CoastalCoder

Chuck Norris will pass his torch to Jim Keller.

Jim won't have a say in the matter.

I really dislike the complexity of modern C++ language specs, but does it obscure much detail about FP ops?

TL;DR:

A vast majority of the programmers I've worked with don't understand the nuances of FP in general, nor the various extents of IEEE-754 support in different programming languages.

So for important numerical programming, I think clarity regarding the FP operations being performed can be crucial. I'm just unclear if modern C++ is a significant factor for that.

I feel like I'm ignorant of some classical fable here.

Is this an allusion?

Any reason he couldn't try advancing it somewhere like China or India, which (I assume) are less vulnerable to that kind of interference?

Sounds like we have the basics of an oscillating system now!

I wonder what it's resonant frequency is.

> The closest I can think of is the bronze age collapse.

No idea about your question, but I'd love to hear more about this part.

Ask your local unemployment benefits office if Nope™ is right for you!

That's an interesting point and worth discussing.

I'm not sure why you got down voted. Maybe people are perceiving some subtext that I'm not.

> Shouldn't it be the exact opposite here ? The burden of proof is the other way around

That's the rule for criminal court in the US, but each of us is free to pick his own standard for his own purposes.

It sounds like one potential interpretation of his behavior is that he values his own time more than your time.

I wonder if that's occurred to him.

You're just parroting the GP.

> There is nothing to secure, because there is no SQL query.

Yet.

Does that meaningfully restrict which foods / ingredients you can get?

My kids heard it in Narragansett.

> Why even reduce an easy to exploit attack surface when there could be holes elsewhere?! Because, you know, it makes things much more secure even if imperfect.

I'm still trying to calibrate my take on this view.

If attacks are randomly chosen from the set of all potential vulnerabilities, without the attacker knowing which ones had been patched, then that logic clearly makes sense.

But in an adversarial situation where the attacker can guess which vulnerabilities you still have unpatched, or can try many different attack vectors, then having already patched some other vulnerabilities doesn't matter so much.

I guess reality is more complicated though.

I share your worries.

Unfortunately, this may be akin to the situation of "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

I am curious of that allows the new President, while in office, to assassinate the previous one and insta-pardon himself.

It's amazing how much of America's political stability might rest not on the law, but rather on the self-restraint of each cohort's leadership.

Algernon for Flowers.

> I spent ages trying to work out what "who knew more about furniture than most" meant, thinking it would be expanded upon or referenced later.

Assuming it was an intentional, it could be a reference to one particularly violent piece of furniture. (I forget what kind exactly, it's been a while.)

Perhaps this falls into "how to have hard conversations" bucket?

Interesting. Thanks!

> although it's off by a half century, roughly, if you include the Jewish diaspora.

Mind expanding on this part?

I've recently started listening to a podcast from a retired Anglican Bishop, "Ask N.T. Wright Anything".

IIUC, he claims that the concept of "soul" is something that the wasn't really present in the Jewish worldview of Jesus' time. Rather, it's something that later theologians (Aquinas?) picked up from Greek philosophy (Platonism?).

I wonder if that means Wright would have a different take on the whole "only humans have souls" idea. (Beyond just differing on the choice of terminology, I mean.)

> 100% of the optimum, which is anyway unattainable.

Can you expand on this? Sounds like an interesting discussion.

I think we should go a little deeper on this idea.

We can all agree that both human "experts" and LLMs can sometimes be right, and sometimes be confidently wrong.

But that doesn't imply that they're equally fit for purpose. It just means that we can't use that simple shortcut to conclude that one is inferior to the other.

So where do we go from here?

I totally agree.

As flawed as this new approach might turn out to be, the traditional approach may (or may not) have an even worse probability of success.

> An outsourced developer isn't a "tool".

I'd think that depends on the model of responsibility at play.

For example, suppose I hire a building contractor to build a house, and the electrician he subcontracts makes mistake.

From my perspective, the prime contractor is equally responsible for that mistake regardless of whether he used a subcontractor, or did the work himself but used a broken tool.

This doesn't make the electrician any less of a "person" in the deeply important ways, but it's not a distinction that's relevant to my handling of the problem.

Tangent, but thanks for adding "complect" to my vocabulary!

Would explain why most of the download traffic comes from the Middle East :)

> but maybe you won’t be famous.

Or employable. Which sucks if you're over 50.

I'm curious if LLMs would be useful for code understanding and for bug hunting in an environment like that.

Are there any good models for those tasks that can work in an air-gapped enclave?