Over commit is a design choice, and it is a design choice that is pretty core to Linux. Basic stuff like fork(), for example, gets wasteful when you don't over commit. Less obvious stuff like buffer caches also get less effective. There are certainly places where you would rather fail at allocation time, but that isn't everywhere and it doesn't belong as a default.
The question that isn't answered completely in the article is how useful are the pipelines for these startups? The article certainly implies that for at least some of these startups there very little value add in the wrapper.
Right, but most browsers aren't owned by money-losing startups desperate for any bit of training data they can get their hands on as scaling taps out.
I really doubt OpenAI consciously wants my passwords, but I could absolutely see a poorly-coded (or vibe-coded, lol) OpenAI process somehow getting my keychain into their training set anyway, and then somebody being able to ask Chat-GPT 6, "hey, what's Analemma_'s gmail password?" and it happily supplying it. The dismal state of LLM scraper behavior and its support (or lack thereof) of adherence to best practices lends credibility to this.
Recently I have been doing several projects with my car in the shop.
I wouldn't say I was proud of the many many hours spent sitting in the shop and by any metric or observer, doing exactly nothing. On the other hand these hours were essential to success and the work would have gone better and been done quicker if I had spent more hours sitting doing nothing in close proximity to the work. (some time was spent very low productivity cleaning or arranging project related things, most time was spent quite literally sitting and apprantly doing nothing)
Its weirdly incorrect to zero index stuff like this. The zero index refers to the start of the first thing, which is not what numbered lists are supposed to indicate.
If I recall correctly, there were originally three freedoms, but then a fourth one was thought of and put at the front to give it prominence, numbering it as zero as not to disturb the original numbering.
Unless you think they'd add a "Freedom -1" in the event that they add a 5th even more important freedom, then this is clearly just selected because 0 indexed lists are cute to programmers
I think it’s most likely a combination of both: Freedom 0 was later added in the first place, and newly numbering the first place with 0 could likely only have been thought of by a programmer.
