where you have to be.

I feel like Craigslist squandered its effective monopoly with online classifieds.

While I do not think that the company needed to modernize the site’s UI, it baffles me that their anti-spam tools are so rudimentary. Most searches yield irrelevant keyword-bombed results, and, such results tend to be nearly identical listings.

I had yearned for a viable Craigslist alternative for years. Sadly, Facebook Marketplace won. I don’t feel comfortable searching for anything due to the fact that Facebook will inevitably use my queries to further profile me.

It wouldn't have helped. In Australia we have Gumtree which has a UI that is just as modern as Facebook but it was still crushed. No one can compete in a space that lives on network effect.

I recently perused Marketplace, and it appears to be so thoroughly infested with barely disguised scams, bogus prices and other garbage as to be usable by only the most intrepid and determined shoppers.

Marketplace aggressively curates to your searches and interactions. So much so you have to be careful with your browsing otherwise your recommendations get off.

My guess is that the default state is the scam garbage. It quickly learns your preferences. Which I hate. I miss having my 5 sections of craigslist I could browse over my morning coffee and not feel like I'm missing a deal.

It really depends on what you're looking for, there's a lot of great stuff in my local area, but there's also a lot of shit too

If the Karrot buy/sell app has launched in your area, I recommend it. Think of it as Kijiji if eBay had not stopped investing in it.

You are comparing individual human observation with an automated surveillance network. Their capabilities are vastly different. It's like comparing a taser with an M1 Abrams tank.

Why on earth would I go to a game store to buy a code?

Because they have a better price?

How can a physical store that pays rent possibly beat a website that costs $10/month to host?

Because the margin on digital goods is effectively 100%. As long as a retailer can secure a license for less than the publisher directly charges customers, they can undercut the publisher and still make a profit.

At least in theory. I'm not sure GS is making it through this decade, because it doesn't seem like there's enough volume to make that work.

The physical stores already beat that website despite offering physical discs in physical cases.

For how long ?