It’s not about a benchmark. PHP-FPM executes your .php file from the beginning every time, so it does require(…) all the classes etc. and then proceeds to load the configuration from files etc.
A good framework can maybe cache some of this with the opcode cache, and apcu. Saving some milliseconds.
But regardless of all this, each worker process takes up a lot of memory (the entire framework, etc) which is often megabytes. By contrast, the Qbix webserver forks after you have loaded the classes. Being written in PHP actually gives it an advantage — the workers become much smaller and you can run 100x of them.
This accomplishes what no other PHP webserver has managed to do: give you the speed of Swoole / FrankenPHP while at the samw time let you run unmodified PHP scripts in a “shared-nothing” fork environment, maintaining the strict isolation PHP is known for, so there are no memory leaks or data leaks between requests.
Speaking of that, check out the “full-stack microservice” architecture that allows you to isolate your sensitive credentials / config from the main PHP process, preventing a host of attacks.
> A good framework can maybe cache some of this with the opcode cache, and apcu. Saving some milliseconds.
This framing is confusing because OPcache has for the past 15 years taken care of exactly this bootstrapping you're worried about. In a competing share-nothing setup you merely come in at a tie for performance (barring first run of `require`). I do not see 10-50ms latencies in any of my deploys which is why I'm skeptical.
That said, the big sell of your project for me might be memory management - less memory means more workers which is always a good thing if it comes at no cost to latency.
Yep, you got it. The big difference is the memory savings, not as much the saving milliseconds per request, although that might be useful too if it takes 40-50ms to bootstrap and load configs every time.
Don't worry, I'm not coming down hard on said person. The thread is about a GrapheneOS bulletin, whose members are well-documented contributers to AOSP.
Nothing in last 5 years; and if we ignore the last one, Nothing in almost 9-10 years. I am not sure how much weight it holds. Now if that's on Google on not accepting stuff that's different matter
> Neobrutalism is a mix of regular brutalism in web design and more modern typography, illustration, and animation standards. Neobrutalism refuses the usual components of UX-UI design and embraces uncomfortable design elements, and it is more fearless to use distinctive color palettes.
nothing about this is neobrutalist by their own standards. There is nothing “uncomfortable” about these standard round flat shapes, and unvibrant 3/4 saturated tones, they aren’t distinct, its called Alegria[1], calling it neobrutalism is a corruption of the meaning of brutalism and comes off as distinctly uncultured.
neobrutalism should have sharp edges, very vibrant saturated colors, and virtually none of these flowery spiral shapes. (neo)brutalism is forcing a square peg in a round hole with a hammer, and leaving it like that on purpose, because the raw swedge is the aethetic.
I don’t necessarily think it’s doing something wildly new and different, but I also don’t see how this style looks anything like what’s in that Wikipedia article.
The irony of a highly talented band that have been actually doing the work for over twenty years being pushed aside to make room for Meta's model that promises you won't have to actually do the work.
I see comments that this overlap between Qwen and GPT is due to rogue training or post hoc training. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the two sets of models were trained directly on the same solutions to the researchers' benchmark?
If that was the case you would expect a large similarity in the "unprefilled" case, but no significant difference from feeding it some of GPT5.5's CoT (the "delta" column)
DeepSeek V4 Flash and Kimi K3 follow that pattern. But Qwen answers very different from GPT when given just the question, then is suddenly very similarly to GPT when you make the start of its CoT match the start of GPT's reasoning. I don't see how that would happen without GPT CoT+answers being a significant component in how Qwen's reasoning was trained
How do you know? I think LLMs are more than advanced enough to come up with this text.
In fact, I think they've got so much more management in their training set than a senior engineer that I expect they're going to be a better source of material than the author.
This is definitely as opinionated as an opinion piece can go. Worth mentioning I don't use CF anywhere or care about it... but my employer does.
I can really only remember one catastrophic outage. It involved some part of CF that had no redundancy, and the incident was followed by a pretty whiny blog about a data center.
That's pretty much it. There were other minor outages but I'm not aware that it affected business.
Despite the disclaimer I think the author should explain precisely how "AI product mindset" or whatever is actually translating to bad outcomes.
Just skimmed the article, but the CF your employer used was probably around a lot longer than AI? There's parts of it that can bring everything down. Then there's parts of it that will bring down just what your team(s) put in a load of hard work to build on top of it.
The blog implies that CF's core business is suffering because of added investment in what the author describes as AI. See their useEffect bug as an example.
EDIT: To be clear, my employer still uses CF and I don't see any evidence that it's gotten worse.
Or guarantee that even if you provide such data to a nice, friendly, democratically run and ethically managed administration, that some future regime change to a completely different group of people won't result in catastrophic misuse.
This is the issue I have with most of my well meaning but somewhat politically uninformed friends. The idea of “wouldn’t it be good if …” (idealized scenario), is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works).
Yes it might actually work out ok if a mythical benevolent dictator could manage things with infinite precision and unlimited compassion. I would imagine that has never happened at any reasonable scale.
The Conservative folks seem to phrase this as a desire to “keep government small” - which always seemed a little clunky given the stakes and track record of these governments.
> Yes it might actually work out ok if a mythical benevolent dictator could manage things with infinite precision and unlimited compassion. I would imagine that has never happened at any reasonable scale.
That's because people aren't recognizing me as their benevolent god-emperor yet.
The problem is that the government was handed an emotion and a mandate to eliminate it. You’ve declared a “war on jealousy” and demanded the government assemble the troops. That’s not handing them a well reasoned plan and “hoping they don’t mess it up”, you messed it up when you scribbled “no more addiction” on a protest sign.
Now ask yourself which government is currently bombing another country over one man's ego (or due to blackmail by an "ally"), and whether they're on that list, and whether the literal thousands of people killed are just acceptable sacrifices to maintain someone's worldview about 'the good guys'?
And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so.
Of course, that doesn't mean we can't do better and shouldn't.
But we do need to compare "How things have been for all of human history" to "How we do things now", and see that our modern democracies show immense restraint and a lack of malfeasance, compared to how they've been used in the past.
I feel that people view how the world is today, through such a restricted world view. Where the history of how things were, and the immense and great and incredible progress we've made, is thrown aside because "Oh bad thing happened!", and therefore "The entire West is completely corrupt and everything sucks and we should rip it all down because it's bad".
One only need take a tour around the rest of the world. To compare our militaries to those in non-democratic nations. To how those leaders act, in reality, compared to our leaders. Even the current US admin looks good, comparatively. And yes, I know that's saying a lot.
> And yet, compared to every military in the past, compared to the fact that war was seen as a normal thing in the past, compared to how it used to be standard to rape and pillage in the past, and that was just expected and fine and normal, current modern militaries of the West are exceptionally disciplined, and their use by politicians doubly so.
Are you serious?
During the Vietnam War era, the US dropped over 7.5 million tons of ordnance across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, which is more than double the tonnage dropped in all of WW2. In rural parts of Laos and Cambodia, unexploded ordinance is still a daily threat to people. 50 years on.
> To compare our militaries to those in non-democratic nations. To how those leaders act, in reality, compared to our leaders. Even the current US admin looks good, comparatively.
When I see comments like this, I want to believe that it's not real but sadly, I suspect you really believe this.
OK. Now compare the entire world's militaries, over the last 50 years, worst-for-worst act. Or since you mentioned WWII, what's the worst done by armies during that time? Hmm?
After all, you're trying to find and hold up the worst the US has done, right? So to compare, you need to find the worst in modern militaries. In militaries of all time. That was what I discussed, after all.
I was quite clear. Compare to all of history. Compare to all militaries today.
Instead you grab at part of an action, and hold it up, without making that comparison. Still.
As a Canadian who has had your current ridiculous president state that we should be the 51st state, and belittled us by calling our Prime Ministers "Governors"? Who has talked about unilaterally redrawing borders? As a Canadian who has considered how I may have to one day slaughter Americans crossing our border? How I may have to look my brothers in the eye, and kill them? I still say that the US military has been a shining light for freedom around the world. If I can remain impartial, then surely you can.
I also say that about police officers in the West, including the US.
Are there bad actions taken by police departments? By individual officers? By groups of officers, over the last decades? YES! Yes, most assuredly.
Now compare the overall score with police in totalitarian regimes.
Comparison is vital, important, key, and any finger pointing has to be in context.
And also note, I said "yes we must do better".
But if you think the US military is evil, then you have never seen evil. Ever.
I understand the Vietnam war is a sore point in America due to recruitment. But your comment is so incredibly one-sided that it's not a serious argument anymore.
The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets.
> the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets.
The 1954 Geneva Accords, which ended the French war, called for nationwide reunification elections by July 1956. Those elections never happened. Ngo Dinh Diem, the US-backed first president of South Vietnam who was a brutal authoritarian, refused to hold them. The US backed his refusal and kept backing him afterward.
In Eisenhower's 1963 memoir, he wrote that everyone knowledgeable he'd spoken to believed Ho Chi Minh would have taken around 80% percent of the vote if elections had happened.
The Vietnamese didn't really care about the Soviets. They are a fiercely independent and proud people with a long history of defending themselves against foreign interlopers and aggressors.
So let me restate your asinine and totally inaccurate conclusion:
The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace.
The large majority of the population in Vietnam, in both the North and the South, didn't want a foreign power controlling their country and determining their fate. They wanted to run their own country, and have peace.
And yet, the poster you're replying to said no such thing. Not even close. They merely said they wanted help repelling an enemy. You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time.
The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in.
edit
--
Re your response. Were they ordered to rape and pillage by their full chain of command?
Or were they acting illegally, regardless of the outcome?
Would a military in a dictatorship have deemed that "illegal"? What about 200 years ago? 1000?
You seem to be ignoring the concept of comparables. And taking acts that the military itself teaches its own soldiers, was wrong.
It's good to have principles. And good to defend them. But if you ignore what others are saying, and the context of their words, you start to slide into zealoty.
> You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time.
Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US.
On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violating the Selective Service Act and millions more found a way not to go to Vietnam through deferments and exemptions.
It's both amusing and sad that there are some people (like you) who 50 years later can't see what was apparent to so many people at the time.
> The US repeatedly tried to get out of that war. Multiple times. They just kept getting pulled back in.
That's right. Those pesky Vietnamese villagers just wouldn't let American GIs stop torching their villages, gang-raping their women and children, and executing them. The American military was trying to leave but spreading democracy demanded sacrifice.
"The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets."
None of anything you guys have said even attempts to dispute that. The Vietnamese did not want Vietcong rule. Not in the North, not in the South. And that this shamed (or whatever your claim is) some ideology, probably your ideology, does not change that. The Vietcong "had to" do incredibly cruel and horrible things to force the loyalty of citizens. They emptied orphanages, executing kids and even babies, in the middle of the street, slowly, one by one, to "ensure loyalty". That is who you're dealing with here. This goes for A LOT of the parties that socialism supported, especially in Asia. And elsewhere. Socialism has always been enforced by terror, from the red terror in Russia to China's Public Security Bureaus.
You might be right that that does not make the other side 100% good. But you should not get confused. Comparing US, including all the atrocities it committed, to the Vietcong? No sane person has to think even 1 second about that comparison: USA! USA! USA! I certainly do not always agree with what the US government does, the more recent the actions, the less I agree, but that does not bring it even close to the level of the Vietcong.
And that this does not fit your ideology? Tough. Was USA behavior very inconvenient, even unfair, to the people executing children? You know perfectly well how sorry you should feel about that.
But we all know: that's just not what you care about.
You know, you had a bunch of statements in a row, in what appeared to be someone trying to make a point.
And then you said "USA! USA! USA!" ... what in the actual fuck are you trying to achieve with that?
"Was USA behavior very inconvenient" - inconvenient? Inconvenient for the people of El Salvador to have roaming contras, funded and trained in the USA terrorizing the countryside and killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocent civilians. You sure do have a way with words. But by all means, "USA!".
Have you really backslid from "modern militaries don't rape and pillage" to "modern militaries rape and pillage, but it doesn't count because it's illegal"?
If you read carefully, when pulled into deeper nuance, I'm consistently discussing what is legal behaviour for that military. Yes, there is a difference between "that military itself calls that act illegal" and "that military says it's OK to engage in that act". A massive difference.
And at no point did I lump all "modern militaries" together. In fact I specifically talked about democracies vs dictatorships in modern times, too.
So you're confusing "modern militaries rape and pillage" with "militaries' members rarely perform ilegal acts, and rape and pillage".
Or are you trying to claim it's standing, legal, normal operating procedure for the US military to rape? Are you?
Because with the framing you're using, that's what you're apparently trying to build here.
And perhaps, then the alternatives are more devastating, and it must be done.
I've written about this in other comments over the last couple of years, but the root of all of this is quite simply, foreign interference. We all remember Cambridge Analytica, its interference in democratic elections in the West, and even how it caused a few regimes to topple in the 3rd world. It's machinations and manipulation of curated news stories was quite simplistic and minor compared to where we sit now.
You simply cannot have a high-trust, well functioning democracy, if 99% of the stuff recommended to you is entirely fabricated nonsense. Worse, if it purposely fabricated to create as much social unrest as possible, and doubly worse if it becomes curated to each person and created and generated on demand.
CA managed this by having a sloth of "different archetypes" for its 100 or so altered news stories per topic. If you were a left wing shopkeep, or a right wing car salesperson, or anything else, you'd be slotted into one of these 100 version of the precise same news story, and fed the best lies to make you do as the payee requested.
Modern AI means this can be far more fine tuned. And algorithms can be gamed, just as CA gamed them with support of Facebook's APIs.
So my point here is twofold. First that government moves slow. What we're seeing now, is the result of CA a decade ago. Really, two election cycles, with senatorial and congressional committees and debates during that time.
And second is that things will not continue as they are now. Nothing you, or I, or anyone does will result in an unchanged Internet. From the perspective of lawmakers, and really a lot of the public, the "world wide" Internet is really only used by "The Rest of the World" to attack us. Attack water plants, hospitals, meat packing plants, nuclear reactors, and beyond that, to manipulate our children into thinking Western Democracy is vile and malign in various ways.
Now of course, there's no reason for most of those things to be on the Internet at all. But the manipulation of adults and children in our society just isn't going to wash. In days gone by, you'd see each community with police informants, not the sort in cop movies where the guy was crooked, but instead actual cities who would keep an eye out, and inform if someone planned something against the state. Pretty much every pub had one in the UK, for example.
Heck, when I was a teenager in Canada, one of my friends had a plan to become an officer. Part of this path was reporting on everything he heard at local parties, of an untoward nature. It's how misinformation campaigns used to be curtailed, stopped, dealt with.
Yet suddenly we presume that the average person, and average kid is going to just deal with misinformation. And bizarrely so, compared to misinformation in a pub, we let people get siloed so every single thing they read and see says the same lie.
How can an average person ever stand again absurdities, if from their perspective everything they can see around them says it is true?
So back to the start? The above, correctly assessed or not, is what the politicians and police and agencies view as happening in the West. And while there are multiple ways to deal with this, their stance is "Why are you afraid of putting your name on your words?".
If we want something other than all the bills being proposed, and all the change coming, we as a tech community need to provide a path to end all anonymity on the internet, in the least privacy reducing way possible. And there are some ways to do so. They've been discussed. But if we don't provide such a method, and drive this conversation, you know who will?
Politicians, with no technical capability at all. The average Joe, scared for his country and family.
Try to fight those two types of people, and you will lose every single time.
So my recommend is, everyone needs to stop bellyaching, suck up to the harsh realities here, and take this massive, unstoppable river, and redirect it by a few degrees so that the best-case is achieved.
> OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all?
It's funny because this is exactly the opposite of what actually happened. Mafias are the reaction to the "unification" of Italy, and they almost all come from the previous governments that existed before unification. Northern Italy conquered the south and defeated all the little states there ... and then levied taxes and did not much else. Specifically they did not provide policing, and very few public services.
And then the remnants of the old governments stepped in, provided public services, security on the streets and "pressured" people into paying a second tax. Now you can say that they were almost-feudal governments and therefore defended and enforced the law of large landowners but that wasn't seen as a problem ... because that's how it had always been.
The reason for their success, their initial success at least, is that, first, when Italy was young, it left citizens to their fate, suppressing dissent, stationing small forces in most of Italy that abused locals, were extremely corrupt and did little else. What is generally blamed for their later reputation is that the mafias started using their power more and more for their own purposes, irrespective of cost, while the mafias also pressured the centralized state to do the opposite.
Especially early on it's very hard to pick "the right" side in the war on mafias. In the beginning people saw the mafias as the good guys, and with good reason. Over time mafias became worse and the central state became better, but honestly, the central state wasn't particularly good for people either (in fact it still can be improved quite a bit)
Straight to Franchise-Organized Quasi-National Entities, since more competition between governments must be good for the customers of government-like services!
How did you arrive at mafias. That's just another form of (abusive) small scale government. A more legitimate and probable type of government is any of the different forms of anarchism or worker cooperatives, if you want to argue for "disband government".
> OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all?
Conservatives seem to be fine with mafia rule, so long as the don has the correct party affiliation.
> When is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government?
Mob rule doesn't with very well as a defacto government, or oligarchy. Nor food and drug safety or national defense. Some things just have to be tackled by society as a larger group. Ideally as locally as possible, but not so locally that minorities are crushed or rule becomes petty and micromanaged.
That's partly because congress, including state congresses and judges/dept of justice just don't care about that. They are totally unable to see either the consequences of their own imperfection or even just limits to their power.
"Kids are being harmed, so let's end privacy online and force everyone to ID" is not balance, it is the panopticon.
Hilariously, even the baroness cited in the article believes it's extremism. I've even seen her defend privacy and VPNs. She claims she's backing deanonymization because nobody is doing anything else. The ones who want a surveillance state are only too happy to oblige.
Balance is expecting parents to actually parent their children instead of offloading all the responsibility to the state.
What is the setup/benchmark that caused you to see this?
reply