I read the article as saying it ignores all upper-bounds, and 4.0 is just an example. I could be wrong though - it seems ambiguous to me.
But if we accept that it currently ignores any upper-bounds checks greater than v3, that's interesting. Does that imply that once Python 4 is available, uv will slow down due to needing to actually run those checks?
Are there any plans to actually make a 4.0 ever? I remember hearing a few years ago that after the transition to 3.0, the core devs kind of didn't want to repeat that mess ever again.
That said, even if it does happen, I highly doubt that is the main part of the speed up compared to pip.
I think there's a future where we get a 4.0, but it's not any time soon. I think they'd want an incredibly compelling backwards-incompatible feature before ripping that band-aid off. It would be setting up for a decade of transition, which shouldn't be taken lightly.
That would deliver a blow to the integrity of the rest of that section because those sorts of upper bound constraints immediately reducible to “true” cannot cause backtracking of any kind.
He's calculating EV above cost. If you look at the calculation, the first term is -1000 to account for the initial investment. So the final value is tell you that you got back the initial money plus 900 more.
I feel like the process of editing my own stuff is at least as important as getting it down. That's when I go back through it and realize all the conclusions I leapt to, things I didn't thoroughly consider, and other flaws. I think people really undervalue writing as a focus tool. But maybe that's just me, YMMV.
I think the same thing about a lot of code, too. Sometimes you really are just hammering out boilerplate. But a lot of times even writing test code is a great opportunity to realize the main code could be improved. But the LLM probably won't tell you that.
They also mined by tearing apart mountains, and threw noticeable amounts of lead into the air doing it.
> Roman-era mining activities increased atmospheric lead concentrations by at least a factor of 10, polluting air over Europe more heavily and for longer than previously thought, according to a new analysis of ice cores taken from glaciers on France's Mont Blanc.
A lot less than modern technology manages, but a lot more than nothing. And that with a much smaller population.
I feel like PassKeys and browser-integrated password managers both solve this problem better already. And yeah they're extra things to do, but so is this.
There are recycling pilot projects out there, but yeah it's a problem.
Do you also wonder how we'll get rid of used coal power plants, massive piles of toxic fly ash, and tons of pollutants from natural gas plants? Because so far the answer is not good.
Nobody challenges it, but when someone says "I wonder how we'll get rid of the byproducts of solar", it obviously frames the discussion differently than "I wonder how much less impact the byproducts of solar have on the environment than those of coal".
How do we get rid of a fast reactor's spent parts?
(Yeah, it should be possible to design a reactor so it consumes more long-lived waste than it creates. But I don't think anybody ever bothered to do that.)
> I wouldn't say the planet "barely" supported life before the oxygenation event. Otherwise we wouldn't have as much fossil evidence as we have.
I believe you're talking about Earth, and the person you're responding to was talking about Mars. At least I don't think Mars had an oxygenation event or fossils?
But if we accept that it currently ignores any upper-bounds checks greater than v3, that's interesting. Does that imply that once Python 4 is available, uv will slow down due to needing to actually run those checks?
reply