HelloNurse

One of about 2 to 4 plugin formats (CLAP, VST 3, VST 2 which is obsolete, Audio Unit only on Macintosh, LV2 and DSSI only on Linux), not many.

For most uses, SQL databases are easy to use and general enough to allow practically unlimited growth, "stringy queries" usually need less "wrangling" than accessing bare files correctly, and designing and implementing file formats is a luxury (usually done because optimizing for file size and compression is traditional).

The article is strangely supportive of Adobe, far beyond a normal person's sense of ridicule.

Software development is about revenue, but specifically Adobe's revenue:

  >  Automated or semi-automated cloning to steal revenue away from developers

Pay us, don't innovate:

  >  They’re spending minimum $2K to vibe code a Photoshop competitor when Affinity Photo is free and Photoshop costs $200 a year. Not very smart economics.

  >  Commercial apps innovate and lead. Open source apps like Blender follow the lead. Innovation costs a lot of money.

  >  Instead of hurling hate speech and bile at thousands of software engineers who lead innovation at large companies (Adobe, Autodesk, Maxxon, Celsys, and others), show them some gratitude for their efforts. They are the engineers who innovate and everyone else follows. Just because they work at a big company doesn't mean they are committing human rights abuses. We have a generation brainwashed by envy and hate instead of urging everyone to be greater and bigger.

Why do people hate Adobe more than other companies? What's the difference? Only sensitive insiders would pretend to ignore decades of enshittification.

  > Clip Paint Studio, Maya, 3ds Max and Cinema 4D, btw, are all subscription applications. But because those apps aren’t in demand by pirates Autodesk has not experienced the hate and bullying campaigns that Adobe has received.

People noticed the "underage children", but defending Adobe customer support is even more ridiculous:

  > And when it comes to customer support things become even sadder looking. One or two guys in a Discord chatroom cannot support a global user base, especially when those two guys are hunting for underage children to speak to on Discord (yes, I have seen what vibe coders do).

Not too many years ago, you had significant open source C++ libraries. You cared about them as much as you cared for customers.

Not fun enough.

And possibly too slow to be safe from space weapons from escort satellites protecting balloons, or too slow and clumsy for combat missions of any kind.

" It has a lift capacity of about 50% more than the Falcon Heavy, but one SLS launch costs as much as 40 Falcon Heavy launches"

I don't think they can make do with reduced capacity by splitting a lunar lander between 2 Falcon Heavy launches and assembling it in space.

Eolix has issues with issues, they don't exist any more in the Github project.

Persistent problems with increased hash lengths seem unlikely: if bad git clients have erroneous truncations or buffer overflows, they can either fix them instantly, problem solved (they have had many years to implement and test SHA-256), or fail to fix them and be written off as obsolete and incompatible: problem equally solved.

In the middle of vacuous complaints about slightly late tools and debatable threat models, I see one legitimate-looking concern in this article: submodules require either hashing algorithm and therefore force inconvenient upgrades.

Is it true? Where exactly the parent repository references hashes from the submodule repositories, and how could these links be generalized for compatibility?

The weight corresponds to a significant amount of fuel or missiles etc., or significantly better radars or other systems.

I don't think the Blackbird has the sort of engine that likes being "modulated".

There might be a side dish of catching foreign spies by waving a carefully prepared objective in front of them, not only confusing them.

A less generic strategic possibility: hiding something new and useful in the middle of crazy engineering, supply chains and training for the useless SR-71 restoration.

It must be appealing to people who want to get high, and heroin seems vastly superior in the same general category.

Public healthcare is keeping illegal Fentanyl out of Italy: there's no incentive to obtain contraband painkillers, which are not considered fun drugs.

You go to the hospital, you get the medications you need (and no more) for as long as you need them, and then you stop (or you deal with chronic conditions under medical control).

"... it’s not the committee’s fault. XML is what they had at the time, and it’s what people used. JSON was “discovered” in 2001 ..."

The committee had, at the very least, ASN.1. Not text, but any digital signature scheme has to be machine readable, not human readable.

Consider all excellent Chinese, Japanese and Korean performers of traditional Western music: it's what you should learn to have a musical career.

Since an "arbitrary piano" is tuned by turning screws, like simpler string instruments, the only pitches that it cannot be tuned to are those that fall outside the range of each string. Departing from the usual inharmonically tempered 12-EDO tuning would just sound strange, possibly outside some piano tuner's professional comfort zone.

I'm starting to read the course at the beginning, and a depressing aversion to explaining why and not only what seems apparent, probably motivated by a desire for brevity and informality that also causes serious defects. For example:

- 1.3 grand staff: "Note that middle C is always clearly notated in either the upper or lower staff and never floats between the two staves." It doesn't tell that the choice of which staff the notes belong to indicates which hand should play them.

- 1.4 accidentals "... are characters that can be placed before notes to raise or lower them." Not to reuse staff locations to distinguish the notes one needs to use.

- 1.5 Enharmonic notes: "When two notes sound the same but are written as two different notes on the staff, the written notes are said to be enharmonic." This is totally wrong, not merely maddening, but before discussing scales any decent explanation is impossible.

- 3.3 Scale Degree Names: in the middle of chapter 3 (minor scales) because there's no f** definition of what a scale is.

- 6.1 Introduction to Triads: "A triad consists of three notes stacked in consecutive thirds. A triad is also called a chord as well as a harmony. (Harmony also refers to chord progressions.)"

It's sad because many other places benefit from the concise and elegant treatment, for example:

- 5.5 Augmented and Diminished Intervals: "Augmented intervals are one half step larger than perfect or major intervals and diminished intervals are one half step smaller than perfect or minor intervals."

Behind the article's dichotomy of CTTI and RTTI there is the catalogue of concrete features (e.g. printf-like string formatting) and the respective algorithms with an exponential or linear cost in the number of types. The choice between optimized but polymorphic and lean but indirect implementations and the choice to do the work statically at compile time, dynamically at run time, or never are more independent than the article suggests, and the constraints more complex. For example, the known types at compile time that need to be handled could be all important, or an infinite (sometimes merely impractically huge) superset of the types that are actually used for a certain input, or anything in between.

  >  An “untossed salad” is definitely not a salad.

I definitely agree, but grandfathering in this specific exception suggests a definition variant: a salad can be mixed and shuffled (possibly from an ordered initial state), and in this case it remains a salad; it isn't damaged, and on the contrary it usually improves (typically by increasing the entropy of solid component positions and distributing liquid condiments more uniformly).

Given that it is easy to feed FFMPEG arbitrary input to exploit any vulnerability, popular codecs are very likely to be already secure enough, while unpopular ones are far more dangerous and deserve more attention. It can be assumed that an attacker would target the worst, easiest to exploit codec they can find in the whole of FFMPEG.

It is usually possible to design a representation where cows and pigs are the same thing, either Animal class instances or equally unified other data structures, and their differences are data (e.g. weight, length, one of several colour patterns).

You don't seem to grasp that handling individual entity state has a cost that has to be minimized and amortized.

A generation counter offers a good deal in many common cases: for the fixed small cost of incrementing the generation counter when an entity ID is assigned a trivial test, also fixed cost, can disambiguate successively recycled entities that share the same number and tell which one is current.

This adds up to work proportional to the number of distinct entities plus, assuming obsolete references are eliminated, work proportional to the number of references to entities, which is clearly very good. Do you recommend a different way to solve the same problem? There is at least one obvious one.

> start incorporating DUP and OVER and ROT and PICK and friends

If one understands adding and consuming values at the top of the stack, putting the stack in the state you want it is certainly a small logical step without new theoretical baggage.

Word definitions and the accompanying pointer tricks are more likely to be challenging.

No amount of ideology can fill L1 cache.

I certainly don't know "what my program does" if it's a game where, at every frame of the simulation, thousands of entities might or might not be created, deleted and recycled depending on player inputs.

Can you describe a superior replacement for generation counters?

Focus on formal verification is a technique to "harden" an unreliable LLM that produces meaningless slop from arbitrary text into a compiler that produces a correct program from a concise, formal input.

"Writing formal specs" means simply programming, taking a step upward in programming language abstraction level, and whether it's going to be easy remains to be seen.

I agree with the distinction between using a LLM as a tool to make personal contributions to healthy projects and expecting Codeberg to host arbitrary slop, but I'm afraid you are assuming good faith.

The "developer" could be a bot, or a tool-assisted criminal or activist, and they might be using LLMs to enhance their ability to add stealthy malware, plant patent or copyright violations, impose not quite shared technical choices, and so on.

Many open source projects ban AI contributions just because they are an efficiently low effort way to waste the time of the actual maintainers.

  >  It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don’t realize that they don’t actually have a community around them.

This is not about demanding a community, as the article argues about at great length: it's only a polite way to say that many ‘vibe coders’ are annoying, negative net value assholes. Community would ensure that they are not aberrant lone wolves.

Being fast and being as easy to program as CUDA are two different things.