skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This was an enjoyable read. While I don't often lose sleep over my code, (it's my kids that cause that), I do often find that my mind is working on solving coding puzzles in my sleep as I will frequently wake up with a spark of insight.
No. New clients use vector data, but even the web version will go back to bitmap tiles if your browser does not support WebGL, the GPU is slow or busy, etc.

There was a whole MapReduce (which Jeff Dean used for years in public talks to explain the concept), part of a larger pipeline, that converted the road and POI network into bitmap tiles. It didn't run by accident or maintain itself, so this is probably not a coincidence. :-)

Actually, with the push toward edits going live quickly and the styling/multilingual support in the Maps API, it's likely that a good chunk of tile traffic is rendered on the fly now, but the HTTP requests to the servers would look the same and there would still be enough demand for the stock tiles.
If Vulkan is the future, I wonder how mobile devs will make money if they can't target iOS.
> I see your point now, but is there a rolling release distribution that isn't bleeding edge?

I'd covered that in my first post as well (did you even read it? :P)

> without a release cycle, what exactly would they be waiting for?

Rolling release distros still have release cycles. eg they often have testing repos where many packages will be trialled before they hit the main repositories. Much like you see happen with packages which get updated between major releases on non-rolling release distros.

The difference between rolling release and non-rolling release is a bit less pronounced these days because even most non-rolling release distros now have easy upgrade paths from one major release version to the next. Heck with the Debian / Ubuntu derived distros you can just update your apt config to point to the next release repos and apt will carry on as if you're a rolling release distro. So I think the real difference between rolling release and non-rolling is simply just that you're given greater assurances[1] that you don't need to perform manual intervention during package upgrades outside of the major version upgrades where as with rolling release the risk of manual intervention can come without warning[2]

In terms of package stability, there's nothing stopping someone creating an Arch fork which runs packages a few months behind the main Arch repos. In fact I think that might have been the concept behind Arch Server - not that it ever took off.

So anyway, back to my original point: rolling release doesn't have to mean "unstable". It just means breaking changes don't all get held back until major milestones are reached. But that's often true for non-rolling release as well. It just so happens that most rolling release distros are also bleeding edge - and that is where the trope come from. So saying rolling release can only be unstable is akin to saying Redhat can only be bleeding edge if you only ever use Fedora.

[1] I was going to say "guaranteed" but that's not quite true either; eg FreeBSD will happily perform breaking changes to applications (within a major release version) if you're not careful what application versions are being installed

[2] This is also not quite true but many distros will warn you about breaking changes in their news feed. But also the package manager itself gives strong clues too (eg Apache 2.2.x -> 2.4.x will obviously result in manually updating some Apache config files).
Couldn’t you say the same of any Apple product? Initial release is tightly controlled but highly polished, and then capabilities are opened and exposed as specific demand grows. I bet homepods will either have full Spotify and Android support in a year, or that Apple will announce some kind of SDK for integrating voice apps
then it hits a ceiling

Or apparent ceiling. Sometimes ideas haven't really "ceilinged out" so to speak, but they've run into an artificial barrier due to available compute resources at a specific point in time, etc.

Somebody (Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Ng, I don't remember exactly) made the point that neural networks were in a pretty moribund place, until the confluence of three things came along: more compute power, more data, and algorithmic improvements. Given that, one wonders what other older ideas are waiting to be resurrected by a similar confluence.
Yup, nobody seems to be addressing the issue that we appear to have raised and enabled a generation of bullies using these technologies. Seems a vastly bigger issue than the medium itself, or the vague implication that it's the victim's fault for using social media in the first place.