ashkankiani

This is exactly what I did. I'm glad I started reimplementing everything when I was younger because I might not have had the patience for the grind. But after 7 years of that, I have enough momentum that it's easier and easier. It also helps to have good architectural principles. I don't treat my hobby projects like throwaways because that's how you end up with frustration.

The end result is being completely unaffected by version changes, the trends in programming that go up and down (javascript, python, whatever, doesn't matter to me what's happening in their world).

It helps that I was also an early adopter of Rust from pre-1.0 in college around 2011, and so I've had a relatively stable implementation language. That combined with C and Luajit is my permanent stack right now, but I'm in the progress of migrating to my own programming language.

The natural terminus of the path you are suggesting is to reimplement everything. Be prepared for a long road, even with LLMs at your disposal now. An LLM can't design what you want because it can't read your mind.

It doesn't take a billionaire to do it at this point. In case you've forgotten, there are still plenty of very intelligent humans around. All it takes is one intelligent misanthrope with sufficient access to the resources (not even that expensive relatively, likely not more than $1 million in tools, but i would guess far less is possible), to pull off an attack like that.

I guess billionaires are more malignant/misanthropic/sociopathic/narcissistic than most, and so I could see them being a higher risk factor.

I was kind of joking with you before, but tbh we actually are closer aligned on this than I expected. Including how strange the "effective altruists" are. I was expecting you to be talking about a much more far fetched scenario based on the language in the parent comment.

not really. it's just pop all of the stack and return to depth 0. you can still detect imbalanced parens, but i'm not sure how it affects the provenance question of where a missing one would point out in errors.

What if they revoke the ability to import an FCC ID (like if it was for DJI) in the time between you ordered it and it arrived? It's not an entirely improbably scenario, and I'm guessing they won't care about the nuance. This administration is incredibly fickle and arbitrary.

I think you missed the point of their comment. The point is they are reducing features (marginal cost difference for them) to provide a worse experience for a cheaper model. I'm pretty sure it's less complicated to have a shared manufacturing process with fewer SKUs than to have two separate displays (if they're even different and not just software locked).

Do you think they couldn't add a refresh rate control to the device if you wanted to have lower battery? They already have variable refresh rate implemented, a much harder problem.

I remember the age of when Intel used to lock down hardware multipliers for overclocking behind the K versions, and GPUs did too. This is a well known practice, and Apple is not above it.

When I wrote the initial version of the neovim LSP client, I got intimately familiar with LSP, and how much I hate it. Microsoft protocols have a habit of being extremely specialized to their application despite being recommended for broader use. I will never, ever, ever adapt another microsoft language protocol.

I agree that viruses are tiny machines, but I disagree that we can manufacture them to that level right now. But that is a valid concern that near future it could be possible. But why would billionaires want to kill everyone, exactly?

I feel like I still don't understand your logical endgame.

Definitionally, from the product they claim to sell, you could just ask Claude to help you migrate to an open source model (if you have the hardware or if you are ok with a subscription) with very little difficulty in the scope of a single conversation. The product they're selling is capable of helping you stop using it. And there's very little friction to use other products too, unlike linux vs mac vs windows, where program compatibility is not as trivial (although with WINE, Rosetta, and WSL, it is actually decently easy nowadays). In this case, you're just calling out to an API with a harness. And even their harness is capable of using open source models.

I feel like it's different from all other cases because it's the first product which can literally obsolete itself, lol. It can show you the door and walk you through it if you ask it to.

What do you mean by "galactic"?

I'm not sure, why don't you finish your scifi novel and tell us. I'm assuming this is part of the plot?

Donald Trump is a puppet for those with bigger around him, but because of his mania and dementia, it's like having to roll a d6 whenever you try to steer him. I think that unpredictability is part of the issue making it hard to extract what the long term play is.

There's also the incompetence of the ones with the longer term plans making whatever is played out more inscrutable. Although they have actually implemented a significant portion of project 2025.

I personally think it's really funny how if you were to try to reverse engineer his motivations based on the actual outcome, then the most likely answer is that he's a joint Chinese-Russian spy based on how much they've benefited from his elections.

If you haven't learned anything about the state of asymmetric warfare, an autonomous robot is going to be very expensive and timely to build and will be disabled by a $30 drone with C4 attached to it with sufficiently good skills at dodging. I'm assuming that we're in your supposed fantasy world where robotics has progressed to that point, meaning that the people opposing the robots also have access to much better drone software too, to keep things fair.

EBITDA profitable is not a substantial vote of confidence.

Politics is intertwined with economics and finance. Unless by politicized you meant inviting opinions unrelated to facts. What you stated is a fact. The part that is hard to divine is if there's a larger end goal that justifies the loss of trust.

At this point, the best guess is he plans to deflate the currency to make the debt worthless.

You don't need to bother defending yourself to someone who unironically says "left wing warrior" as an accusation.

oh neat, I didn't know that. makes sense, thanks

Why do you keep writing Gio for gigabytes? I guess maybe GiB for gibibyte, but Gio is new to me

I love reading through the comment history of people like you

I can't wait to exploit all of the known and new pdf CVEs from all these new vibe coded pdf engines. Unless they managed to put in the secret phrase "and don't make any mistakes, especially on security!"

I'll concede to see where this goes. Fine, it's allocated, not consumed.

Then consumption isn't the dispute, and the yachts are a distraction. So the question is what unbounded accumulation buys that bounded accumulation can't. Not welfare, since you've just said it's all reinvested.

What's left is control: over which projects get capital, which technologies get built, which politicians get funded. $250M toward an election is the same capital, doing the same "allocation." Is concentrated control over allocation a good we should maximize? And is "they built this heap" a sufficient moral title to it, including when the heap was inherited rather than built (which is the majority of the time)?

Are you seriously trying to compare half a billion total spent by a single man (just Elon) to middle class people contributing $50 to an election?

According to the data I could find, on average the middle class donate <$100. At least 55% donate <$100, with most being small donations.

Let's be generous and use $100. That means one person exerted the equivalent pressure of 5 million people.

What the fuck are you on about at this point. What is this stupid technically correct "but many people spend on elections" nonsense? Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Oh, so you believe you are the best judge of how to allocate resources, and that without the ability for a single person to decide this, we'll suffer... how exactly? Are you going to say we can't maximize productive velocity in tech development, or medicine, or something else where we need the maximum productive speed? How is all of that productive velocity going to benefit people? Will it regrow the forests that were razed for productivity? Will it unpollute the lead that was productively allocated to the air and the sea?

Do you see billionaires doing that right now? Are they the most efficient resource allocators? Is the $250 million that Elon is spending to influence the election the best use of that $250 million that he could've achieved?

I would like some more serious answers from you, otherwise don't bother allocating your effort to responding. I'm sure you, as an excellent allocator, will come to the same conclusion.

During what people like you would generally refer to as the "golden age of the US" during the 50s -> 80s, the progressive tax on the wealthiest was around 91%. And they still managed to be insanely wealthy, and the country had lots of burgeoning social programs that benefitted from it.

Why exactly do you feel the need to defend the right to hoard money? What does that extra money do? Buy you a yacht? Buy you a media empire to control propaganda? Buy you a private island for your wealthy friends to "party" on? A measuring stick to satisfy your own incomplete metric of self worth?

What exactly do you need all that money for?

What exactly do you intend to do with infinite wealth? What kind of life do you lead that isn't satisfied by what would be otherwise normal constraints?

I'm asking seriously. I've done this exercise for myself on what I want for my life, and the answer is that I can already afford it, and if we weren't so wasteful with our surplus of food, weren't so corrupted by regulatory capture as to allow companies to charge whatever for essentials, then most people would probably be able to achieve that same level of comfort.

What is it that you or anyone else needs an infinite amount of wealth for?

it's too late to edit but i saw the prior art on github now https://github.com/aardappel/goose/blob/master/docs/design/p...

anyway, hope this project goes well! the secret of the arena allocator seems to be out now to the mainstream. I think this is also a strength of array programming languages in the tradition of APL/J/K/Q.

As this project develops, I'll get to benefit from your public crowd sourced testing and design before having to publicize mine :P

I have my own language I'm working on in private and it's nice to see other people coming to the same conclusion on region based memory. I was heavily influenced 7 years ago from learning from HandmadeHero and the community around it, and so I made that memory model one of my goals from the start, and it is indeed possible to get very fast programming with it when you make it your default, and when you make the language able to statically analyze it more.

That is about where our similarities end, though, since I'm doing quite a lot of other stuff in the midst as well (much heavier type stuff, fully incremental, retargetable, reflection, integer range tracking, blah blah blah), and the more goals you have, the complexity blows up exponentially. I do think that the region based memory part alone is worthwhile to have as a language feature, so I applaud your pragmatism. I like your syntax for returning through call stacks, too.

There are other languages that do this, though. Did you look into any of the others? Or ones like Odin which give you the configurable bump allocators and scratch space as well? Mainly I'm curious about your opinions of prior art.

I don't want to read software written by misanthropes. If you've given up on working with other people, then what is the point exactly?

I had a feeling when I read the title and then started reading the post, "this person must be young, probably a student." I think it's ironic that they're using such unscientific terminology like "fastest" given their background https://xiangpeng.systems/. So clearly, it's in the interest of marketing. Maybe some kind of job advertising/resume thing.

I can almost guarantee that someone has built a custom btree for their specific domain which is faster than this; and that they probably have some or all of the techniques used in this library that are the main contributors to performance, as well. Prefetching is probably the main one they'll claim, and I know personally of some proprietary implementations which have it.

I would like to see some more humility, but I suppose that when you've already resigned your own potential to being below an LLM, then what's the point.

It's not possible or useful for them to grow anymore. Some new frontier model next week will outdo whatever ephemerally useful project this person writes, right? That's the logic?

That regulatory risk argument won't work forever. It's the same with how the US bans chinese EVs which is why Tesla has high market share in the US, but in the rest of the world, chinese EVs are doing big numbers. The future is going to be full of surprises.

His nazi salute looked pretty far up and to the right. Twice, btw.