Just because it could be worse doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better.
2,612 karma · joined July 28, 2017
This happens constantly in the form of layoffs…
I find it interesting that using lines of code as a metric is making a comeback.
I don’t like driving in traffic yet I do it pretty much every day. Why don’t I simply not drive?
How about we start with some accountability for entities that host fraud? The main reason we can have relative anonymity in public is part trust and partially because you can get physically taken out if you cross the line. I understand there are some real limitations with enforcing accountability on the Internet, but perhaps that’s where we should be focusing.
Folks with badges knocking on the user’s door. It is pretty trivial to locate stationary signals.
Chairs aren’t magic, we know roughly what’s good or not. You don’t need a PhD to choose a good chair. A mom and pop could just copy the chair too.
The chains outcompete on marketing, leverage with vendors, etc.
They put a huge amount of effort into baseline quality because it’s incredibly hard to pull off across 1000s of stores staffed by people who don’t have any incentive to care.
- Sensor agent is such a rancid name for a remote sensor that I feel a need to public say so. Please don't use marketing names for things that already have more descriptive names.
- Rust uses a full RTOS and C uses the mediocre ST HAL (vendor specific). Immediately apples to oranges. Also I've never heard of the C JSON library and it looks sketchy at a glance so that will also hurt the comparison.
- Streaming slow sensor data with a 160MHz 786KB/2MB MCU is not a good test in the slightest. You could probably use something like micro python here and be done. No one is reaching for bare metal C here. Also no one serious about performance is using JSON serdes. If you're using bare metal C, you're likely trying to push the limits of your hardware or doing something so simple that you won't be tempted to reach for terrible third party libraries.
- Does the Rust code base use the 'unsafe' keyword anywhere, including the RTOS? If so, it's not memory safe without additional formal verification.
Overall I'd say this paper has approximately zero value wrt its stated goal of comparison.
In the realtime/high assurance systems world, where garbage collection can be a huge source of non-determinism and overhead; we don’t have great options.
Zig is really the only language (idk about Odin?) trying to take the same approach that C did in giving you absolute control over a minimally abstracted CPU model. Us folks who need/want maximum control/performance should be allowed to have nice things too.
I’m not sure there’s any data to support this statement. Maybe if you hedge with “not by syntax alone”.
I am aware of studies that showed the act of physical writing letters improves retention.
I would not be surprised if this extended to physically typing out your curly braces, naming functions, etc.
Nope. Nope. Nope. That has explicitly not been ruled on yet. Transformative means that you don't need a fair use defense. Anthropic has only gotten away with their outputs being called transformative so far because they put a dubiously effective filter in front to block the most egregious infringing outputs. No one has actually challenged this afaik.
No. The key difference being transparency. You know when signing up for a free trial what the actual long term costs will be and can plan for it.
We might be talking about different things. I was mostly replying to this line from the OP:
> But I think it's part of a larger mistake Figma is making: they seem to have shifted to an extraction mindset too early
I’m not sure if this was just awkward wording that seems to condone these type of strategies.
All these loss leading, vendor lockin strategies have distorted markets heavily. Complex tools cost a lot of money to develop; and if another player is just going to burn piles of cash from elsewhere to undercut you, it becomes a game of capital allocation and not individual product quality/costs. It’s terrible for consumers and a big reason why even common chat apps are barely functional.
Google docs is a heavily subsidized product and not representative.
Also tool pricing seems hard, but I can’t really get behind saying that a company should bait and switch with their pricing models harder.
This Twitterism really bugs me.
You took the time to write a really detailed response (much appreciated, you convinced me). There’s no need to explicitly dunk on the OP. Though if you really want to be a little mean (a little bit is fair imo), I think it should be closer to level of creativity of the rest of your comment. Call them ignorant and say you can’t take them seriously or something. The twitterism wouldn’t really stand on its own as a comment.
Sorry for the nitpicky rant.
If there were another party involved, that would (hopefully) diversify power that (potentially) comes with those streams of data.
It’s a bit ironic that the USA has mostly abandoned interoperability after being one of the pioneers with the American manufacturing method. [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufacturi...
Whether the USA has a sufficiently functional justice system is another topic. My intuition is also that, in the presence of a disfunctional social system, fixing (or replacing) the system will usually lead to better outcomes than side stepping it. Not that I really want to talk about the minutia and challenges of fixing the USA’s justice system.
Lots of questions about the $20k. Is that raw electricity costs, subsidized user token costs? If so, the actual costs to run these sorts of tasks sustainably could be something like $200k. Even at $50k, a FreeBSD DoS is not an extremely competitive price. That's like 2-4mo of labor.
Don't get me wrong, I think this seems like a great use for LLMs. It intuitively feels like a much more powerful form of white box fuzzing that used techniques like symbolic execution to try to guide execution contexts to more important code paths.
Please educate yourself on the basics or at least put more effort in before participating in conversations.
[0]: It’s easy to abuse the Socratic method and devolve a discussion into one of first principles. It’s extremely tiresome and a huge waste of everyone’s time.
Nope, there is no “The” Turing Test. Go read his original paper before parroting pop sci nonsense.
The Turing test paper proposes an adversarial game to deduce if the interviewee is human. It’s extremely well thought out. Seriously, read it. Turing mentions that he’d wager something like 70% of unprepared humans wouldn’t be able to correctly discern in the near future. He never claims there to be a definitive test that establishes sentience.
Turing may have won that wager (impressive), but there are clear tells similar to the “how many the r’s are in strawberries?” that an informed interrogator could reliably exploit.
Though I guess such a suit is unlikely if the defendant could just AI wash the work in the first place.