In the past, hand-crafted assembly code was common because it was easy to beat the compiler. This is still true today in some niches.
398 karma · joined March 15, 2016
In any case, EA smells strongly of “the ends justify the means” which most popular moral philosophies reject with strong arguments. One which resonates with me is that there are no “ends.” The path itself is the goal.
Is it necessary to be able to exhaustively enumerate states? I remember a project I worked on some years ago which had me sketching out a statechart for a system which was not structured as an explicit FSM. The end result was surprisingly complex. I imagine some systems might even have an unbounded number of “states.”
I’ll definitely read more about Alloy too.
I don’t really know what you’re talking about, and have a hard time imagining how ideas from relational algebra can be applied to all APIs.
For example, many database-like things already use relational algebra and an actual query language, for sure. But how does this apply to, say, a GUI toolkit or an audio device driver?
So, if it is true we’re on the cusp of an AI Revolution, AGI, the Singularity, or anything like that, then there’s precedent to worry. It could destroy our lives and livelihoods on a timescale of decades, even if the whole world really would be over all improved in a century or two.
Can you imagine the fallout from this, though? Each and every line of code this junior has ever touched needs to be scrutinized to determine its provenance. The company now must assume the employee has been uploading confidential material to OpenAI too. This is an uncomfortable legal risk.
How could you trust the dev again after the dust is settled?
Also, it raises further concerns for me that this junior seems to be genuinely, honestly unaware that using ChatGPT to write code wouldn’t at least be frowned upon. That’s a frankly dangerous level of professional incompetence. (At least they didn’t try to hide it.)
Well now I’m wondering what the correct way would be to handle a junior doing this with ChatGPT, and what the correct way would be to handle similar kinds of mistakes such as copy-pasting GPL code into the proprietary code base, copy-pasting code from Stack Overflow, sharing snippets of company code online, and so on.
If the new language has good interop with the old then this doesn’t have to be painful either. A while back, I was working on a large Objective-C code base which was slowly moving to Swift. We quickly got to a point where new code was written in Swift by default. In only a couple of years, we had a code base which used Objective-C pretty much only in the dark corners where code churns slowly.
My only experience with the phrase is to mean something along the lines of a calculated ploy to lure dissidents into exposing themselves for later punishment. The horrible historical context is pretty much the entire point of making the allusion at all.
Just like COBOL! Seriously, _just like COBOL_. The language will fade in importance over time. C++ will be relegated to increasingly narrow niches. It will eventually only be found in "legacy" systems that no one wants to spend to rewrite. No one young will bother at all to learn C++ at all. Then, in a few decades, they'll be pulling folks like you and me out of retirement to maintain old systems for big bucks.
>NVIDIA GPU Display Driver for Windows and Linux contains a vulnerability which could allow a privileged attacker to escalate permissions. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to code execution, denial of service, escalation of privileges, information disclosure, and data tampering
What does “privileged attacker” mean on Linux? In my mind, “privileged” would mean they already have root, but in that case there’s nothing to escalate, right?
The article ends with “ I will leave you with a question: Are we trying to make end-to-end congestion control work for cases where it can’t possibly work?”
So, it seems to me that there may not be any good solutions to latency spikes. The article is basically pointing out that you either pursue one of the unfortunate solutions mentioned, or be resigned to accept that no congestion control mechanism will ever be sufficient to eliminate the spikes. This seems a valuable message to the people who might be involved in developing the sort congestion control mechanisms they’re talking about.
EDIT: Changed my comment because I decided I’m probably out of touch and I thought the tone of what originally wrote came across a touch more aggressive than I intended.