1. 6

    Googler here, opinions are my own.

    “coordinated plan that involved introducing small bugs on its sites that would only manifest for Firefox users.”

    as if Googlers have time for that. I would guess simple pressure to launch fast, and not spending the eng effort optimizing for FF due to low market share.

    1. 10

      It wasn’t low at first. It lowered over time, due to things like these, among others.

    1. 3

      Canvasing for Sonja Trauss, preparing for work trip, going to Autograf & Stayloose, some personal project work of sifting through group feedback.

      1. 2

        That Titan chip is pretty cool.

        1. 2

          Canvasing for Sonja Trauss, potting some plants, catching up on sleep.

          1. 2

            great. one less thing that doesn’t make sense to non-tech-savy people removed from URLs.

            1. 1

              Unlike the utm tracker, that they are keeping. URLs make enough sense to people, so much sense in fact that it confuses people when a URL shared doesn’t give someone else an identical view.

              It is a sign of privilege and extra knowledge to look at a URL and see what, in a perfect world, might be removed.

              1. 1

                I disagree. If you ever show the web to a totally new user, like in emerging markets, they look at a URL and are like “WTF is all that, I just want Facebook”. People actually download browsers based on whether it has ‘facebook’ or not (although this is a different issue).

            1. 4

              Avg first meaningful paint of this person’s clients webpages is 4 seconds.


              1. 22

                What a rollercoaster. First, I was concerned. Then interested. Then, I was struggling to figure out the problem. Then laughter. Then sadness.

                Am I wrong here:

                1. Outreachy would potentially fund people to work on llvm / internships
                2. It doesn’t cost LLVM any money or resources to be a part of Outreachy
                3. No one is even participating in llvm outreachy https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/llvm/

                Seems rather overblown and dramatic. Maybe the drama was the point? I’m seeing a lot of ‘one-size-pie’ people. We can grow the pie! There is an infinite pie here!

                1. 11

                  It doesn’t cost LLVM any money or resources to be a part of Outreachy

                  Besides the mentor’s time. Other than that I think you’ve accurately summarized this teapot tempest.

                  1. 7

                    In summary, LLVM got nothing, but also lost a contributor who contributed a lot to LLVM for more than 10 years. What a disaster.

                    1. -2

                      Perhaps LLVM gained in the sense that they lost someone who promoted toxic working culture. My only data is this letter though - I wonder if there are any other primary sources.

                      1. 7

                        Chris Lattner himself posted a primary source, which is now merged to this thread. I recommend reading it.

                        You have no evidence of Rafael promoting toxic working culture. This is bordering on libel. I have been on llvm-dev since 2007 and my experience indicates otherwise.

                  1. 3

                    What’s the current status here? I’m excited about this project.

                    1. 8

                      disclaimer: I’m not a Mill employee, I’m just summarizing what I’ve found out from a bit of recent reading

                      They’re at least 1-2 years from having something that the rest of us can really mess with, outside of attempting to verify that what they’ve currently put out could work via an online compiler. Due to a change in how patents were awarded (from first to invent to first to file), the company had to shift gears from developing the CPU tech in stealth to getting patents filed on all of their relevant advances so that they stand a chance in the current market.

                      @angersock will probably feel a bit snarky about this post, but I’m bullish on the Mill CPU bringing something pretty revolutionary to the table. It’s just going to take 3-5+ years before we’ll see any actual fab of the chip, since the startup has been trading time for money until this past year.

                      I can see this potentially becoming a big deal on either servers or phones, since those are both markets where MIPS/Watt matter a lot, and where superscalars are starting to peter out. Moore’s law is slowing, though new chips are still markedly faster than tech from 5-6 years ago (as I’ve been made rather brutally aware on my aging laptop), trying different ideas like this is where we’re going to see a lot of advancement in the next 25 years, barring a change from silicon to some other computing media.

                      The other reason I’m bullish on Mill being realized is that the company has not been avoiding scrutiny once they had enough to show people. If a properly solid rebuttal to the arch exists, I’m not aware of it. I’ve seen a lot of people suggest that because the Mill has shades of the Itanium in it’s design that it’s likely to have a similar ill fate. Nobody has given a conclusive argument as to why, however.

                      What Mill Computer Inc have is rather crazy by conventional standards, but they seem to be focusing on the right problems (Tool chain, porting Linux Kernel, LLVM integration, flexible arch so they can find a niche) with the right attitude (asking for scrutiny and welcoming skeptics). They still have quite a few hurdles to overcome, but I’m excited to see just how far they’re able to take this arch. If in 15-25 years it have ends the dominance of undefined behavior and makes context switches much better, that alone would be a huge win.

                      1. 2

                        I too hope that it works out–it’d be great to see a new and novel architecture!

                        I’m just a bit worried about their getting of good compiler support.

                        See? No snark. :)

                        1. 1

                          I mean, compiler support is going to be a challenge, though since they are developing one themselves that should at least be a start.

                        2. 1

                          Interesting. Thanks for the update/info! I wasn’t able to find any news / updates from the team after 2015 or so. If you found a email list or update stream that isn’t dead let me know.

                          1. 1


                            That’s the most recent I’ve seen, combined with the marked visual update.

                      1. 10

                        This is how the DMCA works. Google has to take the thing down within like 24 hours or something ridiculous by law. Fuck the DMCA

                        1. 9

                          The DMCA does not require them to ignore all emails about the takedown or send inaccurate canned responses.

                          1. 1

                            No, it just encourages it.

                          2. 1

                            Surely they could disable instead of destroy, then let the content creator plead a case or at least click a button, “This is a mistake”? After a few weeks it would otherwise be destroyed.

                            1. 2

                              I think everyone would click the button