creata

This. The only mainstream alternative is Android, and I'm already "voting with my wallet" against Samsung, Google, and the rest for violating user privacy even more than Apple does.

> Tokio's not a lightweight thread/green thread system

It's not green threads (and maybe not lightweight threads; there are so many names for things that may or may not be considered the same...) in the sense of stackful coroutines, but either way, it's a userspace implementation of multitasking on top of a smaller number of OS threads, which is the part that's relevant to my question.

Sorry, when you said "People are beginning to realise what AI can do for them.", I got the impression you were referring to the general public lessening their visceral hatred of anything AI-generated, not niche groups of people doing very impressive things.

No, I mean that Tokio, Go, etc., were built with general-purpose web servers in mind, and they decided that lightweight threads were necessary for that purpose because OS threads had too much overhead to be used per-request.

NGINX uses a state machine per task, which as far as I know is kind of what Rust's async functions end up desugaring to.

Where does this advice come from? Most web servers would use a lot more resources if they didn't use userland threading, wouldn't they?

It's hard to say that all the (to varying degrees) vibecoded security vulnerabilities posted to the frontpage are pointless.

> There's a new vibecoded project shown off here almost every day.

Every other post on the News.YC frontpage has been about AI for the past few years. That means very little.

> YouTube has gotten a lot more entertainment rising above the slop.

Examples would be great. I'm looking on YouTube's "hot" playlists and haven't yet seen anything marked AI, although that of course doesn't rule out the use of AI.

I don't think it'd have to imply a soul - one of these "functionally simple units" is much less well-understood than the other, and you can insert whatever belief you want to fill the gaps.

> scientific research has always had areas where the most advanced tools were beyond the reach of every scientist who might like to have access.

What's different this time is that this situation is expanding to almost every field.

> what you don't find compelling about the article's example, beyond the fact that you can identify a reason for the error to occur.

It's not just that there's a reason for the error to occur, it's that (1) the line between what the borrow checker can and can't do is currently clear, even if it's privileging references and boxes, and (2) the fix is a one-line change. Exposing more language hook points via traits to save one line here and there is what doesn't seem compelling to me, which is why I asked for an example where it leads to a more significant improvement in the code.

Like, the mentioned roadmap page says "But Option<&mut T> or custom smart pointers require awkward .as_deref_mut() or .reborrow() calls"; what I'm asking is: how awkward?

> That works, but it's not particularly intuitive.

It looks fine? The code fails because it dereferences the MutexGuard twice, so you instead dereference it once. It's hard to imagine that this contributes much to "Rust's difficult learning curve".

Rather, introducing even more potential implicitness on every `.` seems like it would make the language harder to learn.

Is there an example that really benefits from these features?

> There are Wikipedia pages which are flat out wrong (by any common definition of the term) and yet the editors won't allow any corrections because the primary sources are also wrong.

Not saying that doesn't happen, but do you have an example of such a page?

> Such citations could be easily gamed (if you cite a particular change)

What do you mean by "gamed"?

What makes you think that humans will be able to keep up with all that knowledge in the future?

I don't know much about the Fediverse, but if you can easily move your account or data from one tyrant to another (and it looks like you can) then that is a huge improvement.

To be fair, Y Combinator is partly responsible for some companies that are almost as bad as Amazon is toward their workers, so yipinwong's point kind of hits anyway.

> as these practices antagonise paying customers and quality employees and will lose money to the company in the long run

I've been hearing this for too many years, and so far it hasn't been true.

Maybe next year some of Amazon's customers will somehow become willing to pay more and get less convenience at other retailers, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Are there any public examples of contracts in use, or of the Bloomberg library that contracts were based on?

> Human code is slop.

I'm not saying you have to be grateful to the millions of people whose work the AI you use was trained on, but why shit on them...

I think it's better that some people have strong opinions. For example, the world would suck if everyone was rms, but he has nevertheless had a positive impact on the world imo.

It'll work in reality, but I don't think C makes any guarantees about how the pointer p is represented in (uintptr_t)p, only that a roundtrip pointer -> uintptr_t -> pointer will give back p. So (as far as I know) you can't assume that the offset needed to make (uintptr_t)p a multiple of `align` is the same as the offset needed to align p to `align`.

Or you can just use alignof(max_align_t), and your pointers will have the same alignment guarantees as malloc.

And I might be wrong, but even if you do accept a required alignment `align`, I think it's impossible in portable C to align a pointer `p` to it, unless you assume something not-strictly-portable about `(uintptr_t)p`, or `align` is less than some predetermined alignment that you used to allocate the char array.

In Scott Alexander's case, it's because he's into ideas (e.g., eugenics) that most people find reprehensible, so he has to couch them in a lot of bullshit to make them more palatable, and to give himself some credibility.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander

> which, admittedly is a mess

Why is the current system a mess?

Off-topic*: Can I even visit untrusted websites anymore? Firefox's security is probably far worse than Chrome's, and escaping the browser sandbox now seems accessible to way too many people.

* Kind of on-topic given the last sentence of the article...

3 + 2 is just 5. But people will sometimes write 3i + 2j for the point or vector (3, 2), where i is the vector (1, 0) and j is the vector (0, 1).

> Why do you sum up coordinates?

People use sums to denote vector components, too. It's common to see ai + bj + ck (pretend there are hats on i, j, and k) to mean the vector [a b c].

So with complex numbers, you can think of it as a vector aj + bi where j and i are basis vectors, but we call j "1", because complex numbers have a notion of multiplication, and in that notion, j acts like 1, in that zj = jz = z for any complex number z.

Nothing bad happens if you write all complex numbers a + bi as vectors or tuples [a b]. It's just less convenient.

For something so militarily useful? When the Soviet Union was still seen as a threat to the US? When it was already so expensive anyway? I guess it's possible, but it's hard to believe they'd just give up like that.

And people's love of AI is also surfacing their dislike of pure mathematicians. Plenty of comments along the lines of "turns out mathematicians were just idiot savants solving puzzles".

I've always wondered - if special and general relativity weren't known, could the GPS engineers have just measured the error and empirically accounted for it? I don't know relativity or GPS or engineering well enough to answer.