Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | the-grump's commentslogin

"Your IP address 104.28.103.15 has been used for unauthorized accesses and is therefore blocked! Your IP address belongs to Cloudflare and is being used by many users, some of which are hackers and hide behind the cloud/proxy to avoid being tracked down. Hence the automatic defense closed access from that IP address.

"Make sure to not use a proxy/cloud service for visiting AVH (e.g. Apple Users turn off your private relay) but your native IP address, then access should be possible without a problem again."

No thank you, AV Herald.


That's a pretty nice message. Most sites that filter VPNs and proxies just kill the connection, give a generic error, or subject you to endless captchas.


They could've blocked just the comments, allowing at least read-only access to the site, instead of blocking it off entirely


So could everyone that blocks network traffic for various reasons, but usually they don't because they're not doing it in the primary application layer, but using a WAF or reverse proxy or something else in front of their application... and also most DGAF to cater specifically to the users they block.

Again, you're usually lucky to even get a return packet.


I block all traffic from Cloudflare outright on my servers.

Every so often they sneak in new blocks of IP addresses though so you're playing whack-a-mole with a particularly scummy opponent.


They're pretty upfront about their ranges:

https://www.cloudflare.com/en-au/ips/

Or if you prefer:

https://www.cloudflare.com/ips-v4/#


Normally I'd agree, but it's a massive holding in their disclosure. So they put a bunch of money into this bet, likely to buy distant expiries.


Yeah what usually happens is they match it with call purchases and thus they are not actually your counterparty economically.

There is enough bullish momentum that a trade of this size can actually be placed (of course in chunks).


To offer a counterpoint, I had much better intuition as a junior than I do now, and it was also better than the seniors on my team.

Sometimes looking at the same type of code and the same infra day in and day out makes you rusty. In my olden days, I did something different every week, and I had more free time to experiment.


Hobby coding is imho a high entropy signal that you joined the workforce with a junior title but basically senior experience, which is what I see from kids who learned programming young due to curiosity vs those who only started learning in university. IOW I suspect you were not a junior in anything but name and pay.

There’s also a factor of the young being very confident that they’re right ;)


So you are a worse dev now than you were before? Have you asked for a pay cut from your employer?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

;)


Believe it or not, my employer likes what I'm doing so I'm still on the promotion track.

They seem more concerned with my ability to work on the company's bread and butter.


And you are better at working on the company's bread and butter with worse intuition?


pay increase - with better tools, I'd imagine


My path is a little different. I have used Haskell, and I'm looking to get into OTP.

My original plan was either Elixir or vanilla Erlang depending on which one suits my sensibilities better. Reading about Gleam recently has me super, super excited. That's definitely going to be my path now.

I don't know if Gleam is the best entry into the world of rich types that you find in a language like Haskell--I'm yet to actually build something with it.

What I can tell you is that Haskell is a complete joy to use and it honestly ruins most other programming for me. So as a direction, I cannot recommend it enough, and I'm hoping, for my sake and yours, that Gleam offers a similarly stimulating sandbox.

Just a warning that it will take time to get used to "higher-kinded" types. It's an exercise in head scratching and frustration at first. The reward part arrives when you start thinking in types yourself and you know which ones to reach for and when you find the libraries you want by entering a signature on Hoogle.


Interesting!

I have a F# background, and thought to have read that some constructs I learned to appreciate are not available in Gleam (the one I can think of right now is currying, but I thought there were others).

Also, Gleam otp didn't seem to be a priority.

What's your experience regarding these 2 points?


The issue isn't that OTP isn't a priority for Gleam, but rather that it doesn't work with the static typing Gleam is implementing. This is why they've had to reimplement their own OTP functionality in gleam_otp. Even then, gleam_otp has some limitations, like being unable to support all of OTP's messages, named processes, etc. gleam_otp is also considered experimental at this point.


Having Erlang-style OTP support (for the most part) is very doable, I've written my own OTP layer instead of the pretty shoddy stuff Gleam ships with. It's not really that challenging of a problem and you can get stuff like typed processes (`Pid(message_type)`, i.e. we can only send `message_type` messages to this process), etc. out of it very easily.

This idea that static typing is such a massive issue for OTP style servers and messaging is a very persistent myth, to be honest; I've created thin layers on top of OTP for both `purerl` (PureScript compiled to Erlang) and Gleam that end up with both type-safe interfaces (we can only send the right messages to the processes) and are type-safe internally (we can only write the process in a type-safe way based on its state and message types).


I wholeheartedly agree with you that gleam_otp is janky. Still, actor message passing is only part of the picture. Here are some issues that make static typing difficult in OTP:

• OTP processes communicate via the actor model by sending messages of any type. Each actor is responsible for pattern-matching the incoming message and handling it (or not) based on its type. To implement static typing, you need to know at compile time what type of message an actor can receive, what type it will send back, and how to verify this at compile time.

• OTP's GenServer behaviour uses callbacks that can return various types, depending on runtime conditions. Static typing would require that you predefine all return types for all callbacks, handle type-safe state management, and provide compile-time guarantees when handling these myriad types.

• OTP supervisors manage child processes dynamically, which could be of any type. To implement static typing, you would need to know and define the types of all supervised processes, know how they are going to interact with each other, and implement type-safe restart strategies for each type.

These and other design roadblocks may be why Gleam chose to implement primitives, like statically typed actors, instead of GenServer, GenStage, GenEvent, and other specialized OTP behaviours, full supervisor functionality, DynamicSupervisor, and OTP's Registry, Agent, Task, etc.

OTP and BEAM are Erlang and Elixir's killer features, and have been battle-tested in some of the most demanding environments for decades. I can't see the logic in ditching them or cobbling together a lesser, unproven version of them to gain something as mundane as static typing.

EDIT: I completely missed the word "actor" as the second word in my second sentence, so I added it.


I suppose I was unclear. It is OTP-style `gen_server` processes that I'm talking about.

> OTP processes communicate via the actor model by sending messages of any type. Each actor is responsible for pattern-matching the incoming message and handling it (or not) based on its type. To implement static typing, you need to know at compile time what type of message an actor can receive, what type it will send back, and how to verify this at compile time.

This is trivial, your `start` function can simply take a function that says which type of message you can receive. Better yet, you split it up in `handle_cast` (which has a well known set of valid return values, you type that as `incomingCastType -> gen_server.CastReturn`) and deal with the rest with interface functions just as you would in normal Erlang usage (i.e. `get_user_preferences(user_preference_process_pid) -> UserPreferences` at the top level of the server).

Here is an example of a process I threw together having never used Gleam before. The underlying `gen_server` library is my own as well, as well as the FFI code (Erlang code) that backs it. My point with posting this is mostly that all of the parts of the server, i.e. what you define what you define a server, are type safe in the type of way that people claim is somehow hard:

    import gleam/option
    import otp/gen_server
    import otp/types.{type Pid}
    
    pub type State {
      State(count: Int, initial_count: Int)
    }
    
    pub type Message {
      Increment(Int)
      Decrement(Int)
      Reset
    }
    
    pub fn start(initial_count: Int) -> Result(Pid(Message), Nil) {
      let spec =
        gen_server.GenServerStartSpec(
          handle_cast:,
          init:,
          name: option.Some(gen_server.GlobalName("counter")),
        )
      gen_server.start(spec, initial_count)
    }
    
    fn name() -> gen_server.ProcessReference(Message, String) {
      gen_server.ByGlobal("counter")
    }
    
    pub fn count() -> Result(Int, Nil) {
      gen_server.call(name(), fn(state: State) -> gen_server.CallResult(State, Int) {
        gen_server.CallOk(new_state: state, reply: state.count)
      })
    }
    
    pub fn increment(count: Int) -> Nil {
      gen_server.cast(name(), Increment(count))
    }
    
    pub fn decrement(count: Int) -> Nil {
      gen_server.cast(name(), Decrement(count))
    }
    
    pub fn reset() -> Nil {
      gen_server.cast(name(), Reset)
    }
    
    pub fn init(initial_count: Int) -> State {
      State(count: initial_count, initial_count:)
    }
    
    pub fn handle_cast(
      message: Message,
      state: State,
    ) -> gen_server.CastResult(State) {
      case message {
        Increment(count) ->
          gen_server.CastOk(State(..state, count: state.count + count))
    
        Decrement(count) ->
          gen_server.CastOk(State(..state, count: state.count - count))
    
        Reset -> gen_server.CastOk(State(..state, count: state.initial_count))
      }
    }
It's not nearly as big of an issue as people make it out to be; most of the expected behaviors are exactly that: `behaviour`s, and they're not nearly as dynamic as people make them seem. Gleam itself maps custom types very cleanly to tagged tuples (`ThingHere("hello")` maps to `{thing_here, <<"hello">>}`, and so on) so there is no real big issue with mapping a lot of the known and useful return types and so on.


I read the code but I'm not sure I understood all of it (I'm familiar with Elixir, not with Gleam).

For normal matters I do believe that your approach works but (start returns the pid of the server, right?) what is it going to happen if something, probably a module written in Elixir or Erlang that wants to prove a point, sends a message of an unsupported type to that pid? I don't think the compiler can prevent that. It's going to crash at runtime or have to handle the unmatched type and return a not implemented sort of error.

It's similar to static typing a JSON API, then receiving an odd message from the server or from the client, because the remote party cannot be controlled.


> [...] start returns the pid of the server, right?

Yes, `start` is the part you would stick in a supervision tree, essentially. We start the server so that it can be reached later with the interface functions.

> [...] probably a module written in Elixir or Erlang that wants to prove a point, sends a message of an unsupported type to that pid? I don't think the compiler can prevent that. It's going to crash at runtime or have to handle the unmatched type and return a not implemented sort of error.

Yes, this is already the default behavior of a `gen_server` and is fine, IMO. As a general guideline I would advise against trying to fix errors caused by type-unsafe languages; there is no productive (i.e. long-term fruitful) way to fix a fundamentally unsafe interface (Erlang/Elixir code), the best recourse you have is to write as much code you can in the safe one instead.

Erlang, in Gleam code, is essentially a layer where you put the code that does the fundamentals and then you use the foreign function interface (FFI) to tell Gleam that those functions can be called with so and so types, and it does the type checking. This means that once you travel into Erlang code all bets are off. It's really no different to saying that a certain C function can call assembly code.

    pub type ProcessReference(message, term) {
      ByPid(Pid(message))
      ByGlobal(term)
      ByLocal(Atom)
    }
    
    @external(erlang, "otp_server", "call")
    fn gen_server_call(
      pid: ProcessReference(message, term),
      call_func: CallFunc(state, reply),
    ) -> Result(reply, Nil)
And the corresponding Erlang code:

    call({by_pid, Pid}, CallFunc) ->
        {ok, gen_server:call(Pid, {call_by_func, CallFunc})};
    call({by_global, Name}, CallFunc) ->
        {ok, gen_server:call({global, Name}, {call_by_func, CallFunc})};
    call({by_local, Name}, CallFunc) ->
        {ok, gen_server:call(Name, {call_by_func, CallFunc})}.


I'm in no position to judge the current CEO, but the Zen credit goes to

- Rory Read, under whom the program started

- Jim Keller who ran the program

- the engineers and managers who put the sweat in

- and, one must never forget, a rotating cast of executives and board members at Intel


Actually, Mike Clark is the 'father of Zen': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vyNzgOP5yw. When Jim came along, Zen design was mostly finished already.

Another honorable mention would be Suzanne Plummer


Thank you for the correction!


I'll bet Apple would play ball and tell Rivian if the destination is a charger.

That aside, what about safely messaging people, listening to my audiobooks/podcasts in my app of choice, and interacting with the apps and shortcuts on my phone through Siri?

It's the wrong choice IMO.

To be clear, I know Bluetooth audio is available. But having everything on the screen makes it easier.


And you're entitled to your own opinion! It's not about your iPhone telling the vehicle it's going to a charger, but that charging is part of the process. It needs to be baked into the roots of the navigation system. Apple's just not positioned to care enough about that.

I can't speak for Rivan's dev team's plans, but all the big car manufacturers have a voice command feature. How well it works is a different question. Siri is....how do I say this politely. Siri is best used in very specific circumstances for specific tasks. I can't imagine Rivian isn't looking to compete with the features Siri offers in those particular circumstances.

If it were GM or a different legacy automaker we were discussing here, I'd have different things to say, but Rivian isn't one of the big three.


The navigation point is well taken, and I'm not advocating for Rivian to tear that out. I'll use the Rivian stuff when I'm navigating to a charger or doing a road trip.

CarPlay is purely additive.

As much as I complain about all the crap Apple gets wrong, no car manufacturer will beat them on UI or the choice of apps.


CarPlay always felt pretty rubbish compared to the integrated BMW System to me, which just gets the job done. But I also just want to have Navigation and Music during driving


Not nearly as badly if you keep them cool.


Disagree completely.

Your map should be bottom-heavy for stability.


Good point. If south-up were the default, we would probably be manufacturing globes without any mounting system, and just leave them lying around with the Eurasian landmass facing down due to gravity.


It's true, that's how Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.


Also if the map is flat on a table, more stuff is closer to you.


But if you pin it to a wall, it's easier to reach the top pins with the most earthful bits at face height if the earthful bits are at the top.


No no no.

We should put Asia at the top, Europe bottom left, Africa bottom right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map


You're all fools! We should put the north pole in the center so that Antartica makes a pretty frame around the rest of the world!


We called it the Orient because at one time to orient yourself meant to face east towards the rising Sun. So maps with east at the top make sense.


Only if gravity was on the down side


-Dwight Schrute


Real programmers use an abacus and never take roots or calculate logarithms/powers.

Amazing confidence on display here.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: