Byamarro

That's a clever observation and is very true. Development time tho historically was also very expensive hence push for easy to work with dev stacks such as js

Depends on a type of company, I work at a mid-sized startup and through lifecycle of this company there were times when we've had architects and there were times when we haven't. Rn we don't have and a lot of decisions is made within teams and we just try to keep communication about what's needed for business tight

This is no charity, this money largerly comes back to the countries that are biggest spenders on these funds. It's basically an equivalent of FDI

Security through obscurity is mitigation basically. You reduce risk/impact, not eliminate it. There are problems - such as denial of wallet attacks - where you can only mitigate and can't eliminate the problem completely

How does Zed compare to let's say vsc

All of logic and math is a convincence tool. There are no, circles, quantities. Reality just is. We created these tools because they're a convinent way to cope with complexity of reality. There are no "objects" in a sense that chair is just atoms arranged chair-like. And atoms are just smaller particles arranged atom-like and yet physics operate in these objects treating them as something that exist.

So, now we have created these mental tools called mathematics that are heavily constrained. Then we create models that are approximately map 1:1 to some patterns that exist in reality (IE patterns that are roughly local so that we can call them objects). Due to the fact that our mental tools have heavy constrains and that we iteratively adjust these models to fit reality at focal points, we can approximately predict reality, because we already mapped the constrains into the model. But we shouldn't mistake model for the reality. Map is not territory.

I blame syntax. It's too unorthodox nowadays. Historical reasons don't matter all that much, everything mainstream is a C-family memember

In fact, automated regression tests done by ai with visual capabilities may have bigger impact than formal verification has. You can have an army of testers now, painfully going through every corner of your software

A hybrid will likely emerge. I work on a chat application and it's pretty normal that LLM can print custom ui as part of the chat. Things like sliders, dials, selects, calendars are just better as a GUI in certain situations.

I've once saw a demo of an AI photo editing app that displays sliders next to light sources on a photo and you are able to dim/brighten the individual light sources intensity this way. This feels to me like a next level of the user interface.

There's actually a research showing that llms are more accurate when questions are in Polish: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.01996

I think we can do better than to have this level of argumentation. Regardless if the pretending comment had a merit to it or not

What he refers to is more specifically called phenomological consciousness afaik (just skimmed through tho)

Math is about creating mental models.

Sometimes we want to model something in real life and try to use math for this - this is physics.

But even then, the model is not real, it's a model (not even a 1:1 one on top of that). It usually tries to capture some cherry picked traits of reality i.e. when will a planet be in 60 days ignoring all its "atoms"[1]. That's because we want to have some predictive power and we can't simulate whole reality. Wolfram calls these selective traits that can be calculated without calculating everything else "pockets of reducability". Do they exist? Imho no, planets don't fundamentally exist, they're mental constructs we've created for a group of particles so that our brains won't explode. If planets don't exist, so do their position etc.

The things about models is that they're usually simplifications of the thing they model, with only the parts of it that interest us.

Modeling is so natural for us that we often fail to realize that we're projecting. We're projecting content of our minds onto reality and then we start to ask questions out of confusion such as "does my mind concept exist". Your mind concept is a neutral pattern in your mind, that's it.

[1] atoms are mental concepts as well ofc

It is a bit of a clickbait since they used commandblocks, not just redstone. But it's still impressive

What I've found is that NuxtJS is miles ahead in DX. In NextJs it feels like their architecture stands in your way while in NuxtJS everything just works.

It should be almost obligatory to always state which definition of consciousness one is talking about whenever they talk about consiousness, because I for example don't see what language has to do with our ability to experience qualia for example.

Is it self awarness? There are animals that can recognize themselves in mirror, I don't think all of them have a form of proto-language.

More of a question is its context rot tendency than the size of its context :) LLMs are supposed to load 3 bibles into their context, but they forget what they were about to do after loading a 600LoC of locales.

That's langchain terminology. LLMs usually are exposed to a set of tools. It's usually pretty obvious which are obvious, since there's only one tool that's even remotely associated with the task at hand.

I work in web dev, so people sometimes hook code formatting as a git commit hook or sometimes even upon file save. The tests are problematic tho. If you work at huge project it's a no go idea at all. If you work at medium then the tests are long enough to block you, but short enough for you not to be able to focus on anything else in the meantime.

And we have a good example of a dimwitted, brute-force process creating intelligent designs - evolution.

Fully agree. TS shouldn't throw internal types into the user's face. The errors UX is abyssymal. The fact that the most popular editor - VSC - doesn't preserve line breaks makes reading TS errors even worse. I highly recommend the pretty TS errors extension, otherwise you're only hurting yourself working with TS.

TS doesn't support higher order types. You can't return a generic and pass its parameters later. It's basically only a single level of parametrization.

``` type MyGeneric<TParam> = ...; type HigherOrderGeneric<TParam> = TParam extends string ? MyGeneric : never;

type Hey = HigherOrderGeneric<string><number>;

```

There are libraries that try to achieve this through some hacks, tho their ergonomics are really bad.

Probably there are many people like me - I use messenger and not the Facebook. But they REALLY want ppl like me to use the Facebook.

I think that early in development you should be able to spam a lot of hypothesis and quickly test them and check how people interact with your software. Whether your software makes sense is more important than whether it's fast.

People are also highly unpredictable, so it is usually a matter of trial and error, very often their feedback may completely erase wide sets of assumptions you were building your product around.

It's borderline impossible to do it on mature product, but rewriting mature product to something faster is not borderline impossible - it's just very hard.

Note that it doesn't apply if you just program something in accordance from an rfc where everything is predefined.

Maybe I miss what REPL really is, but...

If REPL is the main value proposition, how is it better from average JavaScript development? Dev tools allow you to basically interactively work with your code.

Both jets and birds fly but do it in a completely different way. Who said that there's only one way to achieve reasoning?

That's actually a factor that diseases aim for. Mortal diseases don't spread as much as the ones that don't damage the host as much. Because of this, severe diseases sometimes evolve into mild ones.

Learning curve perhaps? There doesn't have to be an overlap between people working on this and the tools you have mentioned

I wonder whether something similar could be achieved with NuxtJs. It has something similar, where it allows you to refer to vuejs components from markdown and parametrize them.

It's pretty convinent

It's not really a syntax bloat, the linked docs mention how to define strict string types and elaborate on type-level programming, something that is a very rare and powerful type-level capability. As far as I understand Virtual Threads aren't type oriented feature, which is basically the context for this thread.