Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47178292

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Prety much all financial transactions are settled with a given date, not instantly. Go sell some stocks, it takes 2 days to actually settle. (May be hidden by your provider, but that how it works).

For that matter, the ultimate in BASE for financial transactions is the humble check.

That is a great example of "money out" that will only be settled at some time in the future.

There is a reason there is this notion of a "business day" and re-processing transactions that arrived out of order.

You must have the data upfront, you cannot build this in an incremental fashion

There is also bo mention on how this would handle updates, and from the description, even if updates are possible, this will degrade over time, requiring new indexing batch

That kills the indexing process, you cannot let it run with limited amount of memory.

> How do you think a B+tree gets updated?

In a B+Tree, you need to touch log H of the pages. In HNSW graph - you need to touch literally thousands of vectors once your graph gets big enough.

And wanting to programmatically work with the result + allow tool calls is super common.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45147192

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

The io_uring code looks like it is doing all the fetch work in the background (with 6 threads), then just handing the completed buffers to the counter.

Do the same with 6 threads that would first read the first byte on each page and then hand that page section to the counter, you'll find similar performance.

And you can use both madvice / huge pages to control the mmap behavior

For example, in the book-a-ticket scenario - I want it to be able to check a few websites to compare prices, and I want it to be able to pay for me.

I don't want it to decide to send me to a 37 hour trip with three stops because it is 3$ cheaper.

Alternatively, I want to be able to lookup my benefits status, but the LLM should physically not be able to provide me any details about the benefits status of my coworkers.

That is the _same_ tool cool, but in a different scope.

For that matter, if I'm in HR - I _should_ be able to look at the benefits status of employees that I am responsible for, of course, but that creates an audit log, etc.

In other words, it isn't the action that matters, but what is the intent.

LLM should be placed in the same box as the user it is acting on-behalf-of.

They discovered that because they were monitoring the CT logs. And they were concerned about trademark issues. It ended up being one of the teams in "company-xyz" that had opened an account (under the company name, of course).

But that is just a small note that people _are_ monitoring those.

And the whole _point_ of the cert transparency log is that it only take _one_ such instance to ruin the credibility of a CA.

The fact that you do that in the public, and that it is _forever_, make it very hard to do in the shadows.

For example, are the instructions cost depend on the data? If so, you have a timing leak and a hole in your system

One of the reasons to use assembly is specifically to avoid timing dependency and the compiler being "smart" about things and thus leading to timing attacks