xh-dude

All of the justification in this moment reads to me like: Trump is giving different segments of his coalition reasons to get off the fence and on his side. It’s something different for Rubio than for DoD than for the oil cronies. It’s not really about persuading anyone outside of Trump’s coalition.

I don’t think anyone in int’l law is mistaken about the constraint that enforcement is so thoroughly contingent. The argument is just that the stability elicited from int’l law amongst players trying to (mostly) cooperate can have utility.

One can look at the shadow of drug boat strikes and reasonably conjecture that there are some undisclosed collaborative relationships.

Pretty much. It’s a counting semaphore underneath.

Sort of in the middle, id games always felt tight. The engines were immersive not only because of graphics, but basic i/o was excellent.

Go particularly is a sort of fixed ceiling project.

Ian recently had a really pleasant error handling proposal that nonetheless wasn’t going to change the core philosophy of error handling, or memory arenas are another area where the current tradeoffs are fine and not worth reengineering, etc.

IMHO Go is in excellent shape as far as hitting needs when it’s a good technical fit - it’s supposed to be a really stable language - and paradoxically this also may mean not everyone who’s been involved would have the same job description in the future.

That’s fine. A lot of really excellent Go team members have come and gone over the years. Russ and Ian may be some of the late leavers in a sense, so I really, really appreciate their dedication and followthrough. The culture they stewarded has payed off for the community and the kinds of upcoming things that look promising are less about the core language, more about improving and maintaining the standard library.

Petulantly, I’d observe Trump hates or doesn’t believe in knowledge economies. He’s delivering pain to a lot of people in my circles.

For all that, a strategic goal of ensuring trade is sustainable is probably worth sane discussion.

There’s also a regression-to-the-mean problem, the systems really shouldn’t optimize just for the easier cases. I wonder if that’s a direct tradeoff, I think maybe it is with the kinds of things I see used to tweak out hallucinations.

The author makes a great case for machine-interpretable standards but there is an enormous amount of work out there devoted to this, it’s been a topic of interest for decades. There’s so much in the field that a real problem is figuring out what solutions match the requirements of the various stakeholders, more than identifying the opportunities.

Thanks for helping the OEIS site stay alive. I was absolutely delighted by it the first time I visited it, decades ago. Equally delighted when I visited recently and saw some “Russ Cox” contributed.

They discuss dogfooding “Sensor Content”, which isn’t “Rapid Response Content”.

Overall the way this is written up suggests some cultural problems.

I don’t see where he’s saying we can’t have automated moderation, though. Rather, just that there’s no 1A rights assumed for BigCorps’ systems, and that there’s a danger to individuals’ rights if the court really concludes that BigCorps do have these 1A rights.

I’m confused. ISTM Wu arguing that companies’ right to moderate shouldn’t be constrained by a reading the 1st Amendment too broadly. Am I getting Wu wrong or do you think the 1st should sharply prescribe moderation?

Julia has good ideas, interesting trade-offs here as well. ISTM the deep problem is that there’s so much room for optimization under composition of operations or with invariants not captured in types that the typical LinAlg library will never capture. But I agree most languages should be anticipating that users need something helpful here.

I think you’re right about the class of device. MS can’t just treat ARM-based products the way it does now and make a leap in terms of end-user experience - wondering if this changes in the future.

The logic for inferring types plays out better for the first. Go limits the depth of searching for type inferences, to keep compilation fast/small/simple. It’s always possible to be more explicit but nice to infer when calling generic code.

I still like channels because they may be a net reduction in the number of concurrency primitives in use, which complicates quantification in the paper - their taxonomy is great, though. Channels have some sharp corners.

Oracle

https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/exp/apidiff might be of interest

There’s been an emphasis in slog on Handler composition over directly implementing a ton of features. Personally I love it - there are things I’ve needed, that slog can do, that few other loggers make easy/possible.

Zerolog will still be relevant for raw performance (slog is close to zap on perf - doesn’t win benchmarks, doesn’t look out of place either), fewer really need it but some really do.

Generally it is optimized out.

The fine details resemble the analysis of correctness - all the evidence shows people expect per-iteration semantics with considerable frequency, and don’t rely on per-loop semantics with measurable frequency. But it’s impossible to completely automate that assessment. Likewise, it’s impossible to automatically detect code that will spuriously allocate because of the semantic transition.

Wikipedia suggests Modern begins in the 1860s; the parent post is absolutely correct that it’s more the patronage rather than the artists or styles that drive classification in this case. Lots of things are disrupting the patronage of art around this time, especially photography, and changing markets for art result in very different kinds of art being produced.

Names would be named if that were really the problem. I don’t think it is. The common thread between this and the Foundation trademark drama is that the Project sucks at coordinating and communicating - they have been bigfooters late in the process and not servants earlier on.

FWIW: slog has been pretty stable for a month or two, and should be officially standard library in go1.21

There was a last round of changes mostly revisiting use of contexts a few months ago - hats off to jba for taking a lot of time to work out the best fit

Lisp is profound, not esoteric - the ideas apply in any language

I’m left wing and think it’d be catastrophic to reject AI for military applications.

I do worry that hyping something as “ChatGPT-like” distorts better analysis, and makes political discussions about employing AI more opaque than they should be. Maybe the way I’m more left wing is that the profiteering angle worries me.

I’m not sure text prompts offer the kind of plasticity needed for artists to really do their thing.

Frank Gehry used to do really chaotic abstract drawings and hand them off to aerospace CAD operators to turn them into something that could be engineered and machined and assembled. Lots of people could do the drawings and have magic mushroom facades but Gehry understood the resulting interior spaces as well … I think it’s there is a ton of potential for great tools employing the past decade or so of ML/AI but ISTM it should empower the process rather than replace it.

The “Why?” Combinator

Twitter says he distributed pirate ROMs that would brick Switches unless he was paid a monthly ransom.

Time constraints are a bit of state that can influence how both humans and engines how search for moves. There was some contention over how to understand the training time of AlphaZero in relation to more conventional engines - even as just a physical process this seemed pretty interesting.