HN user
It's not outside Jason Rohrer's style for this to be... guided output, but it's also not outside his style for this to be the creepiest fully autonomous bot I've ever seen.
That's a great idea. It's also what Tally does.
I love the aesthetics. The cryptographic strength tradeoffs (against UUIDv7) seem rough for a lot of applications, though.
Both technologies (cryptocurrency and nostr) are very cipherpunk—I'm not particularly surprised that they draw overlapping crowds.
Another take on decentralized source control with more of an emphasis on "federated" and less of one on "censorship resistant": https://tangled.org/
I really love Rob Mensching's framing in Open Source Maintenance Fee[1]. "The _software_ is free. The _project_ (issue tracker, forums, release management, package repository, etc.) is not."
It doesn't solve the supplier problem, but it is a very clever way to square the "free software, but I'd like to cover my expenses" circle.
They have three other approaches that they're considering as well. (Check the About page on TFA.)
In all three cases, they own hardware (Apple in a slightly different sense) that they'd love for you to pay to run your favorite models on, open or closed.
A game like Rogue.
Slightly less obtusely, it usually was a procedurally generated dungeon-crawler with potions and scrolls and varied weapons to use against varied mobs. When you died, you were dead. Your character began each time with no knowledge and had to learn what a "cloudy red potion" happens to be this time around by drinking it or using an identify scroll.
Pizza Hutt is Jabba The's cousin. Pizza Hut is the restaurant chain to which you refer.
I'm sure MySpace thought the same thing about their never-before-seen accomplishments. I suspect very few people knew what "something else" was in that case, either.
ChatGPT's threat to Google isn't that Google can't match it--it's that it changes the approach to search results from displaying lists of results where it's "natural" to insert sponsored listings to a more conversational approach where ad opportunities will be rarer (or at least entirely different).
If users prefer the newer, interactive approach to exploring search results, Google's long-standing business model will require a significant update.
This has caused me to realize that I need to replace my old model of vi:
command mode has primacy; insert mode is a time-bounded special case
with:
insert mode is every other mundane editor; use the Esc key to enter the matrix (i.e. command mode)
By definition, each program only produces the digits of one number. It's okay for more than one program to produce the same number. Am I misunderstanding your point?
I _do_ work at Microsoft, and judging by the recent crop of promotions (early September) there was still plenty of opportunity for white males (and everyone else).
(That was the joke.)
I think the TLA you were looking for is TRA?
Is this a totally different thing than Dr. Fill [1]?
[1] https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/american-crossword-puzz...
Stephen Wolfram has really grown on me over the last 10 years or so. He came across as obnoxiously arrogant for the longest time (so much that I still (defensibly) refer to "A New Kind of Science" as "Stephen Wolfram is a MF'n Genius Even If He Does Say So Himself").
These days, he live streams Mathematica design reviews on YouTube and Twitch. The conversations are fairly balanced and he clearly has a decent eye for designing the best god damn computational notebook system on the planet.
Admittedly, campaigning to name what could possibly maybe someday be the next big upgrade to physics after himself ("the Wolfram Physics Project") while he's still around and it's still in development is MIGHTY BOLD. But there's some really really interesting outcomes from the work that they've done so far.
If nothing else, it's a slam dunk proof of how physicists already think of "the speed of light" as actually "the speed limit for causal interaction". You essentially get all of the implications of both special and general relativity out of modeling causal interactions without even attaching it to any sort of specific physics.
I love that he wrote this essay (typical Wolfram long form essay that takes multiple sittings for me to digest) using puzzles and games as the subject of aforementioned causal modeling. Super fun, and also insightful!
As terrible as rescinding offers is, offering severance and job placement assistance is a very interesting approach to minimizing how terrible.
VS Code, while not a fully-fledged IDE, is really good at suggesting code completions across platforms. As others have mentioned, Rider is also a wonderful fully cross-platform IDE (better than Visual Studio at some things).
True in every browser I've tried far. I also had two separate blogchain tabs hard-hang and they had to be killed. I'm not sure I'm ready for all of this mindboggling innovation in UX. :)
I have no idea why, but I love alternate number systems (p-adics, surreals, base -2, split-complex, etc.). This one is playful.
Anyone know where to find a rigorous maths treatment for it?
Those two things cannot be true simultaneously. You cannot say "running big systems is hard" and "they can run a big system better than you can run a small system".
They can absolutely be true simultaneously. In fact, I can't name a logic system where those two statements comprise a contradiction. They are logically completely unrelated to each other.
This feels like an "it is what it is"-style viral stunt, even though I actually suspect it's a sincere(?) post about reasons for developing without an audience.
It's gonna end up with more of an audience now, tho... :eye::mouth::eye:
Go was definitely ahead of the curve on a few things.
I'd argue C# was there (or very very close). C# has had value types (and fine-grained memory layout) since the beginning, reified generics since .NET 2.0, and also (lesser-known fact) raw pointer support (inside `unsafe {}` blocks much like Rust's approach). This was all motivated by interoperability with native code (mostly Win32 or other C-like ABIs & COM).
In 2009, the concurrency paradigm in .NET was more like promises and not quite as slick as goroutines. async/await wasn't born until 2012.
It wasn't on your list, but I'll toss in another point that works in favor of your original claim. ;) The main C# project also wasn't TRULY multi-platform until 2014.
No one insulted Java. Why so defensive?
Go and Java make different tradeoffs. If you're unreasonably effective in Java and its tradeoffs work for you, that's completely fine. If you have good tools that make Java more like Go when you need Go-like characteristics, that's cool too.
I struggled for years with a chronic misunderstanding of Go. I kept trying to compare it to the usual suspects in the "next systems language" crowd (D, Rust, Zig). That wasn't quite right.
Once I realized that its sweet spot is large-ish services that you want closer to the metal than Java but for which would be silly to go as low level as C++, Go fans started making a whole lot more sense to me.
I'm still not a Go fan personally—my taste in programming languages slants toward the more expressive end of the scale (C#, Rust, Scala). But at least I'm no longer confused by trying to make Go make sense where it doesn't.
It's a very good tool for its kinds of jobs. Other languages also have their points of unreasonable effectiveness, too.
Still being revised in standards committees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#COBOL_2014
Yep. Probably the confusing name change threw him off the scent.
What would have been ".NET Core 5" is just ".NET 5", and that's when the bulk of the desktop framework compat came online.
Outlook(.com) has "Focused Inbox" which does the same kind of tricks watching which types of content you interact with regularly and only surfacing those until you want to go read your "All Messages" tab. (my recollection of the tab names may only be approximate)