harpiaharpyja

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

I find the "EMBEDDED MALWARE DESTROYED MONTHS OF WORK" issue opened on the jqwik repo to be baffling. Do they not use source control? And if not, what are they doing on GitHub

Compare is broken, always produces "not found"

As a customer of DropBox since ~2011 I would say they've been an outstanding success.

Maybe it's time we redefine what success means.

I don't think it's clearly established that 10,000 Shahed drones would actually be a threat to an aircraft carrier though.

Remember that 10k drones can't just be conjured into the air all at once or act with perfect coordination. There are operational limitations that prevent effectiveness from scaling up past a certain point.

...did you read TFA?

Equally dogmatic take. A lot of scarcity is artificial.

I'm only partway through, but I believe one of the foundational blocks is that computation is fundamentally an interpretation of physical events, not something that can just exist by itself.

It's funny how often my brain gets redirected to German Shepard Dogs when reading conversations about AI. And I still can't remember what the other meaning of GSD is supposed to be without an Internet search.

I would love to see a model of Mythras/Runequest

Do these companies that are buying up all the supply actually need all that RAM right now? Or are they buying it all up in anticipation of future need? If the latter, honestly this might be a case where some kind of regulation really ought to step in.

I think a lot of people (especially those who are only peripherally involved in development, like management) don't really consider performance regressions at all when thinking about how to get software to go faster.

Meanwhile my experience has been that whenever there has been a performance issue severe enough to actually matter, it's often been the result of some kind of performance bug, not so much language, runtime, or even algorithm choices for that matter.

Hence whenever the topic of how to improve performance comes up, I always, always insist that we profile first.

  The old dragon Kalessin looked at him from one long, awful, golden eye. 
  There were ages beyond ages in the depths of that eye; the morning of the world was deep in it. 
  Though Arren did not look into it, he knew that it looked upon him with profound and mild hilarity."

I recently had a high-level meeting with Kalessin, a legacy leader in the space. (dragon emoji)

Looking into that golden eye was a masterclass in long-term vision. We’re talking ages of experience and "day one" mentality combined.

Even without direct eye contact, the synergy was real. There’s something to be said for leadership that approaches challenges with profound, mild hilarity.

Key takeaways: 1. Experience matters. 2. Perspective is everything. 3. Don't forget to find the joy in the grind.

#Leadership #Visionary #Legacy #GrowthMindset #Networking

When documentation is lacking, if the 3rd party library is source-available then reading the source code is my next step. This almost never fails me. Source code is usually understandable, generally speaking many brilliant people have put in decades of effort to make source code and the tools we use that way. I've long considered that the ability to understand source code by sitting down and reading as the most important asset a developer could have. Given that, I wonder how the latest trend seemingly against understanding source code will turn out. Maybe it will turn out to be less important, who knows. But it is really weird to live through.

The article was essentially, "you should hate Anthropic" followed by a poorly explained timeline and some insubstantial arguments.

If there was a point there the article did not make it easy to find.

I knew it couldn't be coincidence that a green cabbage looks exactly like a giant brussel sprout.

Thank you for articulating that.

I mean, you're asking for a fundamentally different directing for the language with different tradeoffs? Why are you commenting on an article about Rust? Not everyone wants the same tradeoffs that you do.

Look, included in the concepts the article discusses are features that people have been wanting for a very long time.

Like, the ability to have multiple mut references to a struct as long as you access disjoint fields? That's amazing!!! A redo of Pin that actually composes with the rest of the language? That's pretty awesome too.

I think you're getting tied up because the the author is describing these features in a very formal way. But someone has to think about these things, especially if they are going to implement them.

Ultimately, these are features that will make Rust's safety features (which really, are Rust's reason for existing) more ergonomic and easier to use. That's the opposite of what you fear.

TFA makes a strong argument that that isn't the case.

I would say it's even the thesis of the article. Joann Fabrics was a healthy company with customer demand and zero debt and was basically assassinated by a leveraged buyout.

The author refers to a few things that he thinks will appeal to the "early majority," but I feel like that's a weakness of the article. Is the author part of the "early majority?" (doesn't seem like it). Does he have the same problems that they have? How does he know?

Kicking myself because I ran out of time yet forgot to mention any vultures, elephants, or large cats. I guess that's for trying this first thing on a Sunday.

I'm one of those people. What is a work truck used for?

Seems like the essential criteria is not whether you can write opaque code in it, but rather whether the language enables you to accomplish most tasks using clear, readable code. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Hopefully I am paraphrasing you correctly.

At that point the whole idea becomes quite removed from what most people would think of when asked to consider if the universe is a simulation.

To clarify: without being able to simulate the universe from within the universe itself (i.e. needing to resort to some "outside" higher-fidelity universe), then the word "simulation" becomes meaningless.

We could just as easily refer to the whole thing (the inner "simulation" and the outer "simulation") as just being different "layers of abstraction" of the same universe, and drop the word "simulation" altogether. It would have the same ontology with less baggage.

A design that was once useful but no longer has a use is not the same thing as a failed design. Which is what the disagreement seems to be about.

If air was highly conductive that analogy would totally hold.

"If there’s a cut in my wire’s insulation, the device won’t get enough voltage" doesn't follow from: "voltage is like water pressure in pipes"

So I don't really get your point.

Not all models can actually do that if your prompt is particular

It's an indictment of how bad coding interviews are/were

It's funny how this article seems to repeat itself halfway through, like it was written by AI