keepamovin

This is a fully 100% libc-free language, that lowers its syntax through a simple IR direct to platform assembly (currently Windows x86-64 asm linked to PE/COFF, Macos x86-64 AT&T asm, or Linux x86 bytecode as ELF or asm). The "rad concurrency" is using native OS process calls (CreateProcessA, fork and fork for the 3 OS), that passes values using a filesystem tree format that also makes the concurrency trivially auditable, and inspectable and theoretically replayable. It's also memory safe because it's true OS level process isolation. Obvious cost is performance, but this is a lang for determinstic, "no magic" semantics, and easy to reason about execution, to reduce bugs and allow better coding by AI.

Or if you want the README version:

FreedomLang is a small AOT systems language that lowers source to native x86-64 without a C runtime.

The weird parts are the point:

- Generated programs are libc/CRT-free. Linux emits ELF64 directly from x86-64 machine-code bytes. macOS emits x86-64 AT&T assembly linked with -nostdlib. Windows emits x86-64 assembly linked into PE/COFF without a CRT default.

- There is no VM, JIT, or LLVM IR path. The compiler is ordinary JavaScript: lexer/parser, AST, FreedomLang IR, backend.

- Concurrency is OS processes. Linux and macOS use fork; Windows uses CreateProcessA self re-exec. Values cross job boundaries through an FSABI directory tree instead of shared in-process magic.

- World failures are data. Bugs are fatal. Missing files, timeouts, and permission denials are states to model. Bad tags, bad field access, and impossible states stop the job.

The tradeoff is not hidden: process-per-job concurrency is heavier than goroutines, async tasks, or green threads. The bet is that high-integrity tools often need a smaller story more than they need the fastest one: native output you can inspect, job state you can open on disk, failure semantics that do not pretend every bug is recoverable, and a compiler/runtime small enough to argue about from source.

No more magic. Reality is magic enough.

Yes, i majored in chemistry.

Ha, funny. I thought it must be “p2p mesh” network architecture at first, then checked the comments and was like “oh p2p distributed meth?” Like you, hahaha

Not saying the risk profiles are the same, but some of the perception of different danger might be psychosocial normative informed by the differing criminalization. Plausible at least no? Important to keep that in mind.

Hmm, i get why you’d reach that conclusion with your experience, but i dispute that given the same experience only that conclusion is valid.

The “super addict edge case” is a problem but the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Don’t discard, but manage. I believe access to drugs should be psych/(genetic if reliable)/“allergy type”/behavior tested. I won’t give you salvia if you will flip out per tests, but if you’re okay, you’re green.

The advantage of state controlled access is that you can actually achieve that, in theory. Promoting the thing you’re against rn might actually help reduce the harm you want to remove.

Interesting. Any studies that slam dunk it?

Noo, swim is saying the articles are not strong, but the street speaks in alignment with me

I get why you’d take it the other way tho

Yeah, I just don’t think that’s very strong. The immediate precursor may not be the issue but the residues of routes to get to that precursor and what that precursor is contaminated with etc. that’s my point.

Well, in my proposal it would depend on case by case for each chemical, but basically follow a dispensary model with regulations and controlled access (ID swipe, nationally tracked, time-windows quotas), proportional to the dangers of over-use of the chemical.

For instance, I could purchase psilocybin/mescaline/ibogaine treatment at a dispensary (obviously imagining a therapeutic commoditized future). I could also purchase mescaline/psilocybin/salvia recreationally. Some recreational access may be "psych tested", or at least "need to pass the monitored orientation session" using special assays to ensure people could handle a "solo flight".

For the chem in question, it really is a more basic case I think of purity/quality/amount/regulation. I could walk into a dispensary and do a 50mg (is that correct?) line instead of a hit of espresso. Would I do this? I'd like to try, at least. The fact that I could, and know it was high quality and safe would be very cool.

I'm probably a bit weird/sci-fi/psychedelic utopian but I love the idea of a menagerie of dispensaries dealing out all kinds of cool, useful and exploratory chemicals safely. There could even be a chain of PiHKaL/TIHKAL outlets. Perhaps affectionately named "Shulgin's Drug Store". lol :)

I did say aside from physical ailments

I really appreciate your take. I think it is correct and reads as accurate. Clearly a batch problem. Also, I'm glad that the read from someone who's been in the trenches and on the ground about this issue is alignment with mine. Thanks for sharing on this thread

Okay, I remember seeing a documentary where people were doing lines of methampheatmine. And typically people would do 2 to 3 lines and be up all night. I would consider a line a "small amount".

If I could go to a regulated dispensary and do a line of methamphetamine I think I'd try it. I don't think it would be neurotoxic, but I'd be very interested to know data that supports that, obviously! If you have, please show.

The doses you are describing I think fall outside responsible recreational use and into other categories - that sound more like poisoning / overdose.

A problem of criminalization is that society seems to tend to bucket all illegal drugs into a single category of usage misrepresented by the worst doses. It is possible for people to use these substances responsibly. And with assistance on purity, and regulated access, I believe the chances are high.

The regime I am proposing should even make it easier to deal with the % of people who bucket into overdoese/poison territory.

I'm not sure how much 1 line contains, but to me it seems as if it would be 50mg?

Except when psychedelics are a part of the good treatment.

Thank you! Yes, the microfilm format is surprisingly good. I can’t take credit for that.

I look forward to adding the next set of videos when they’re released. Really appreciate you checking it out and sharing :)

My view of a lot of the opioid crisis stuff aside from physical pain is psychological trauma - people self medicating as an alternative to doing the work.

That’s why I think the psychoactive legislation that’s introduced recently about psychedelics is so important because those things can rapidly accelerate processing and healing psychological trauma.

My view, is if this was done 20 - 30 years ago there wouldn’t be such a large demand for opiates. I take it further and say that probably some in the drug companies understand this already and were lobbying against the introduction of more curative psychedelic treatments so that they could sell subscriptions to painkillers.

I don’t take the article as authoritative. It’s argument against contamination is not strong. It doesn’t present any real evidence for it. You can elaborate if you like

No, policy wise I appreciate you getting into the nuance, but I feel like you take the argument to polar extremes (with an attitude of confident, final certainty), when the expected outcome is across the middle. This smells more like ideology than practicality.

> These discussions always end up …

Before your comment i wouldn’t say anyone is lacking curiosity here. Tho your comment about fixing into a stereotype, seems the example of itself. I think it’s better to listen and discuss than assume the futures settle into a mischaracterization that you’ve already decided. That doesn’t seem very useful - except for ideology…

On the toxicity side, do you have any studies to cite? I wasn’t aware of toxicity, but it’s plausible.

Big picture tho, I’m not an expert in drug policy. It just sounds like a logical way to reduce harm overall. Reduce harm overall - worth repeating; on average, create a better society.

The conceivable parties who would lose out are: government funded agencies charged with fighting drug crime because their caseload and budgets would probably decrease; and on the other side the cartels and dealers. Although what seems to happen with the latter is once something is legalized, the supply chains morph into legitimate businesses somehow.

I still think it would work. I’m not convinced by what you said. Thank you tho

Yeah i didn’t know that. I guess tho with regulated supply we have more chance to handle abuse and addiction.

The craziness of so many legal things being pretty bad for health is also something worth addressing (alcohol, cigarettes).

The ephedrine (or pseudoephedrine) synthesis is a one step using phosphorus/iodine reduction directly to methamphetamine. It’s simple and clean in that only an acid base extraction is required, and only one set of NP solvents.

All these others syntheses with multiple steps up the chances of weird toxic solvents or contaminants creeping in. I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use.

The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. It’s not an evil drug per se - long history before it was criminalized. Plus that would neuter the cartels and protect people’s health more than pushing it underground.

It seems the diagnosis of psychosis is too quick: it seeks to reestablish the frame of expert for the developer identity that is being replaced by it.

“It feels like entire companies are deluded into thinking they don’t need me, but they still need me. Help!”

The broad sentiment across statements of this “AI psychosis” type is clear, but I think the baseline reality is simpler. How can you be so certain it’s psychosis if you don’t know what will unfold? Might reaching for the premature certainty of making others wrong, satisfying that it might be to the ego, be simply a way to compensate the challenges of a changing work environment, and a substitute for actually considering the practical ways you could adapt to that? Might it not be more helpful and profitable to consider “how can I build windmills, ride this wave, and adapt to the changing market under this revolution” than soothing myself with the delusion that all these companies think they don’t need me now, but they’ll be sorry.

The developer role is changing, but it doesn’t have to be an existential crisis. Even though it may feel that way — but probably it’s gonna feel more that way the more you remain stuck in old patterns and over-certainty about how things are doesn’t help, (tho it may feel good). This is the time to be observant and curious and get ready to update your perspective.

You may hide from this broad take (that AI psychosis statements are cope) by retreating into specific nuance: “I didn’t mean it that way, you’re wrong. This is still valid.” But the vocabulary betrays motive. Resorting to clinical derogatory language like “AI psychosis” invokes a “superior expert judgment” frame immediately, and in zeitgeist context this is a big tell. It signifies a need to be right, anda deeply defensive pose rather than a clear assay of what’s real in a rapidly changing world. The anxiety driving the language speaks far louder than any technical pedantry used to justify it, and is the most important and IMO profitable thing to address.

You're completely mistaken about the architecture, lol. ghost is not some payload running inside your Actions pipeline. It's a local client-side CLI that orchestrates your GH account to configure ephemeral dev boxes for interactive and agentic work: debugging, building, testing. Just like on your local box, but in a clean slate, safe, reproducible machine.

I actually had to go look up who TeamPCP even was, so I definitely need to clear up this wild misunderstanding.

The irony of this whole thread is incredibly thick. By using ghost, developers are doing exactly what security professionals recommend! If you want to test a sketchy npm package or let an AI coding agent run wild, doing it in an isolated, ephemeral GitHub Actions runner (where your SSH keys are safely agent-forwarded, not stored) is 100x safer than running it on your local MacBook where your real AWS keys and passwords live.

I literally built a utility that protects you against supply chain attacks by giving you safe, disposable sandboxes on demand. And the crowd here, 'spooked' by recent news which I wasn't even aware of, lol, too innocent -- is projecting their panic onto it and accusing ghost of being the exact thing it defends against.

Truly a classic case of crowd madness. I was just happily building a better CLI to do my dev work while y'all were out here writing spy novels.

No. It's useful - AI workflows are the future. Actions is perfect.

Well it's linked to your GH account, and surely GH has logs of all the workflows that get run, so it's the same as regular Actions.

I originally just wanted a way to compile JavaScript to native binaries to protect source code IP. But then I realized, with AI agents making coding so cheap, I could just design a brandnew language from the ground up, exactly how I wanted.

After three decades of programming, and seeing how AI agents still get stuck debugging the same old legacy issues and generating bugs, it hit me: AI is going to write hundreds of times more code in the next couple of decades than humans have in all of history. We need a language designed for this new era: something easily instrumentable, debuggable, and low-footgun.

So, I started building Freelang. I thought a lot about my experience and decided on things I wanted to fix.

First, exceptions. I hate how they lead to spaghetti code. In freelang, an incorrect program state is a fatal bug. External errors are modeled explicitly using what I call ""chaos tags"" because anything outside the program's control is real-world chaos.

Also, concurrency. Instead of shared mutable state and threads, I went with strict process separation and a novel file system API approach. You just let the OS figure it out. It trades some raw performance for correctness, but hardware is getting faster, while the amount of bugs is only going to multiply if we keep using legacy languages with AI.

I also wanted it as lowlevel as possible, so I forbade libc entirely, instead using direct kernel and system calls. This avoids many legacy C bugs and gives us tiny, tight, close-to-the-metal binaries.

I am not claiming this replaces Rust or Go. And I'm not really qualified to be writing a programming language. But I am.

I considered keeping it proprietary for the competitive advantage, but I think the space of new languages is opening up - also this feels like something that just wants to be free to exist in the big wide world - rather than just my corp. Also, I believe the actual compiler and OS experts interested would help lots.

What I bring is a strong sense of taste and design for this, but I'm open to genuine improvements. However zero in litigating ideological orthodoxy or getting into energy-sapping theoretical debates. If you’re negatively aligned or just want to argue theory, please "keep steppin" ;)

But if you don't think it's a dumb idea, and you’re inspired to help build a language for a new era of software, I’d love your help. I'm developing it in the open now. You can check out the landing page (freelang.dev), grab the repo, run the compiler, and see for yourself. There exist some clear next steps like fleshing out the net library and adding an execve call - it's fun getting agents to write and debug assembly that bypasses libc and goes straight to sys/kernell calls across multiple OS. If you want to get in on the ground floor, come aborad! :)

Corticosteroids suppress the immune system, you might want to avoid that.

Electrosensitvity is a thing - people can sense and be affected in different ways by EMF.

Also the solar system is now transiting the galactic current sheet, a zone of more highly energized particles. This is causing more energetic light to arrive at Earth and it's affected people in various ways. Tinnitus is a common one. It's your body adapting to this incoming increase.

Glad you enjoyed it :) Thanks for taking a look!

Yeah, this is a really cool problem Space. I’m working on something similar. I think the interesting thing of like truly connecting two points on the Internet, which almost seems something the Internet was designed for, but we can’t do it because of NAT is really worthwhile and interesting.

I’m super attracted to how to do this without creating some kind of overlay network. For instance, tor is extremely robust at connecting through NAT but it’s essentially because of outbound connections to a global overlay network.

Yeah, I think just making everything, including future drops, one giant maybe chronological list of Files definitely opens up possibilities.

And sounds like there could be some kind of annotation layer where people can mark it up somehow but not sure the right fit. The simplicity is what works right now I think so any additions would have to be similarly super clean.

Thank you so much really appreciate your words and you taking a look.

Yeah, actually I think that’s really smart. Because after you convert everything to JPEG everything is just an image that you can ask LLMs to look at.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the experience with local models, but if someone wants to point me in like the right direction or send me an email to collab.

You’re welcome! It’s a good way to present the information. I look forward to when the next 46 videos drop in a few days and adding those.