Gowtham Kaki

Surprised to see Venki mama on Onion!

Submitted a POPL paper without a single theorem. Yes, I like living life on the edge.

Trump moves to slash NSF: why are the proposed budget cuts so big? Major US science funder could lose more than half its budget — and researchers are reeling.

"If the NSF budget were to be enacted as is, it “would spell the end of any pretence that the US leads the world in science and technology, handing that position to China”, says Neal Lane, who directed the agency under Democratic former president Bill Clinton." By @dangaristo.bsky.social

🧪

respects causal and arbitration orders simultaneously. What should take the priority in this case? (the above example is credited to @guiltygyoza.bsky.social ).

example is a counter that admits additions and multiplications. Suppose I want `add` to win over `mult`. How would I use this intuition to linearize the following partial order?:

-> mult1 -> add2
/
add1
\
-> mult2 -> add3

I don't see a linearization that...

E.g.., in an "add-wins" set, `Add(e)` is always ordered after a concurrent `Remove(e)`. This is easy because an `Add(e)` only ever conflicts with `Remove(e)` and vice-versa. But what if there are several kinds of conflicts? Is the arbitration order transitive/symmetric/anti-symmetric? A simple...

+1 also for lack of (principled) read semantics. In your demonstration of how an op-based CRDT is a semi-lattice of partially-ordered logs, it is assumed that concurrent ops are commutative. This is not always the case; an "arbitration order" is defined to order concurrent conflicting ops...

then we also need a buffer to store `Remove(e)` effects until preceding `Add(e)` effects arrive. This makes the implementation disproportionately complex compared to the simple spec of "add-wins" crdt, e.g., see the attached pic (from an earlier paper).

is received, it is applied only if the tagged vector clock is no less than e’s local vector clock, i.e., only if the arriving Remove has seen (i.e., causally succeeds) at least those `add(e)` ops the current replica is aware of. Otherwise it is a no-op. If casual delivery is not guaranteed ...

+1. Implicit causal delivery assumption is frustrating. Oftentimes the causality tracking mechanism is type-specific. E.g., in "add-wins" set, there need to be a vector clock for every element `e` to keep track of the number of `add(e)` operations executed on each node. When a `Remove(e)` effect ...

Another lecture on CPS and I had to mention @guannanwei.bsky.social’s continuation.passing.style, as is the convention.

Byzantine Eventual Consistency and Local-first Access Control Slides from a talk given at the 12th Workshop on Principles and Practice of Consistency for Distributed Data (PaPoC), Rotterdam, Netherlands, 31 March 2…

A few days ago I gave a keynote at the PaPoC workshop on Byzantine Eventual Consistency and Local-first Access Control. It wasn't recorded, but slides are here
speakerdeck.com/ept/byzantin...

DistSys/DB/PL/SE Folks: PaPoC 2025 CfP is out! Submit papers or talk proposals on cool stuff you are working on these days!

papoc-workshop.github.io/2025/cfp.html