2,957 karma · joined September 19, 2020
If someone decides of their own volition to become a slave, is that not their free will?
Most of us believe that certain rights should be inalienable.
> Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument
Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.
LLMs are making many of the enthusiasts who were online just "for fun" feel sick for contributing to their training set.
> someone's cooking website where they first tell your their life story before
I haven't seen a recipe page without a "Jump to Recipe" page button in forever.
This post is very clearly written by an LLM. It has that distinctive cadence. I'm not sure why it's on the frontpage.
(I'm starting to think it's a joke I'm not getting...)
V has plenty of other issues, though.
Of course it's reasonable? You can give someone a job and also ask them to do it a certain way.
> Abstract: Contrary to everybody, this self contained paper will show that continued fractions are not only perfectly amenable to arithmetic, they are amenable to perfect arithmetic.
As a heuristic for identifying when something deserves attention?
That's true, but that's not what the parent comment claimed. They didn't say a majority receive psychiatric care involuntarily, they said it's not hard to find examples who receive it involuntarily, and that's true. Lots of people are forced to take psychiatric medication right now, in developed countries including the US.
Doesn't look like it. The first list of logos is standards bodies. The second list of logos is integrations.
People do gossip about charitable successes.
Anyway, aren't capital-R Rationalists typically very online about what they do? If there are any amazing success stories you want to bring up (and I'm not saying they do or don't exist) surely you can just link to some of them?
I just don't believe that. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
I think it just outputs image frames...
Source?
I know this is a very depressing thought, but you don't have to deal with them someday. Even if there's no other way out, there's always suicide.
const input = document.createElement("input");
document.body.append(input);
input.type = "file";
input.accept = "image/*";
input.onchange = e => {
if (input.files && input.files[0]) {
const canvas = document.getElementById("draw-canvas");
const ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");
createImageBitmap(input.files[0]).then(img => ctx.drawImage(img, 0, 0));
}
};I'm not even disagreeing in general that Java is likely to be better for most problems. But the options in Rust for cyclic data are actually fine:
* You can use integer indices into an array instead of pointers.
* You can use unsafe and raw pointers, and be in the exact same situation as C++. The doubly linked list in the standard library is a cyclic data structure does that.[1]
* You can use reference counting (std::rc)[0]. This is literally a garbage collector in the standard library, equivalent to C++'s std::shared_ptr.
These are all simple. None of them is as complicated as "write your own GC".
[0]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/rc/
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.LinkedList....
> Rust's syntax is similar to that of C and C++,[43][44] although many of its features were influenced by functional programming languages such as OCaml.[45] Hoare has described Rust as targeted at frustrated C++ developers...[15]
I'm not sure what "actionscript types of function notation" means, but Rust's closures syntax (|x| ...) was probably inspired by Ruby and/or Smalltalk. Anyway, sure, the expression-orientedness, implicit return, etc., are very un-C++-like, but I do think the syntax was explicitly designed to be approachable to C++ developers.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rust_(programming...
https://docs.rs/generational-arena
If you're implementing a tracing garbage collector you obviously don't need any such counters to detect use-after-frees.
This is clearly a different compromise entirely to the one made by tracing garbage collection. I'm actually not sure how you confused the two.
Lower throughput, probably. But it introduces constant latency. It has some advantages over doing it in Java:
* You're never going to get latency spikes by adding a counter to each allocation slot.
* If you really want to, you can disable them in release builds and still not give up memory-safety, although you might get logical use-after-frees.
* You don't need to use such "compromises" for literally everything, just where it's needed.
> It starts from a marketing position of "Safety With No Compromises"
I haven't seen that marketing, but if it exists, sure, it's misleading. Yes, you have to compromise. But in my opinion, the compromises that Rust lets you make are meaningfully different from the compromises in other mainstream languages. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. Probably worse for most applications than a GC language, tbh.
(You can probably use KaTeX, too, but I prefer the look of MathJax's output.)
> 1/100th the momentum and community and resources of Go or Rust
I think even 1/100 would be pretty generous.