LinXitoW

I actually had to change an API recently TO this. The request payload was getting too big, so we needed to send it via POST as a body.

We're talking about the rising star, the golden goose, the all-fixing genius of innovation, LLMs. "Just don't use it" is not going to be acceptable to suits. And "it's not fixable" is actually 100% accurate. The best you can do is mitigate.

We're less than 2 years away from an LLM massively rocking our shit because a suit thought "we need the competitive advantage of sending money by chatting to a sexy sounding AI on the phone!".

Sure, but then the parameters of those queries are still dynamic and chosen by the LLM.

So, you have to choose between making useful queries available (like writing queries) and safety.

Basically, by the time you go from just mitigating prompt injections to eliminating them, you've likely also eliminated 90% of the novel use of an LLM.

You can pay not Google for services too. Most people don't, though. If ALL people that used free stuff (like gmail) suddenly started paying an appropriate amount to competitors, the problems may solve themselves. But people don't do that, because they're cheap or care more about their money than their data/privacy.

Now, all this is of course an inevitable consequence of capitalism, but that's not a conversation anyone herre seems ready for.

I have no idea how in the world you think that could ever work in a general sense.

Things require labor. Labor costs money. Ergo, people giving you stuff require money, somehow. A tetris clone requires so little labour, that a well-off person with too much time (ergo labor) on their hands can give you that for free, but that's not scalable for 99% of important stuff.

Because capitalism, they also require more money, YoY, than last year, meaning they can't just make a steady stream of profit. They need more profit every year.

If you gave a junior level developer just one or two files of your code, without any ability to look at other code, and asked them to implement a feature, none of them would make ANY reasonable assumptions about what is available?

This seems similar, and like a decent indicator that most people (aka the average developer) would expect X to exist in your API.

There's no system the same way there's no Facebook, just some databases and servers. Or there's no Java language, it's all just UTF-8 characters. Or there's no government, there's just people voting for other people. Or there's no society, it's all just fancy apes existing and making decisions.

It's quite frankly ludicrous to be a software engineer and pretend systems don't arise from "individual" "independent" elements.

Considering capitalism is a very new phenomenon in human history, how do you think people survived and thrived for the other 248000 years? It's as ludicrous to believe that capitalism is some kind of force of nature as it is to believe kings were chosen by god.

I mean, this is just capitalism.

And while I loved old forums, they were constantly fighting with being underfunded, there was infighting between the "owners", and each one worked differently, making them a bunch of disconnected little silos.

Especially compared to Youtube, there's just NO WAY IN HELL any non-exploitative company could ever finance a project of even remotely similar scope. There are already, right know, alternatives for all the big monopolists. Most people aren't using them because they don't like the trade offs.

I have to ask, in comparison to what do you like it? Because every functional language, many modern languages like Rust, and even Java with checked exceptions offers this.

Hell, you can mostly replicate Gos "error handling" in any language with generics and probably end up with nicer code.

If your answer is "JavaScript" or "Python", well, that's the common pattern.

Isn't defer hidden control flow? The defer handling can happen at any point in the function, depending on when errors happen. Exactly like a finally block.

Sure, you can emulate some of the features and hope that everyone using your library is doing it "right". Just like you could just use a dynamic language, tag every variable with a type, and hope everyone using your library does the MANUAL work of always doing it correct. Guess we don't need types either.

And while we're at it, why not use assembly? It's all just "syntactic sugar" over bits, doesn't make any difference, right?

So you then have binary blobs of state without any documentation of how or why it is the way it is? That doesn't seem maintainable.

Dockerfiles are basically this, but with a file documenting the different steps you took to get to that state.

I've only played with these kinds of plug and play databases, but mixing and matching seems like the worst of both worlds. The plug and play is gone, because some things might me in API 1, some others in API 2, and maybe worst of all, their domains might overlap. So you need to know that the "boring" changes happen via the postgREST, but the fancier ones via some custom API. The APIs will probably also drift apart in small ways, making everything even more error prone.

In a UBI situation demand would shift, not just go up. If there's two hypothetical people paying the tax, a very rich person (>300.000 a year) and a poor person (<50.000 a yr), money effectively shifts from the rich person to the poor person (at least the majority). The poor person will have very different demands than the rich person.

Finally, we already do price controls and subsidies in many places, like food production. It's just that a big part of the advantage is soaked up by big companies.

We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production. It's just that the advantages are arbitraged away by corporations using cheap corn to create highly addictive foods, and lobbying and marketing with the resultant profits.

But I also disagree with your assertion. Minimum wage increases are a great example. Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massively increasing prices, but they never do. Moreover, a higher standard of employment rights and payment in first world countries like Norway doesn't seem to correlate well with higher Big Mac prices.

I mean, I'd never expect a junior to do better for such a highly specific task.

I expect I'd have to hand feed them steps, at which point I imagine the LLM will also do much better.

Got absolutely read to filth:

> You've spent more time explaining why Go's error handling is bad than Go developers have spent actually handling errors.

> Your relationship with programming languages is like a dating show - you keep finding flaws in all of them but can't commit to just one.

> If error handling were a religion, you'd be its most zealous missionary, converting the unchecked one exception at a time.

But the point is that the Rust developers have tried literally everything else.

If the C developers make it a "Them vs Us" thing, there IS NO ALTERNATIVE for the Rust developers.

Linus' reaction is quite literally the equivalent of a parent only punishing the loudest child, not the child that's been silently bullying that kid for months.

The issue is that Linus put the Rust developers in an impossible position: On the one hand he approved Rust in the kernel, but then never ever ever has the balls to enforce that decision.

Then, the fanatical C developers openly sabotage and work against all the Rust developers efforts. So, the last option for the Rust developers is to take it to social media. Otherwise, the C developers get away with creating a self fulfilling prophecy: Sabotage all Rust efforts, then claim the Rust experiment failed.

Linus didn't seem to ever have the time to actually take a stance, except of course on the social media issue. Fully ignoring all context. It's the equivalent of a school principal suspending the bullied victim for finally snapping and punching their bully.

Speaking from zero experience, the FFI stories of both Python and Java to C seems much better. Wouldn't going connecting them via a little C bridge a general solution?

Yeah, and if Google hadn't used Go themselves, it would've also fizzled out.

Any halfway non-horrible tech just needs enough funding and usage from some company to become mainstream.

Is there a good reason to not just use the rust version the project is made for?

I have some Java projects using the newest 21 version, and older ones using 8.

No, I'd tell you that the cobalt for electric cars is only a tiny fraction of the total cobalt used, and that combustion engines also need a lot, AND that there's less un-ethical sources of cobalt that many manufacturers use.

But that's the nitpicker in me. The general point that our over-consumption drives like 80% of the bad things in the world still stands. The only real solution is to consume less.

In a world where the presidents closest "friend" can do a Hitler salute, twice, people are more focussed on getting Pro Palestinians fired, arrested, etc.

That very much fits any of the censorship China has going on.

Go launched without any dependency management. Go people believe that anything non-trivial is either a useless abstraction, or too difficult for the average developer. So their solution is to simply not add it, and tell anyone claiming to need it that their mind has been poisoned by other languages...

Until that time when they realize everyone else was right, and they add an over simplified, bad solution to their "great" language.

The built-in "logging" in Go is barely more than a fancy Println. For example, where are the levels, like DEBUG and WARN?

I genuinely don't know what people with this opinion work on that they can so easily choose to completely re-invent the wheel in every project, just because they're afraid of hypothetical dangers. Most of which are still present for private re-implementations (like bugs).

I cannot think of a single project where NIH syndrome would've been a net positive. Even dependencies that aren't "essential" are super helpful in saving time.

When you recreate parts of an "optional" dependency for every single project, how do you find the time to fix all the extra bugs, the edge cases, the support for different versions of lower level dependencies, of different platforms?

As a left-ish person, TikTok is genuinely the only place I feel safe from braindead hate. EVERY OTHER platform I've interacted with has a fuckton of hate.

I'm sure it exists in TikTok too, but at least the algorithm keeps those freaks far away from me.

Can you establish somehow how a TikTok ban would help this situation?

Yeah, as a 12 yr old, I would've reacted completely calmly to Counterstrike being banned, or ICQ being banned, or MySpace being banned, or, worst of all, my access to lingerie models from clothing catalogues being destroyed...