I'm working on finishing my JS KV compatibility library polystore [0], the goal is to make a widely compatible library to connect to many stores so that you can have a wide range of stores easily accesible.
For example, you make an API client library, now you can add polystore and accept multiple cache stores without writing all the compat layer yourself. This is a problem I've had multiple times in the past.
Or you make a project with cache, having it in files for local dev (highly debuggable) and then with Redis in prod is a simple ENV var change:
let store;
if (process.env.REDIS_URL) {
store = kv(RedisClient(process.env.REDIS_URL).connect());
} else {
store = kv(`file://${process.cwd()}/cache/`);
}
I've made many other libraries and projects during the years and having a single library handle all of this would be great.
> Apple today released iOS 26.2, iPadOS 26.2, and macOS 26.2
For those as confused as me, I'm on macOS 15.6.1, and it seems for the next version they aligned everything and I do indeed see an update for "macOS Tahoe 26.2". However, I also see a Sequoia 15.7.3 update dated at the same time and together in the same upgrade blog post (and for Sonoma 14.8.3, kudos), so for those that doesn't seem to want to do the jump now into Liquid Glass, that seems available:
There appears to be a dark pattern occurring where the Tahoe update is selected by default and you need to uncheck it to just install the security update.
Is there a new technological space race between Microsoft and Apple, to see who can engineer more dark patterns into their software, forcing unwanted updates onto its users?
These techniques used to be exclusive to spyware distributors.
"Leon Cowle was brave enough to try this out, and, it turns out, just clicking the 'Update Now' button next to Sequoia will, thankfully, do the right thing: install the Sequoia 15.7.2 update, not Tahoe."
This suggests someone forgot to update the "ⓘ" text. Not a dark pattern.
No, I would certainly say it is. Checking the blog post linked in this thread, I find selecting a different version to be both hidden and also have (intentionally?) bad UX. That is exactly what a dark pattern is: making a surprising choice (major upgrade) the default while hiding away the less disruptive or even non-disruptive choice (minor upgrade).
Nothing stops Apple from advertising both at the same level.
That's ridiculous. Like, not even rising to the level of being worth arguing about. There's an entire book that defines dark pattern, you should probably go read it if you intend to use the phrase.
No, because following major software updates is the right thing for 99% of people, not staying behind on a previous major version with security updates.
You have to think about UX for 99%, not just for HNers who might know what a 15.7.3 is.
> No, because following major software updates is the right thing for 99% of people
Not if we aren’t talking about security updates. In this case the previous version of iOS also has the same security updates so ‘updating’ to a new version is completely up to the user, with no difference in security posture either way. Tricking users into updating for what are in the tech company’s opinion ‘new features’ is by definition a dark pattern.
If there are security updates, then actually staying on the old OS is probably better for 99% of users. Constant change is almost impossible for most people to deal with.
Having a default choice is not itself a dark pattern. Offering a free update to the latest version of the project, and a choice to update a branch release instead, does not constitute a dark pattern.
This headline is a bit odd and doesn't represent the original title nor article content. What does "within budget" mean here? That it costed what the original budget set out to cost? Couldn't find anything related to the budget within the article.
It is mostly within budget, estimated in 2005 were 5.5 billion €, total cost as of today are 5.9 billion €, the difference being largely attributed to the pandemic and later addition of sections.
Sure, I'm just pointing out that this article doesn't follow the HN Guidelines, so I was confused at not seeing any mention of the budget within the article:
> "Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important."
> "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize"
Considering the original title is just the name of the railway, and I do not think “within budget” is editorializing, I think the commenter is being overly pedantic
I opened the article expecting to see news about the budget and how they stayed within it, since that SEEMS like the biggest surprising news in a project like this. How is that overly pedantic?
I understand your expectation. That said, I think it's ok to add detail in commentary when the article doesn't mention it explicitly. So continuing to go upon the point that the article didn't mention the budget makes you seem as pedantic.
Does the site mention the budget and completion time/cost at all? I can't find it from a quick browse/search of the site. It's taking editorializing to a whole new level to add details that are not in the linked article or site at all.
The right thing to do in this case is find the best source for this information (about the budget, schedule and completion time/cost) and make that the URL of the submission. Please email us the best links you know of about this (hn@ycombinator.com) and we'll consider updating the URL.
The site doesn‘t mention it, I got that information from various german announcements. I fear there probably won‘t be an English announcement regarding the budget, though there will be many regarding the tunnel.
€5.5 billion in 2005 is €8 billion in 2025, so it can be either over or under budget depending on how you amortize the costs over the construction period.
To contrast, HS2 here in the UK has cost £40 billion (€45 billion) to date with a further £25 billion (€28 billion) allocated, for a largely superterranean route of 230km.
As badly as HS2 has been run, apart from the tunnel length (where HS2 has not too much more than this project) these projects are night and day different. Not just that HS2 Phase 1a/1b is almost double the length and significantly higher design speed (360km/h vs 250km/h), but they are in a different league in terms of civil engineering from the info I can see - this seems to have less than 80 structures (overpasses, bridges, underpasses etc.) whereas HS2 has 175 bridges and 52 viaducts, and some of those are massive (including the longest railway viaduct in the UK).
HS2 also includes major stations - a 6 platform one almost entirely underground in west london, a multi-platform extension in central london, a new station in central birmingham, a new 4 platform outside of Birmingham
Not necessarily because no one lives underground and there are probably no existing things like property, gas lines, electricity lines, sewers, pipelines, roads, etc to avoid or reroute. And very little in the way of habitat.
The longest road tunnel in the world only cost about 100 million in the 90s for 25km so tunneling isn't always a gigantic Big Dig style clusterfuck.
In terms of legal complexity, it's fantastically easier than picking your way across and near thousands of individual plots of very expensive land owned by people with solicitors salivating at the potential fees, expensive private infrastructure, nature reserves and so on.
> The longest road tunnel in the world only cost about 100 million in the 90s for 25km so tunneling isn't always a gigantic Big Dig style clusterfuck.
Big Dig style clusterfuck is because the simplicity and cheapness you're talking about only apply to tunnels through mountains, less so to those underwater and definitely not to tunnels under big cities i.e. land that people live on, which comes with all the complexity.
Yes, and the Austrian route is mostly in that category under the Koralpe Massif rather then the very politically awkward Home Counties (NIMBY Central, and very rich NIMBYs at that).
Hence why tunneling does not necessarily mean a stunningly expensive project. We just hear about the HS2s and Big Digs because they reverberate for decades with all the legal battles.
The big dig is probably the last major success of American infrastructure. Referring to it as a clusterfuck is representative of why we'll never get another one.
Even if the end result ends up being a net positive, even by a wide margin, I think any project that goes over budget by 100% and lands 10 years late does reasonably merit the clusterfuck tag.
The Space Shuttle was one too and that was a marvel. A deathtrap politically-motivated pork-barrel hot-mess of a project, but also a shining black-and-white marvel of a glorious flying space Aga.
> The Space Shuttle was one too and that was a marvel. A deathtrap politically-motivated pork-barrel hot-mess of a project, but also a shining black-and-white marvel of a glorious flying space Aga.
The big dig directly benefits people producing value many, many, many times what the investment cost. Who gives a shit about the initial investment? Voters have proven time and time again that it's easier to lie to them than to get them to earnestly think.
IT is also correct - it costs way too much for what we got. It will be nice for future generations that don't have to pay for it, but it doesn't look like a good investment. Now if the costs were more reasonable it could be a great investment.
I don't see how you're justifying this. Yes the costs overran, but the investment would have been worth it at 4x the end cost. It made boston one of the nicest cities in the country, even if it still sucks ass to drive in.
The costs overran by a lot. Enough that my tiny city in the middle of nowhere would not benefit even though if the costs has been more reaonable we could get something. It might be worth it for Boston - I don't live there, but for a large number of places it makes such a large project something we will never do. The investment at a reasonable price would be wroth for more because it allows similar investments elsewhere and so the total pay off would be much higher.
I live way out in the bumfuck of nowhere, way west of western mass. It's still obvious the big dig was worth it at 4x the cost it actually ran. Yes, even though my taxpayer dollars haven't returned to me in any way I can straightforwardly estimate or point to.
Of course, the big dig is no excuse to not invest outside of the Boston metro area. But that's a completely different argument than saying the investment wasn't worth it.
> The investment at a reasonable price would be wroth for more because it allows similar investments elsewhere and so the total pay off would be much higher.
This is an insane way to reason about investments. No wonder this country is such a shithole. Obviously we should do similar big-dig style investments outside of Boston. Obviously investments like the big dig prompt investments nearby. But individualistic assholes like you force us all to commit suicide instead because you can't use your fucking brain to connect why investment now means we all eat good later.
Would be interesting to read how the Austrian project was contracted out? It seems in the UK the big construction companies have got very good in extracting a lot of money from customers, wonder if things were different in Austria with this project.
Interesting. In UK, I think the big construction companies would hire these bean-counters then use them to out-manoeuvre the ones that are hired to replace them. Quickly nobody knows what a reasonable price is, and the govmnt has to go with choice of one out of two overpriced bids. (I have no direct experience, this is just what it looks like from an observers perspective)
Obviously this does not give any indication of the complexity of each project. Tunnelling and building railway through a metropolis I would imagine is quite challenging.
Still seems insanely more expensive in the UK. I understand they have a higher cost to carry because their project is indeed more complex, but that's like a almost 13x more expensive variant, while not even being two times the length.
> It is mostly within budget, estimated in 2005 were 5.5 billion €, total cost as of today are 5.9 billion €
That’s incredible! The project managers and contractors should collaborate on a book about how they did it. Heh staying on budget should be the norm and not the exception but irl a 20 year large infra project coming in that close is something to celebrate and learn from.
Started in 1998, apparently without a budget, which came 7 years later, and was completed within…mostly…budget, but not really since it was 7% over budget.
Which also begs the question; why is a railway project page on HN at all, regardless of anything else?
Amazing news, congrats! Been using Bun for a long while now and I love it.
Is there anything I could do to improve this PR/get a review? I understand you are def very busy right now with the acquisition, but wanted to give my PR the best shot:
What would a company that does that, hypothetically, then tell a user that requests their data held by the company reply? With their soft-deleted data, or would they say they have no data?
They would obviously say we don't have the data. And to keep that person from "lying", the people that have the role to be able to make this request would have their software obey the soft delete flag and show them "no data available" or something like "on request of user, data deleted on YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS" type of message. who would know any different?
That’s fake news from a hacker. Just look at the data we have. The data they say we have, we don’t. They clearly made it up. It works in politics, so why not in tech?
Is $0.55/GB not enough reason to avoid them? I guess not if your business is making more than that - bandwidth expense for a shopping site shouldn't be a problem when the customers are spending $100 for every 0.1GB - but that price should realistically be closer to $0.01/GB or even $0.002/GB. Sounds like they're forwarding you AWS's extremely excessive bandwidth pricing.
Where did you read that? The pricing page says 10 credits per GB, and extra credits can be purchased at $10 per 1500 credit. So it's more like $0.067/GB.
Excellent tips, I've naturally followed most of these, it's crazy to see them reflected here explicitly, they felt "such a natural thing" to do. Given the quality of most of them, I'll try to follow better the couple I don't yet.
> 2) Advertise your start time as a quarter-to the hour. If you start an event at 2:00, people won't arrive till 2:30; if you make it 1:45, people will arrive at 2:00.
Needless to say this is highly culture-dependent. I recently threw a dinner at my place in Tokyo, and I had to add the warning:
- Official dinner time was 7pm.
- Told my Southern European friends at 7pm, expecting them to arrive at 8pm.
- Told my Japanese and American friends at 7:30-8, expecting them to arrive at 8pm.
It went much better than expected, everyone arrived within 8pm~8:10pm (okay, except that one friend who is chronically late, but that's a lost cause).
The first party I attended in Denmark started at 6pm. I knew arriving promply was important, then I found about half the guests chatting in the park opposite the host's house at 5.55pm ready for an on-the-dot arrival.
I recently arrived at an Indian birthday party at 11 am (the scheduled time) and the host immediately responded, oops I forgot to tell you the real time... everyone else will arrive after noon.
reply