Naturally. And the editors, typesetters, designers, proof readers, etc. should get paid for their work.
It is just a question of ownership and power imbalance.
The problem with the current mainstream system (both in books and music) is that the publisher often effectively owns the work - not the author.
Sure and the incremental compiler work is genuinely amazing. I was objecting purely to the notion that this new crop of systems languages is “designed from day one” around LSP, which doesn’t seem to be quite true
Are they though?
* Rust was designed before even vscode was released
* Zig, Odin, JAI are all designed by people that don’t use LSP and don’t like it
* Don’t know about Carbon, but it currently doesn’t look like it’s gonna kill anything
It seems to me that rust analyzer is something of an exception
ngl, a lot of the times, an in-memory “database” that gets backed up to a file is perfectly reasonable. Even consumer devices have dozens of gigabytes of RAM. What percentile of applications needs more?
Just because a technology works well for a few cases shouldn’t mean it’s the default. What’s the 80% solution is much more interesting IMO.
Fair enough :) It was very much an exaggeration. But, I do wonder how far would “dumb” text editing go in this scenario. And, more importantly, whether it wouldn’t be faster overall than writing a tool that still requires humans to go through its output and clean/fix it up.
Yes, the 80% claim comes from comparing 9 tests converted by both the conversion tool and humans and comparing the quality - “80% of the content within these files was accurately converted, while the remaining 20% required manual intervention.” Not sure what to make of it since they claim only 16% of files get fully converted.
The conversion is between two testing libraries for React. Not to be too cynical (this sort of works seems to me like a pretty good niche for llms), but I don’t think I’d be that far off of 80% with just vim macros…
You can file a suit against anybody for anything. If it’s obviously without merit, it’s likely to get dismissed pretty quickly. But there’s nothing stopping you from filing it.
I don’t think the specifics of the placement matter all that much. I’m a happy nvim user with a dvorak layout. Only ‘h’ is on the home row, but it’s not a problem. The issue with normal arrow keys is that you have to lift your whole hand to reach them, which is way less precise and much slower than just moving a finger.
From my experience, the best performing companies foster a culture of ownership. Owning the features/products you work on, the team you work with, and, to some extent, the company as a whole. The other limit is a completely detached and mercenary workforce. This is also a part of the reasoning behind ESOPs.
The fact that those people didn’t feel like they had any other way of voicing their disagreements with the company’s direction (and having them heard), does not bode well for the long term future of Google. Loosing passionate people that care deeply enough about your company to criticize it is seldom a good thing.
I think it’s pretty clear the comment was referring to the partition of the sudetenland, which Poland was absolutely a (albeit minor) participant in.
But thank you for linking the article. I’ve always kinda assumed that Poland was given the territories by the Nazis as a way to spread the blame. Turns out they demanded it themselves outside of the Munich conference.
I don’t know how much this is bias on my part, but sending weapons to Gaza feels more equivalent to arming anti-russian partisans in the alternate reality where the march on Kyiv wasn’t a failure and the Ukrainian government collapsed.
Perhaps, but recognizing clickbait should be within the grasp of everybody, even if they aren’t experts on the subject matter. Maybe that’s where an LLM would fit - evaluating the likelihood of an article offering something of substance.
Unless the GPT would be responsible for setting up the incentive structures, you’d end up with the same monotonous clickbait. The problem are people who give bad (science) reporting their attention and therefore money. PopSci journals are just answering the demand.
Why not? What’s the point of the state paying for higher education? I’d say encouraging social mobility and making more people into high value creators.
This is potentially a false equivalency. If storing passwords in a notebook is a common enough pattern, they become something a thief might start looking for. I don’t have the statistics, but would imagine that since “junkies” skew younger as a demographic, a good portion of them is computer literate (or knows someone who would be interested in buying accounts).
As is usually the case, it depends. Macros for “reducing boilerplate” or other syntactic reasons are poorly justified. While the resulting code might look cleaner, it’s often much harder to decipher (JS “decorators” suffer from the same issue). Macros can be invaluable for trading compile time for runtime performance, compensating for missing language features, and general metaprogramming… in a compiled language. It’s beyond me why would anybody think that macros are a good fit for interpreted JS.
This is a genuinely terrifying vision of the future. Already things like prices may differ based one’s location. Adding content writing AI to the mix is positively dystopian.
I have a 32” 4k monitor and on macOS fonts are blurry. Readable, but notably worse than on linux with X and the basic hiDPI settings from ArchWiki (with fractional scaling in both cases).
Nix is effectively transforming dynamic binaries to static ones. Might as well skip the step, stop pretending that drive space is expensive, and link everything statically.
So… aren’t the first two paragraphs of your comment mutually exclusive? As in, given the timeline, either the EU are attacking Musk but can move pretty fast, or this has nothing to do with Musk?