xydone

Why is it that no conversation can be had about anything without AI being shoehorned into it, what did the parent comment even have to do with this

I don't think they won necessarily but does it really matter when we all lost :)

Is that because of a deeper issue in one of the two philosophies or because we've chosen to define winning with things that exclusively benefit one of the two sides

I'll never not find it ridiculous when people mention game theory in the topic of "luddites" not wanting child labor and what not

Yeah, I get that, I'm just unconvinced that using lower level, less documented APIs, which are not necessarily meant to be the way users interact with the system, is a good heuristic for malware detection.

I'm ignoring the fact that very few people in the world need an antivirus (other than maybe elderly/less technologically knowledgeable people, but even then I'm not sure they can be fully protected)

But the trust as a service (TaaS) platform could decide tomorrow that you are not trustworthy because, I don't know, it matched a pattern in a piece of ransomware which is actually a pattern you can produce by allocating 3 pages of memory in one call. Should you as a language now put compile time guarantees that 3 pages cannot be allocated?

This is obviously a ridiculous example, but what I'm aiming to say is, if a piece of software is matching something as untrustworthy when it's not, you shouldn't chase it down to force the little guy who's maxing good will software to fix it because the big bully thinks they are evil and deserve to get quarantined

Why should you design your software around what a different piece of software could claim of your program?

I agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure how much of if applies to JetBrains. They were on the beneficiary side of the same system that flipped their world around for the longest time. I don't feel that bad for them.

They should probably invent some sort of Crypto Miner Communication Protocol (CMPC) that will make the process easier for all miners out there. Let's hope most are not bad actor crypto miners who ignore the protocol though, we should strive for more good actor crypto miners.

The union of hosters which will not update to this patch, and users who have not updated to the past 283762 CVE is literally the same circle. I think that maybe a couple new not infected machines will get infected with a cryptominer - the rest will just get one new miner fighting for resources

What a strange thing to say

git push --force. No time for the lease either

I've seen boilerplate be brought up as an argument very frequently and I keep wondering, what sort of boilerplate do you deal with that it is a considerable time sink? I feel like most languages and frontend frameworks have a pretty established template project which gets you going as far as boilerplate goes. When it comes to backend it's more of the same. When it comes to gamedev, you have established game engines which cut down on the boilerplate process. If you are writing your own engine in something like Vulkan which require a lot of pre-game ritual, there are still plenty of template projects to get you started, but they are more surface level than the frontend/backend examples due to the nature of the project. If you are working on popular hardware, like arduinos, esp32s, there are established template projects for most languages. And if you are working on a niche language or framework for which this doesn't apply, then roughly by the second project in them you'll find yourself just copying over the boilerplate from the first.

So I'm genuinely curious, what sort of things do people who complain about boilerplate ceremonies do?

C compiler != C replacement

Were the copyright owners contacted prior to this lawful obtaining that you speak of? Or after?

Luddites, the group of people which famously were concerned about societal impact of a piece of technology? Right.

Yeah, that's also fine. However I am personally willing to side with the group which's arguments for the cause are environmental and societal impact over the one which's rebuttal to that is the fact we were wrong once 40 years ago. That's just me though.

I have a feeling that comparing a safe, sustainable energy source to large language models is disingenuous. If you support LLMs and the field, you can just state it outright, without insincere comparisons.

Maybe people just like the language

The point the post you replied to is making is that while you get value out of it, and in your case it's not that expensive, it's just simply not the case worldwide

I'm well aware, my hope is that people eventually decide to move to a more independent platform.

There's not much Letterboxd does that cannot be federated. For one, their metadata database is a near full replica of TMDB, with very minor exceptions such as retaining deleted TMDB media. I'm not opposed to Letterboxd dying if it means people consider an alternative that is less fragile.

Oh that's interesting, never noticed it in my experience but I have never written anything in wasm where it would matter. Makes perfect sense now that I think about it though. Thanks!

The memory64 proposal was merged into upstream last year, any reason to opt into 32 bit despite that?

There is no ETA on 1.0, but breakage has followed the pattern of it not really being hard to upgrade to a newer version, as it is very well documented on the version release notes.

People from ZSF and other maintainers have had a pretty clear stance that, while they don't necessarily like LLMs conceptually, they don't really care about if you will use them for tooling or development of your own projects. The anti-LLM stance has been on things that directly affect development of Zig (communication around issues, feature/pull requests, etc) and now, an event which is meant to be a connection place for Zig developers around the world to show off their projects and talk about other projects, and I'm sure you understand why this is a nice place to have human on human communication be the primarily encouraged method.

None of these really affect the end user of the compiler of making functioning, good tools with the language, with a LLM, if they wish to. Ghostty uses LLMs extensively, Bun was essentially vibe coded even before the Rust port. You might not wish to, ideologically speaking, develop in a language built by people who don't like your method of building things, but it's not a blocker that will turn the language into a "hobby language" (if we are judging hobbyism by lack of AI usage)

This is a PR that has been getting reviewed since the end of January. The Bun port branch was created 9 days ago.

The LLM rule has been a thing for a very long time at this point.

Maybe I'm the person who yells at clouds but I find the personification of LLMs, for lack of better, less strong words, horrific.

It's a relatively small gym so I assume they don't have the resources to improve the system and quite frankly I too would prefer if they spent the money on more equipment