52,073 karma · joined January 25, 2010
Fediverse: https://social.joshtriplett.org/@josh
Twitter: @josh_triplett
GitHub Sponsors: https://github.com/sponsors/joshtriplett/
Homepage: https://joshtriplett.org
FOSS developer. Rust Project developer on the language, library, and Cargo teams.
Absolutely. The best kinds of arguments are those where you both have the shared goal of reaching consensus, and treat reaching consensus as a collaborative activity of finding the correct answer, even though you disagree with the starting point. There are a few techniques for this, which work well when operating in good faith, and can backfire when dealing with hostile counterparties. Most things work badly when arguing with hostile counterparties.
(I have mixed feelings about that, but empirically it holds true.)
AI doesn't have to have a goal of causing a problem. AI doesn't have to have had a human enabler (beyond having been built). Nothing in particular is required in order to fail catastrophically; it's the default if you don't thread the very small needle.
I can't tell if your actual goal here is to be dismissive of the entire concept of people caring about ethics, or if you don't think that quitting is an effective means of acting in concert with those ethics. If it's the latter, then I'd suggest that it's a start, not everyone is in the position to do even that much, and some people who do so will be able to go further. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, particularly if someone is taking a step in the right direction.
Sometimes people aren't in a position to be secure enough to act. Sometimes different issues are more effective at resonating enough to break through previously cached unconsidered patterns of thought. Sometimes people don't know all the things that are going on, and act once they've learned about them. Whatever the reason, if your reaction is "took you long enough" rather than "welcome", you discourage people from acting.
Don't punish the behavior you want to see more of.
(Also, OP is not even an instance of what you're decrying; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49647687 .)
"Keep calm and call clone" is a good strategy for getting things working. Don't prematurely optimize code until you know it's the bottleneck.
(If you have something that is already archived on archive.org, the best way to get an accurate image of it would be to download it from there.)
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Super_Solvers_Spellbound_1...
Anyone who just reads headlines, if the lie gets around to more headlines than the truth does.
My guess: "If we ever imply that's possible, people might start asking questions about all the other work we've ripped off, so the official answer is that it's impossible".
CAPTCHAs don't work anymore, at this point. AI can trivially solve them.
Rate-limit the number of attempts, test accounts against known-password lists like HIBP, and support 2FA.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated accordingly.
substantial improvement to quality of life. Goals: build a company such that people don't think the world would be better off if you don't exist.
When I said 55+ I was talking about the whole size category larger than that, including 65, 77, etc.
That's about right. Specifically, wasm32-unknown-unknown is serving multiple targets, which aren't very compatible, and it implements std by panicking in all the bits that can't work.
One target is "you truly have absolutely nothing, and don't really have much of `std` at all". Another target is "you're in a browser, and can do anything a typical browser can provide" (ideally targeting the future where wasm has full browser APIs without going through javascript). Another target is "hosted environment that isn't a browser, and which capabilities you have depends on the environment". Those are three very different things.
I would argue that we need at least two new targets, possibly three:
- `wasm32-none` or similar (by analogy with `x86_64-unknown-none`), a target where you don't have anything except for what you bring with you. The equivalent of writing kernel code.
- `wasm32-wasi-hosted` (or pick another name), where you the hoster of the wasm can supply whatever capabilities you have available.
- `wasm32-wasi-browser`.
It's possible that `none` could be a special case of `hosted`, where the services you provide are "none".
Freedom of association and freedom of speech go hand in hand. You can say whatever you like. You should not be arrested for it. People may choose not to associate with you, or not to do business with you, or not to amplify your speech by hosting it for you.
We absolutely should. One of the points of bug bounties is to discourage people from selling to the black market.