delusional

> We need to preserve context, and decide to handle or not this case. That is easy to forget in code that is assertions oriented.

The old solution to that, which worked very well, was coredumps. The assertion fires and your program is taken down, but just before that we save out the entire memory area of your program. That way you can come in with a debugger later and poke around.

People would often leave some memory areas (typically circular buffers) with debug values that would be useful in debugging. They'd never be used anywhere in the program, unless the programmer had to poke around manually.

I've often wished this workflow was still considered high priority on modern runtimes.

We are 7 years into a cycle of people baselessly claiming that "AI" will soon develop superhuman abilities and might just take over the world, before killing us all. I don't think there's any way to take part in this discourse without making somewhat unsupported claims.

> the hard part is figuring out if the output makes sense.

I think for Java specifically, it's also very much: which prompts make sense to write. Java has had a storied history of features that made future development hard. That's resulted in a culture where they like to think quite deeply about how to add a feature BEFORE they sanction any sort of programming.

In Denmark we briadly call this distinction "the good life" (det gode live). Children are usually made to write something (an essay mostly) about it during their last few years in public school.

The concept is exactly the philosophical implications of what a "good" life even is. How you can maintain and sustain a "good" life in a world where everyone else is trying to do the same. How your "good" life will sometimes be in tension with other people's, and how it'll even change for you as you live it.

"Wealth" is a terrible measure of a "good" life, but for some reason it's the dominant one in the modern world.

Triangulation usually requires an incicrle operation at some point, and that requires doing multiplication on the result of multiplication, without loss of precision.

32-bit triangulation therefore requires 128-bit multiplication, in some rare degenerate cases.

In this repo the incircle is here: https://github.com/morishuz/delaunay32/blob/141d979b18e296ac...

You don't really need a new protocol. If you trust your consumers, you can just give them a paginated "/events" endpoint and have them poll that. The delay will be variable, but tunable, based on the required timeliness. If you want more prompt responses you do long-polling or a websocket.

The key, and only thing that matters, is that the cursor rides in your database, and is therefore transactionally consistent with the event. That's the whole magic trick.

We've done event streams like this at the bank I work at for years.

What amazing windows drivers have you sold?

Thats not enough. This problem pops up everywhere people do CVE analysis. If a tertiary part of some library is hit by some arbitrary CVE, why should that affect the core functionality people actually use? If I use ChaCha20, and that's bundled in a library with md5.do I care that their md5 library has a vulnerability? No, not really.

If you keep driving the "seperate the packages" angle you end up with is-odd, and that not a nice play to be either.

> Usa exports tons of digital services that balance the trade ledger.

In the accepted framework of global trade, where exchange value is either confounded or accepted as a use value, this is a correct stance. I think where we'd end up disagreeing is on that equality. I don't believe that just because you can sell targeted advertising for millions of dollar, that it's actually millions of dollars worth of social use value. We'd have to bicker about the definition of use value, obviously, but I find it hard to imagine an argument for why writing adware at Google is worth the money people are getting paid for it, relative to useful manual labour. In much the same way I don't believe the CEO's labour is worth 100x what the employee is paid, I don't believe the Google Engineer is worth 5x the gardener maintaining a park.

This spoken separation of use value and exchange value is missing from most internet opinions on the economy.

I hope that somewhat helps you understand how the stance can exist, even if I haven't explained it deeply enough for you to actually accept it.

> More productivity means less labour per productive cycle, hence less profit.

That might give the reader the wrong impression. It is the same labour, but spread out over more commodities. You won't get to work less.

Exactly the same reason you should probably clean the rest of the house when you're selling it.

Theoretically, the price of the house before cleaning should be equal to the value if the house after cleaning, minus whatever the cleaning costs. In reality, you'll get much less for your house without cleaning it, because human emotions.

I live in Europe. We have in fact invented air conditioning here too, but I am not concerned with what we should be doing next year. That's a trivial matter. I'm concerned about what will happen if this trend continues another 5-10 years. How do we make sure that doesn't happen?

You never need to do that. git-reflog(1) is the most general solution if you will ever need.

We should be careful not to confound a call to reduce with a call to eliminate. I don't think most people want to completely abolish modern air travel.

> However this kind of statement was not released for crypto, or for the Internet.

Yes they were. Educators have been talking about how access to the internet has affected their students learning since forever. We were cautioned and had dedicated classes to teach us to be critical of different sources, teaching us what Wikipedia could and could not be used for. The internet was deliberately turned off for our exams.

Crypto too was seen as culturally important, papers were written by otherwise well respected authors. We were expected to read some whitepapers about crypto. Interestingly, reading those papers only made us more sure it was a scam.

You're rewriting history to make this moment seem different, it is not.

They're doing a real API instead of the magic annotation hell that JavaEE fans love. Thank god. I welcome this, because Java has a lot of need for a good, common, performant, and well maintained JSON library that doesn't come along with the complexity of being JSON-B.

It's an article in an official publication. It's like a "letter to the editor" of a scientific journal, and has always been published alongside the more fact based research reports. People were posting "blog posts" in journals long before "blogs" were a thing. Part of the idea of a journal is exactly, like a newspaper, to exercise editorial control over what sorts of discussions they decide to include in each issue.

Science isn't just cold reports on aimless facts. You're supposed to discuss with your peers.

> Without something like those ESP32 modules, this would be much more difficult.

I don't disagree. It's important for us to recognize that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but I also think it's a little silly of a critique of someone happy about it being easier than he expected. It's true that hardware would be much harder if you had to do it all yourself, but is that meaningful? The wonders if the modern supply chain is that you don't need to do it all yourself.

Ncurses is how people used to do it.

I don't know what regulation you're talking about. Nothing of the sort is being proposed in the part of the world PHK occupies.

Is anyone proposing age verification to file taxes? I'd hope you already have to provide some sort of stronger proof of identity to file a tax return anyway.

Did you continue reading? His argument is exactly that, like all the previous model checkers, LLM's are going to give us some bugs for a while. Then that is going to stop.

His argument is not that they aren't going to find any bugs, but rather that at some point those bugs will be fixed. At which point we will continue on as usual.

And please remember that Poul-Henning is an old-hat and well respected in the field, he's also not a product of American culture. Consider that he might have some useful insight that covers some blindspots your particular culture might not.

I wouldn't be so categorical. This isn't really a kernel concern, and I could completely believe that there are some distros out there that pull in random packages based on hardware detection.

The saving grace of linux currently is that volunteers package most of the software, and they don't generally package malware. There is no structural guarantee there, and if we invite corporate interests to package at some point (like flatpack and snap wants to) this is 100% going to happen eventually.

> Blizzard Entertainment

You mean "Microsoft Xbox Activision Blizzard King Bethesda Mojang"? I wish you luck with your boycott.

I would be very surprised if some random manager of some low level engineering team made this decision. It seems more likely this was a marketing or partner relations department idea that was presented to high level leadership.

I don't understand why we expect some manager somewhere to stop stuff like this.

I am very interested in your reading of Close to the Machine. I read it myself a couple of years ago and found it a wonderful telling of the early days of tech, with overtones of the "technology workplace" that were still very true to this day. I did not pick up on any commentary on automation or computerization, outside of the general critique of bureaucratic systems that alienate you from the outcomes of your labor.

Do you have anything I could read to understand your reading better? I would love to be able to dive back into one of my favorite books with a new lead.

I don't think they intended for that part to happen. Once that becomes an eventuality, it is obviously no longer a good idea, but you don't get to know if you hit the jackpot before you pull that lever.

> Everybody wants a platform but nobody wants to spend what it takes to make a platform.

Ahistoric jibber jabber. Microsoft gave it their very best shot with Windows Phone. Facebook renamed the entire company to make VR happen. These companies have shoved everything they got into making these platforms, and their fate would not have been different if they had been given another billion.

Platforms are hard to make, and wanting it bad enough is not enough to make one.

Stealing from the one company that has managed to court success makes a lot of sense. They are the only company with any successful experience.

I don't agree, but this is exactly why AI is the technology of this century. We will never be able to agree, because we have no common ground.

I think it's pointless dribble. There's no punchline that it's working towards other than "pigeon dumb"