112233

Once this starts being actual pain, we will each vibe the replacement index creator (git already supports replacement objects), for back-forth conversion, populated on pack and object indexing.

For massive perf and mem use damage. But oh well. And then we will wait for official version

In my domain, code size is critical, so we use -fno-exceptions and -fno-rtti from necessity, for a good reason. Which means our code is non-conformant C++. Committee forces everyone to have exceptions and rtti always.

It will, however, stop projects like these from blacholing IP ranges belonging to others

Hopefully upstream peers will use RPKI properly. It would be sad if this actually worked.

Was not groundwork laid when people were talking for decades about legal entities using such language? Look at the posts here. Microsoft always acts like that, Meta like this, Apple did that, Nvidia never does this. In a tone that ascribes agency and accountability to a company name. Even though it is always individuals that are responsible, not "company".

Well, here we are.

Yes? Instead, we have committee declaring large bodies of existing code invalid and non-conformant, because it does not fit their spherical cow C++. You would think, with amount of no-exceptions and no-rtti code out there, and feature being present in most compilers for decades, they would take a hint and reflect actual usage in their standard? No, why would they. Any C++ that has no exceptions, rtti or std:: namespace is invalid. Not even against guidelines.

How do you process read-only mmaped data in C++, in accordance with the language rules? As an example.

eh, yes-ish, but only thanks to compiler writers. at one point committee went all-out enforcing their lifetime model, making bit_cast not an option. If your code accesses same data using different types, you are spelunking ruins with snake pits and lava. more and more stuff needs magic support code in std::, making no-lib code less and less possible (it used to be that with no-rtti and no-exceptions, you could use all c++ features and only needed cxa_at_exit, operator delete, and few other little things. NOT ANY MORE).

On one hand, you have consteval and stuff, letting you FINALLY initialize data at compile time (hey, 20 years late but still!)

on other hand, it is done in most non-debuggable way possible. try setting breakpoint or adding print to constexpr function that causes your requires clause to fail...

so no, newer C++ the language is not possible to use for low level work. The dialects that compiler makers support are. We will see for how long

"This article was originally published in Polish in issue 4/2013" — a lot of excellent advice. Sad to see C++ have moved in last decade in a direction that makes writing efficient, simple low level code harder and harder :(

Because of the elitist, exclusionist air it has gathered around itself, I guess. Trying to get something to work with zero knowledge about it is a maze of twisty passages, all alike.

After following breadcrumbs across blogs, I found the proper incantation, executed it, got "too many arguments" from shell, along with multi-megabyte error wall, did not find anything related to the issue, wrote my own slop-makefile.

nix is escape room

there are two completely different activities both called "writing software using AI".

At work, for important stuff, I go through every change, mine or LLM's, edit it, clean it up, rewrite, until I am satisfied with the code.

At home and for one-off unimportant stuff I go "computer make me sandwich".

The second is nothing like the first. No amount of design and pro I have can make sure stuff coming out of LLM actually implements it, as opposed to me be tricked into thinking it does. After all, that is exactly the training criteria – convince the "eval" that task is accomplished, isn't it?

And the second kind of activity takes skill that no amount of "I am pro dev" can compensate.

it can not not? moreover, it can totally ruin existing invariants, introduce dead code, falsify tests and sabotage further work by poisoning comments and documentation in a few hours.

Power tools cannot "produce any house in hours"

so basically pro cooks are better at ordering pizza?

"pro"-ness does not transfer. I can be both good at reading english, and have AI hallucinate non-existing details from the documents it processes.

Somebody already has copied this innovative approach and travelled to past apparently: https://acme.com/software/securepage/

"Super tinny monotone robotic voice" does not sound neither tinny nor monotone. Compared to what TTS from 90s sounded like. Or even how actors impersonated robots in movies. Has the model been eating too much hype DJs?

> and finding the best solution for every problem

Genuinely: how? Share some insights. So far I have seen anything exceeding about 2k lines of text in the context diverge. Meaning, throwing more LLM at it rapidly baloons the size at the expense of internal coherence. Things become stale, hallucinated, duplicated and outright faked. Only thing that works is constant manual intervention and pruning of the generated slop.

Not only these things are unable to find "best solution", they are unable to find any solution. Instead (especially for Opus) they seem optimized to convince user that the task is accomplished.

Sure thing! Here you go:

https://youtu.be/AQf84KubJjE https://youtu.be/RAUsCwu8ekQ https://youtu.be/NtsJ5m6C7dU https://youtu.be/h8xO4PiJ--w

Somehow we also have memory safety bugs everywhere, too. So real world shows bugs in C code are possible. What even is your argument? Real men write asm?

By "proper" I assume you mean relational? Or ACID? Or you mean using existing database software? What is so improper about the way git stores data?

Hard to guess, it can go either way. If you will need to be in a syndicate to use non-sterilized models, that mac makes sense. But if there is mandatory registration of personal cyberarms, you risk going to mines once they check you purchases. You could try to play normie and pretend you simply wanted to show off, by keeping your actual work on external disk, but that leaves traces on system. Counting on someone in the Gap renting you gray iron works as long as you can swap credits. Still, this gear is tiny. Put it in your e-car, with uplink, and leave it at uncle's farm. Discreet.

But I can ask 100 causally masked questions against common prefix, and get 100 answers, all in a single PP pass using any existing "classical" attention transformer model? Like, I had the impression that is what everyone was doing for classification already? Is the difference "we did RL to tune logit distribution"? Because I really do not see anything new there. What is the difference?

ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper. Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case...

You cannot replace honesty with tech.

I would expect quite a number of embedded use cases to suddenly break. Yay, free CVEs!

By narrow luck compiler writers so far have been the sane bunch, and have ignored C++ committee on many important points. Thus we still have explicitly non-conformant things like -fno-exceptions that lets one use C++ compiler on embedded.

But I wonder how long that can last, with the way C++ is going.

At one point, it will make practical sense to update codebase to some other language, rather than keep fighting this one

Not "this". By that logic most people do not need backups too. Rebuilding working service state after config change is non-trivial, requires using admin-only kernel interfaces, and said kernel does not care about these types of problems. Meaning average user ends up simply rebooting rather than trying to figure why enabling wifi makes printer stop working (and such). We cannot have network stuff controlled by multiple programs, because linux kernel is broken like that. This thing is the userspace part of the monolith.

Objection was against "memory safety" somehow having become "safety". Here is an epic tool that allows one to attach and formally prove assertions. Genuinely impressive and massively useful.

Yet the pitch is that it is needed for the "unsafe" unsafe code, to make it "safe". Not for all code, to make all code safe.

> With Verus, however, developers can mathematically prove the safety of their unsafe Rust code

what about proving safety of not-unsafe code? The meme that rust is "safe" is becoming tiring. Does this thing allow proving absence of infinite loops? Bounded resource use? Correctness of comparison operations? Etc.

Also, why is there still no hardware tagging to simply prevent memory misuse at cpu level, if it actually is such an important issue?

Samsung has put Enlightenment 17 in front of every Tizen user. I am not seeing the flood of apps implemented on EFL coming out

oh, something new! I thought Z3 is SAT/SMT solver, they must have added something.

"but strong mode-decision pipelines can pick the right mode for the job and save lots of bits" - citation needed. just a bit above author claims lossless is not useful for web, disregards modular jxl that uses nearby pixel predictors (even though it can be lossy, too), then produces this claim against vardct. spoiler - dct frequencies ARE using "nearby pixel values"

really strange article.