"1 nine" tends to mean "90% availability" i.e. 37 days of downtime per year.
9% availability would be an uptime of ~33 days a year, I think at that point, we're pushing the semantics of "available" if the service is down the entire year except one month on average.
Since "N nines" for positive integers N denotes an uptime of 1 – 10^(–N), I think it's fair to analytically continue that formula, and say that 9% availability corresponds to 0.041 nines!
Citation needed. I love postgres as much as the next person, but it does have more overhead than Sqlite which is in an in-process db linked through compiled C code, it doesn't run as a separate server. Very significant difference that when you use Sqlite db, there is typically no db process other than your application logic, unless you implement the server yourself. If you don't want your application to have multiple processes (say, as a toy example) then it totally makes sense to prefer Sqlite just for this reason. Sqlite and postgres are different tools, they serve different purposes.
If you run it on your one app server, it’s not much more work than SQLite. SQLite requires some special care when you’re dealing with multiple processes, and backups are about the same amount of effort.
My 2 cents (I hope I don't offend anyone, and of course Emacs community is amazing). I've been using Emacs full-time since ~2010 but I must admit it's been more like part-time along with VSCode since ~2024.
> This is largely a discoverability problem
In my experience it's not a discoverability problem at all. Not even a little bit. My problem with emacs batteries has always been stability between different combinations of packages. I know how to use dired, I know how to install elisp packages, I know how to write emacs lisp myself. The issue with emacs is that it's difficult to create large packages with "batteries" because any additional package added can bork some random, seemingly unrelated package. E.g. back in the day (maybe around ~2020s or a bit before?) I've been using Spacemacs without vim keybinding, and although batteries were included and I was happy, this issue I mentioned above was even bigger. Because I constantly had to deal with installing a package and discovering that it broke some unrelated LSP, programming, or autocomplete package. It gets quite a bit frustrating at some point. Since this LLM madness started, I never really installed anything LLM related to Emacs, and have been using other text editor for LLM related stuff, Emacs for everything else (especially if there is a strong Emacs package, e.g. agda2-mode is incredibly good, almost flawless!)
Again, just my humble two cents. Obvious Emacs is amazing, and in many ways it's still my go-to, I just think that the biggest issue for me has always been randomly broken packages. Maybe I'm a terrible elisp programmer, that's possible! But I've been using emacs everyday for decades, so idk...
Both you and the sibling common by buzzwords have the same contexte: You’re both using someone’s configuration framework, which goes bery much against the vanilla emacs’s way. Most package assumes something standard and you can expect something to break if your configuration isn’t.
I've used Doom Emacs for years and it rarely breaks. Sometimes things get out of sync, and I delete the git repo and clone it again. That happens once every few years.
People holding your attitude is one thing that keeps people away from Emacs. Very few people want to get into the weeds of customizing their editor. They want to do whatever it is they are interested in and the editor is tool to get it done. Doom Emacs, and other approachable "distributions" are the way to make the power of Emacs accessible.
> You’re both using someone’s configuration framework, which goes bery much against the vanilla emacs’s way
I heard a similar argument about vim's billion configuration options.
At some point I simply got tired of having to tweak it and switched to a better editor (not emacs though; both vim and emacs are losing in any debate, but it's a fun debate nonetheless since both camps think software can only be written with these two editors; everyone else must be clueless and skillless).
You met some odd Emacs users. Every Emacs user I have met is a strong proponent of personal computing and crafting tools that work for the individual. It's true that some have a hatred of software that removes users' freedoms but that doesn't mean they think users of freedom-restricting software are skilless.
My guess is, that writing Emacs packages requires a lot of discipline, to only use the minimal surface one needs from Emacs. And that is, because of the huge amount of mutable global state in Emacs. An actual design flaw, that is sometimes super useful, but at other times super annoying.
Same. I'm not an elisp expert by any means, so I tried using claude and chatgpt to help me write some functions. They got close, close enough that I could massage what they wrote into something that did what I needed, but they have never produced anything that just worked.
Not my experience. I've had them write modes for new languages from scratch with excellent results.
And diagnose and fix up my emacs configuration.
Even back in pre-Opus 4.5 days I found them incredibly useful for elisp diagnostics, and these days I use Codex to great effect to enhance my emacs setup.
That is not my experience. I had Claude add a variety of useful functions to my init.el as well as refactor it for easier maintenance. I now have a more useful to use and pleasant to edit init for it.
Question: Why VSCode spyware? Why not at least VSCodium? Or is this just a case like people saying Chrome, when they have Chromium or Ungoogled-Chromium?
In representation theory we reduce problems of algebra to problems of linear algebra. E.g. the standard example is to find representations of groups, this way we can represent group operations as matrix operations. We do this because (1) linear algebra is mathematically very well-understood, (2) in terms of applications, linear algebra is computationally fast, faster than implementing the group with code manually (at least, in general).
In the OP post, author reduces quiver (which is a particular kind of algebra) to linear algebra. Once this is done, the intention is to solve problems of quivers in the language of linear algebra.
A quiver is simply just the data of a category, i.e. a "category" without any of the laws, namely identity and composition.
They're not isomorphic to DAGs since Quivers can have multiple edges between the same set of vertices, directed multigraphs, if you will. There is also no requirement of acyclicity (DAGs are acyclic).
For example, in the category of Sets, vertices are sets and edges are functions between sets, so between e.g. N and N there will be infinitely many edges (all functions between natural numbers) with a particular distinguished identity edge that maps f(n) = n due to category laws. So if you turn the category of Sets to a quiver, you'll have infinitely many edges N -> N and one of them will happen to be the identity function `f(n) = n` but you "forgot" its "identity" relationship/law when you reduced the category to a quiver. This is not a graph, since within your data you need to express that there are other edges between N -> N for example `f(n) = 2*n` is another edge (we can call these multigraphs).
Not only that, but they said "next time better model needed" as if that was their problem and not giving an AI agent a blank check... I mean AWS account access.
Thank you so much for this! I've been working on exactly this problem this week (which OpenRouter providers have the highest cache rate on average) because cache cost is sometimes half your cost: I'd much rather use a provider with more input caching with a more expensive/better LLM. Your results and lists seem more comprehensive than what I've done so far. Very helpful!
Calling current AI subscription services (especially Claude) "flat rate" (implying infinite access for a flat fee) is misleading. There are pretty strict hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly limits. So there is a pretty easy-to-reach limit for all these subscriptions. They're hardly unlimited, and given how easy it is to run into limits, it's likely not super complicated/low-stddev for an accounting department to figure out avg cost per customer.
9% availability would be an uptime of ~33 days a year, I think at that point, we're pushing the semantics of "available" if the service is down the entire year except one month on average.