I remember old setup wizards on Windows 9x that would commonly advise disabling any antivirus software before proceeding with an installation. Even back then, we knew those programs could break basic functionality like app installations, yet the platform owner never truly intervened.
This whole situation now feels like too little, too late. We currently have a vast market of "security" software built on top of their platform, and everyone is compelled to use it, often due to compliance requirements. Now, Microsoft has to walk on thin ice by restricting these "snake oil" vendors without getting into trouble for anticompetitive behavior by restricting a market on top of their platform that should have never existed in the first place.
I am always disappointed when I compare the answers to the same queries on 2.5 Pro vs. o4-mini/o3. But trying out the same query in AI Studio gives much better results, closer to OpenAI's models.
What is wrong with 2.5 Pro in the Gemini app? I can't believe that the model in their consumer app would produce the same benchmark results as 2.5 Pro in the API or AI Studio.
The models in the Gemini app are nerfed in comparison to those in AI Studio: they have less thinking budget, output less tokens, and have various safety filters. There’s certainly a trade-off between using AI Studio for its better performance and using the API or the Gemini app in a way that doesn’t involve Google keeping your data for training purposes.
I don't have any inside information, but I'm sure there are different system prompts used in the Gemini chat interface vs the API. On OpenAI/ChatGPT they're sometimes dramatically different.
(Not OP) Sidebery is half tab manager, half session manager. It stays in the sidebar, and if I collapse parts of my tree, I have set it to unload those folded tabs after 60 minutes. There is also an option to hide those folded tabs from the native tab bar.
Sidebery, Tree Style Tabs, and Tabs Outliner (for Chrome) all go beyond just adding a linear/flat vertical tab bar to your browser. They preserve a nested hierarchy for child tabs and allow you to restore the entire tree (or just parts of it) on another device, which is super handy if you often switch between desktop, laptop, etc.
While its deduplication feature clearly demands more memory, my understanding is that the ZFS ARC is treated by the kernel as a driver with a massive, persistent memory allocation that cannot be swapped out ("wired" pages). Unlike the regular file system cache, ARC's eviction is not directly managed by the kernel. Instead, ZFS itself is responsible for deciding when and how to shrink the ARC.
This can lead to problems under sudden memory pressure. Because the ARC does not immediately release memory when the system needs it, userland pages might get swapped out instead. This behavior is more noticeable on personal computers, where memory usage patterns are highly dynamic (applications are constantly being started, used, and closed). On servers, where workloads are more static and predictable, the impact is usually less severe.
I do wonder if this is also the case on Solaris or illumos, where there is no intermediate SPL between ZFS and the kernel. If so, I don't think that a hypothetical native integration of ZFS on macOS (or even Linux) would adopt the ARC in its current form.
The ZFS driver will release memory if the kernel requests it. The only integration level issue is that the free command does not show ARC as a buffer/cache, so it misrepresents reality, but as far as I know, this is an issue with caches used by various filesystems (e.g. extent caches). It is only obvious in the case of ZFS because the ARC can be so large. That is a feature, not a bug, since unused memory is wasted memory.
You were downvoted but I have also run into situations where it didn’t and caused a cascade of processes getting out of memory errors. In both instances I was pushing the server beyond what was reasonable.
I assume that the VM2 project achieved something similar to the ABD changes that were done in OpenZFS. ABD replaced the use of SLAB buffers for ARC with lists of pages. The issue with SLAB buffers is that absurd amounts of work could be done to free memory, and a single long lived SLAB object would prevent any of it from mattering. Long lived slab objects caused excessive reclaim, slowed down the process of freeing enough memory to satisfy system needs and in some cases, prevented enough memory from being freed to satisfy system needs entirely. Switching to linked lists of pages fixed that since the memory being freed from ARC upon request would immediately become free rather than be deferred to when all of the objects in the SLAB had been freed.
Is it just JMAP, or why does Fastmail's web app feel so fast? I have moved away from all locally running mail apps to Fastmail and even fetch/alias all my other mail accounts to them because of the much better experience.
Because most working web developers actually have no idea how to write JS; they follow what is presented (perpetuated) as industry standard practice, but in a React-and-NPM world, "industry standard practice" means bad practices.
Probably another instance of people who somehow couple the success of their chosen team/group to their own self-worth. Depending on the intensity of the manifestation, we call it national pride, gang affiliation or John Gruber.
Is this an issue with all networks that have a "restrictive" peering policy, as shown in [0], or is Deutsche Telekom particularly problematic in this case?
This whole situation now feels like too little, too late. We currently have a vast market of "security" software built on top of their platform, and everyone is compelled to use it, often due to compliance requirements. Now, Microsoft has to walk on thin ice by restricting these "snake oil" vendors without getting into trouble for anticompetitive behavior by restricting a market on top of their platform that should have never existed in the first place.