LoganDark

AFAIK, Rust benefits from the same optimizations that Clang can. In some areas Rust can actually benefit more from better aliasing information. But you do have to use the keyword unsafe for some things that you can Just Do in C++. You're right it can be difficult to achieve hand-optimized C++ levels of performance with Safe Rust.

Curious, how does Rust give up raw speed? Are you talking just about runtime bounds checks, or is there more?

I think you're talking about more than just a compiler, though standard libraries are often distributed with the compiler. Take Rust for example, it's not like the compiler has special integration with hash maps, it's just that the standard library has a standard implementation and the compiler lets you refer to that implementation without having to repeat it yourself. In a way you're just including parts of another spec in yours. Specifications do this all the time, for example by using English. You don't have to define all the levels of abstraction, only the ones that matter.

Even so, I'd argue that you still have to define how to use those abstractions rather than only the result you'd like to achieve with them. Sure, maybe the abstraction has a ".achieve_the_result()" method, and calling that method is how you achieve it, but often there's a bunch of stuff you fit together to achieve a solution to your problem and the compiler doesn't necessarily do that for you.

I think there actually may be some compilers that get closer to this, for example some problems can be expressed quite elegantly in Haskell or APL and the compiler will do a lot of black magic behind the scenes to get you a performant executable (somehow). But for most traditional compilers you are still going to have to define how to approach your problem, even if only at a higher level thanks to libraries.

Auto mode means that another model reviews tool calls to attempt to disallow less safe ones. It's different from bypass permissions mode which typically just doesn't filter at all.

I wouldn't be so sure that the brain necessarily clocks faster than that. I think it's more likely that faster chains of thought are defined by the flow of the waves rather than their frequency.

They're even ahead of Apple. macOS 27? Nah, how about Gitea 28?

If someone shuttles my question to AI, the least they can do is extract the meaningful information themselves and communicate just that to me.

They require a phone number and then say mine has been used for too many accounts. Maybe I could buy another phone number temporarily to create an account, but that has other issues.

I've tasted Gemini through an intermediary and it feels far better at attention to detail than other models I've tested (Claude Opus/Sonnet, GPT whatever it's called nowadays). But it's less likely to get one-shots right.

Is there a way to use Gemini models without linking your usage to your personal Google account yet?

You get the chat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49286955

Yeah, I suppose it could just mean they are looking for the right buyer and aren't interested in offers.

Curiously enough, they have never said that Xbox will not sell, only that it is "not for sale" at this time. They have not even said they have no plans to sell Xbox in the future. They can change their mind at any time, and may very well indeed, so what they've said so far instills no confidence for me.

A common pattern is: gut the company for a fresh start -> have hope for a year or two -> lose hope because you're not seeing profits fast enough and then exit. Microsoft has been known to do this -- remember Nokia?

> By Chris Hanson

What a name!

(Skipped the rest of the article cause it's AI.)

> Sure. I wrote out specification that described the problem. It compiled that into a description of how to deal with it.

I might just not know enough compilers, but didn't you write the specification of how to approach the problem, not just the problem itself?

I think the punchline is that workplace romance usually gets both parties fired, regardless of who initiated. Hence, doing "things" with the pickle slicer means the pickle slicer gets fired for participating...

Exactly, Cloudflare should not be blocking bots for everyone by default, they should leave it up to the operators!!

KiwiFarms, 8chan, The Daily Stormer all got removed for public backlash... didn't know Cloudflare still hosted this kind of BS. Thanks.

That's not my point. Cloudflare is blocking all unregistered automation as "AI Training" by default. My guess is we will see almost no one changing that default, as opposed to the inverse where only some sites will be forced to enable the blocks. Opt-out is a very bad model for things like this because it heavily hurts users (especially assistive users) while most websites won't have a strong enough opinion to even consider it.

I don't think we will see Cloudflare enabling an "age assurance" requirement by default. I feel like I could trust them slightly more than a site operator, depending on how it's performed, but I also feel like it would be very easy for them to do much, much worse than any site operator, due to the inherent power of being a GAA. (Global Active Adversary, to those not familiar)

No they did, but they changed their mind once people spoke out against it. They thought free speech absolutism would be good for PR, but it turns out that the general public hates bad people enough not to care.

As always, I am worried to see Cloudflare and Google Chrome -- two of the internet's biggest/worst monopolies -- working so closely together like this. Cloudflare is already undergoing enshittification, like banning all automation by default that hasn't undergone privacy-invasive certification procedures (they recently started calling disallowed bots "AI Training", but that doesn't change anything -- you still have to be on a whitelist in order to be allowed). I have no doubt that in the near future, they will release some kind of ID verification and then the vast majority of the internet is simply done.

I honestly wonder if "many devices offering direct migration paths" actually means that new Googlebook devices will have migration assistants.

By "try", I mean there's a difference between applying and getting accepted, and getting an offer out of the blue. They've sent out some unsolicited offers before, and poached some executives that way, so that's why I ask.

You're right though that the process in practice can be more fuzzy (e.g., you weren't looking, but heard of an attractive opportunity and then applied that way).

I wonder if people like this actually try to get into the company, or if they just got a very attractive offer instead?

Hey, hey, hey... what'd I tell y'all about coming in my shed?!

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. The compressor should have its own system to regulate the temperature, not depend on some master control unit that also commands every other function of the fridge. Because if that master control unit gets so stuffed with functionality that a bug in one thing breaks everything else, you get hundreds of dollars of spoilage, yeah. For some families that's the difference between eating and not eating for days (or much longer).

I think what's happened here is the inverter does not have its own setting at all, it's controlled by a central computer, which in this case failed.

> Both are reasons I treat a confirmed concern as a flag to check against the earlier stages, not a verdict.

As much as I've enjoyed the article so far, little LLM-isms like this turn me off just a little bit. It's not egregious but it's somewhat distracting.

(There were some earlier that I glossed over because the article's good enough. Good job to the author for making it relatively painless, but still.)

It gets slightly more LLM-ish towards the end, not to an unacceptable level but still noticeably so. Maybe the article could've been a bit shorter, as most of the best information is earlier.

> In Summary

I also think this entire section is unnecessary, and that it would've been perfectly complete to simply end after "This type of negative response is very rare." Just personal preference though.

People wouldn't have that ability if we didn't keep believing them. Need to start holding operators accountable for the damage of their machines.

"Sorry officer, I didn't drive through a house and kill three innocent people, it was the car that did it. I only turned the steering wheel, but the car was the one to veer off the highway and crash into the building"

They find it objectionable to blame the agents alone for these incidents, because that incorrectly brings attention away from the company's astronomical negligence.

Thanks!