2,179 karma · joined May 13, 2015
Note: I've written a lot of C by profession and passion, yet I find parent's criticisms mostly valid. At least he did not mention rust ;)
Lua was designed to be an extension language though (checked on wikipedia this time :-D)
the companies will have to pay, because you can't force creativity and quality
Most companies do not care about quality.
_users_ who have to interact with that software will pay the price.Exemple from one of the wealthiest company in existance, for one of its most strategic product: I was trying gemini-cli on some mcp servers just yesterday, with gemini-chat helping me configuring everything. In less than 10 minutes, I stumbled upon 3 or 4 different bugs. Eventually, even gemini-chat recommended that I throw gemini-cli in the bin and move on to another agent... That's the new norm.
I think the idea is simple, and clear.
Simple and clear yet everything that follow is controversial. :)First, humans are animals. You mean "each species value itself more than others"? I don't know, but I certainly do not value any human life above any other species life; Humans are amazing, but when they are malfunctioning they can do a lot of damage ;)
Of course I was not thinking about preventing predation, or life would be limited to some bacterias, plants and algaes that can power their metabolism from some minerals and/or sunlight.
Some violence in nature is gratuitous (like a cat killing a mouse for fun) and this looks like an example of that. If we let this happen, why stop human hunters from killing seals too?
To me, it sounds that the fear of unintended consequences that you mentioned is what I called "distrust of human society". Yes, I am aware of the risk, and that's an argument that I accept in general. But it applies only at large scale, so not in the case at hand. Or we can picture an even smaller scale: picture a single old male attacking a single defenseless pup. Interfering?
The scientists aren’t recommending intervention, even if the perpetrators tend to be the same few individuals. “We don’t know how natural it is,” says Ursula Siebert, a veterinary pathologist specializing in wildlife population health at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover who was not involved with the work. “It can definitely be hard to watch,” Langley adds. “But the life of a seal—and indeed any wild animal—is tough.”
This idea that human influence over nature should not reach beyond species boundaries, that there is no universal value common to several species, seems prevalent in natural sciences. Is it coming from an understandable but misleading distrust of human society and idealisation of "nature", or from a deeper understanding that "nature always knows better", I can't decide. humans are the only known lifeform that can look at the stars ... sentience and free will.
Ants look at the canopy and try to understand. Feeling good about themselves while farming a herd of aphids, they marvel: "evolution optimized for intelligence to the point of creating fangs and antennas.";)
https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol...
Of course any seemingly idiomatic rust is going to run circles around TS transpiled into JIT-compiled JS.
Sadly, behaviors and expectations converge toward one another.
Either it is a principle or it is a strategy, can't be both.
Real basic and, fairly universal. You may prefer a quieter car, but there is also a sound level that is below your preference.
I do not believe this to be true. My feeling is: some people (or rather: some people in some occasions) enjoy to be noticed, and some others enjoy not to be noticed.