kibwen

There's an equally valid hypothesis that a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform; whereas a bad CEO is one who, due to ego and self-aggrandizement, can't help but impose themselves via meddling and prevent a good company from performing. By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all, despite what the executive class would have you believe. The aristocracy of old also argued that their titles were earned and that society could not function without them.

You don't necessarily need to be near a small station these days, college stations can stream online. I listen to WXPN (UPenn) that way regularly: https://xpn.org/ (player at top of the page).

Certainly, we can imagine other use cases for quantum computers. But just because something could be useful doesn't mean it will be developed; the cost still needs to be surmountable.

I'm afraid I don't see how the linked comment demonstrates the positive utility of QC.

Ironically, given that the primary use case for developing quantum computers is breaking classical encryption, switching en-masse to post-quantum schemes may very well ensure that developing a working quantum computer may never be economically viable to develop.

You won't end up with a mix in the same program unless the code that you're using to parse the config is deliberately written to allow a mix, which no sane code owner would allow. And even if it did, that still wouldn't be enough to outweigh the aforementioned downside of the impedance mismatch between the """types""" in your config file format (how many bits wide is this integer? how much precision is this float? how is nullable data represented?) and the types in your actual language where it matters.

All scalar types other than strings (especially nonsense like datetimes). I'm already ingesting the configuration file as a string and parsing it into a language with actual types, e.g. Rust, and the act of parsing it into my defined configuration type will itself identify any problems with the config; having half-assed types like "int" in the config file format itself is not only useless, it's counterproductive because it requires people to ask questions like "okay, but what actually is the maximum range of integer values allowed to be contained in this type?". Just enforce UTF-8 encoded string values and let me take care of data validation.

Seconded. Your configuration should be a simple declarative language with no Turing-complete escape hatches. Turing-complete configuration languages are the devil. That goes for build systems too: if you absolutely need Turing-completeness in your build system (my condolences for the hellscape you inhabit), use a separate task runner that does its arbitrary nonsense before dispatching to an underlying build system with declarative configuration.

Given how many murders are committed against one's spouse, there ought to be.

This makes no sense. Valve can already just advertise the Steam Machine on the homepage, the page that everyone sees when they open Steam. They don't need to manipulate any rankings on the top-sellers list, the page that no ordinary person regularly looks at.

Very interesting, it didn't occur to me that hardware products would show up on Steam's top-sellers list.

At this rate, the Steam Machine will probably turn out to be a modest success. Remember, it's a PC, not a console. Unlike a console, it doesn't need to use hardware sales to convince game developers to ship games for the platform; the PC platform does not depend on the Steam Machine selling like hotcakes. Also unlike a console, Valve isn't selling these at a loss; Sony can sell you hardware at a loss because they claw that money back via online subscriptions and platform licensing fees. Valve will likely be happy enough if they can sell 100,000 by the end of the year, and based on these estimates they may already be about halfway there.

The friendly, generous humans who resoundingly endorse the corrupt Ken Paxton's actions and will overwhelmingly vote for him to serve them in the senate this year? Actions speak louder than words. With friends like Texans, who needs enemies?

space isn't a lot slower than terrestrial

But it depreciates faster. That fiber run is lasting for 50 years, not 5. You need 10x the installation capacity just to keep up.

The physics problem regarding radiator arrays isn't unsolved, but it's not a problem that scales up gracefully. Small-scale radiators could get by via passive cooling, but large-scale radiators need active cooling, and now you need fluid, pipes, and pumps that all represent additional launch mass and points of failure (and the pumps are generating heat of their own, so now you need more radiators...).

The purpose of an optimizing compiler is not merely to produce efficient assembly. The goal of an optimizing compiler is to produce efficient assembly while confidently preserving a program's observable logical semantics. Asking an LLM to spit out raw unstructured assembly based on inferred context from a specification given in English is a contender for one of the worst ideas I have ever heard; I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not sure if you've seen the price of silver, but those spoons are going for a pretty penny these days.

I wouldn't quite go that far. The fact that markets can remain irrational longer than participants can remain solvent means that participants with deeper pockets have an inherent advantage, even if they have less information. How quickly a random walk will take you to zero depends on how far above the baseline you start.

Now we're just having a semantic argument over the word "expressiveness", which is not especially interesting; see https://chrispenner.ca/posts/expressiveness-spectrum . My argument above remains true regardless of the terms you choose to use.

I don't know either, but if we visualize the RGB color space as a triangle that is entirely contained within the weird shape that represents the set of all colors the human eye can perceive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model#/media/File:CI... ), presumably the idea is to cover more of that human-perceived space via a quadrilateral with four anchor points rather than a triangle with three. Presumably the "C" in "RGBC" stands for cyan, and in the linked image the cyan portion of the color space is particularly poorly represented.

The Civ III manual was 242 pages long: https://archive.org/details/Civilization_3_-_Manual/mode/2up

A language is more expressive when it allows more programs and less expressive when it allows fewer programs. I don't know zig-clr, but if it rejects programs that Zig accepts (for example, by rejecting the aforementioned ambiguous pointers), then it is less expressive, not more (keeping in mind that being less expressive is not a pejorative).

SPARK omits some features of Ada, so it would only reinforce the sentiment that bolting on verifiability after-the-fact is difficult. Expressivity is generally the antithesis of static analysis, and it's very easy and tempting to make a language that is accidentally too expressive to support a given analysis without being required to make breaking changes to reduce expressivity.

As long as you're fine with losing your distinctive voice (which should be taken as table stakes for people who value anonymity to the extent of worrying about this), it's perfectly reasonable to use tools to stymie stylometry. I'm not even suggesting using an LLM (which may or may not be sufficient, it would be difficult to verify either way); it would suffice to have a tool that rewrites your prose (or analyzes it and flags it for manual correction, etc.) if it isn't written in, say, a form where every sentence is primitive subject-verb-object, limited to the 1,000 most common English words, with no contractions, idioms, or exotic punctuation. Yes, this doesn't completely eliminate all possibly identifying bits of entropy, but it would more than suffice for hiding in a crowd ("hiding" in the sense of obviously standing out as someone trying not to be noticed, and as long as you're also careful about your opsec in other ways, like time of posting, etc).

The interfaces to custom allocators are more idiomatic, standardized, and normalized in Zig, but there's nothing systematically unsafer about the Rust equivalent. You can use custom allocators all you want in Rust, as long as you're okay using third-party crates like Bumpalo.

On that topic, worth mentioning that Rust's long-awaited `Allocator` trait is perilously close to stabilizing; watch for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/157428 to be merged, then the stabilization PR to progress here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/156882

Not quite, it's also about transferring money to the Saudi princes who financed his buyout of Twitter.

It's a scam only if you think the stock market in general is a scam.

So in other words, yes, it's a scam.

It's utterly mortifying. I would have been having an out-of-body experience if I was in attendance at such a wedding. If it had been my own wedding, I'd have been livid at the insult.

Nice try, but our password is the same as the password to my HN account, and for security HN automatically censors your password if you type it in a comment. See: *******

Curated by whom?

If you want to curate a language package manager, there's nobody stopping you. Curation is a product that can trivially be built on top of an allow-by-default platform. If you want to make "NPM, except we've vetted all the packages", you can just do that, today, and you can even make use of all the OSS packages that already exist on NPM. Your hypothesis is that people want this, would value it if it existed, and would maybe even pay for it. So what's stopping people? Anyone who hasn't thought deeply enough to answer this question doesn't have the privelige to say "just curate it, what's the problem?". Curation isn't that simple, as any distro package manager volunteer would tell you.

Two years until... what, exactly?