dbdr

Peer review is imperfect, for sure. What alternative method do you recommend?

[meta] I was surprised this fell off the front page. The post has "131 points, 3 hours ago, 39 comments" and sits at rank 55. Number 2 on front page has "41 points, 4 hours ago, 0 comments". I don't want to assume something nefarious without reason, but that seems counterintuitive. Are there other parameters that can explain this ranking?

One issue with this is that it's a non-peer-reviewed critique of a peer-reviewed scientific article. It's of course still possible that the critique is correct and the article is wrong. However, you'd need to deeply understand this critique, and be at least as qualified as the reviewers to be able to convince yourself of that (or have a good reason to believe the reviewers deliberately accepted a flawed paper). Am I missing something?

This paper is relevant:

Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How Does Energy, Time, and Memory Relate?

https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/pap...

This is the main summary table:

    Energy                  Time                    Memory
    (c) C 1.00              (c) C 1.00              (c) Pascal 1.00
    (c) Rust 1.03           (c) Rust 1.04           (c) Go 1.05
    (c) C++ 1.34            (c) C++ 1.56            (c) C 1.17
    (c) Ada 1.70            (c) Ada 1.85            (c) Fortran 1.24
    (v) Java 1.98           (v) Java 1.89           (c) C++ 1.34
    (c) Pascal 2.14         (c) Chapel 2.14         (c) Ada 1.47
    (c) Chapel 2.18         (c) Go 2.83             (c) Rust 1.54
    (v) Lisp 2.27           (c) Pascal 3.02         (v) Lisp 1.92
    (c) Ocaml 2.40          (c) Ocaml 3.09          (c) Haskell 2.45
    (c) Fortran 2.52        (v) C# 3.14             (i) PHP 2.57
    (c) Swift 2.79          (v) Lisp 3.40           (c) Swift 2.71
    (c) Haskell 3.10        (c) Haskell 3.55        (i) Python 2.80
    (v) C# 3.14             (c) Swift 4.20          (c) Ocaml 2.82
    (c) Go 3.23             (c) Fortran 4.20        (v) C# 2.85
    (i) Dart 3.83           (v) F# 6.30             (i) Hack 3.34
    (v) F# 4.13             (i) JavaScript 6.52     (v) Racket 3.52
    (i) JavaScript 4.45     (i) Dart 6.67           (i) Ruby 3.97
    (v) Racket 7.91         (v) Racket 11.27        (c) Chapel 4.00
    (i) TypeScript 21.50    (i) Hack 26.99          (v) F# 4.25
    (i) Hack 24.02          (i) PHP 27.64           (i) JavaScript 4.59
    (i) PHP 29.30           (v) Erlang 36.71        (i) TypeScript 4.69
    (v) Erlang 42.23        (i) Jruby 43.44         (v) Java 6.01
    (i) Lua 45.98           (i) TypeScript 46.20    (i) Perl 6.62
    (i) Jruby 46.54         (i) Ruby 59.34          (i) Lua 6.72
    (i) Ruby 69.91          (i) Perl 65.79          (v) Erlang 7.20
    (i) Python 75.88        (i) Python 71.90        (i) Dart 8.64
    (i) Perl 79.58          (i) Lua 82.91           (i) Jruby 19.84

Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages: How Does Energy, Time, and Memory Relate?

https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/pap...

GC pauses are not the only reason. At the very least, raw compute performance and lower memory usage are also valid reasons in some contexts.

Learning Rust is more alike to learning a new programming paradigm (e.g. functional when you only know imperative) than a new language with different syntax only. If you ignore that and try to jump directly to writing code more or less the same way as you used to, it will be painful. So take it slow and follow along with The Book (https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/). It all makes sense eventually and is very much worth it!

> Very little will change in Hungary with the new government.

Are you aware the new government is not even in power yet?

> The commit message just said it reverted a change from another commit because there was "no benefit". From the patch itself, it is not at all evident that this is a fix for a critical security bug.

If the commit message says it fixes a security bug, then bad actors immediately know there's a possible exploit there. So maybe it's intentional? (not familiar with the policy for this)

Stopping the action is not the only reason to quit a job you deeply disapprove of. There's a related anecdote in the book Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. From my memory: a man working for the US embassy in Japan was unhappy and doing psychotherapy. The therapist was trying to see if his issues with his boss had something to do with his relationship to authority, digging into his relationship to his father, etc. Turns out, he was just in deep disagreement with the policies he had to enforce, and quitting solved the issue.

Quitting a job you think is harmful (or even maybe meaningless) can be good for yourself, in addition to the morality question.

If that's the right approach, then it would be useful to make that library public as a crate, because writing such hardened code is generally useful. Possibly as a step before inclusion in the rust stdlib itself.

The GPL prevents you from reading the licensed code before writing related non-GPL code? Which section of the GPL says that?

I didn't downvote, but I feel the last two points show a lack of nuance. It's saying "Rust doesn't prevent 100% of the bugs, like all other programming languages", while failing to acknowledge that if a programming language prevents entire classes of bugs, it's a very significant improvement.

It also means that in English:

> Digital:

> [...]

> 6) of or relating to the fingers or toes. Ex: digital dexterity

When you are reading a book, you certainly need to use your attention. However, you stay in a given topic/world for a sustained amount of time. This feels very different and much less tiring than scrolling on your phone jumping from topic to topic. Especially social media feeds that have been optimized to keep using it as long as possible (dopamine hits and all).

Newspapers are probably an intermediate between those two, to various degrees depending on the specific newspaper (trash vs deeper analysis).

That's great if it works. But it's way harder to produce a formal proof. So my expectation is that this will fail for most difficult problems, even when the non-formal proof is correct.

Even if they take the same number of ticks, shouldn't xor fundamentally needing less work also mean it can be performed while drawing less power/heating less, which is just as much an improvement in the long run?

*user-mode code.

Your city/rural distinction is insightful. I think it can be taken into account relatively easily. Name explicitly the cities/locations were the requirement would apply. Possibly based on some objective criteria like population density.

And in 1956 of course.

> not doing the proper reviews, but once again, this is not remotely unique to AI code; this is what 99% of companies are already doing.

But is the scale similar, or will AI coding make the problem significantly worse?

On a similar note, François Hollande had the right first name but the wrong last name!

> obviously no one’s running any compiled Lean code in any kind of production hot path

Ignorant question: why not? Is there an unacceptable performance penalty? And what's the recommended way in that case to make use of proven Lean code in production that keeps the same guarantees?

Indeed, and there we reached the end of the chain.

> A country where no one is stigmatized for loving someone differently than the majority.

-- Peter Magyar victory speech, April 12, 2026

That's directly in opposition to Orban's views and homophobic laws.

"Russians go home" was one of the main chants at opposition rallies. In 2026 like in 1989.

It would be the Cathedral if it made a 5 year plan to build the perfect solution (even more so if from quasi-scratch). But the EU is also known to offer (sometimes small scale) grants in specific domains. That's much more compatible with the Bazaar.

> Someone in power doesn’t get to choose - the board of directors do

Since the board of directors can decide to replace the CEO, it's not the CEO who holds the (ultimate) power, it's the board of directors.

Sure, but if you constrain to fixed output length, you will definitely have collisions (Pigeon Hole Principle). There's no way around that.

> the fundamental physical paradoxes and incoherence of free will

Are those even true? They sure are in classical, Newtonian physics, but are they in modern, e.g. quantum physics? Not saying that one proves free will, but is there an actual hard impossibility?