SpaceNugget

I'm confused how you could be confused. Obviously the company that's passing off their costs to the consumer?

There is no os inside the container. That's a big part of the reason containerization is so popular as a replacement for heavier alternatives like full virtualization. I get that it's a bit confusing with base image names like "ubuntu" and "fedora", but that doesn't mean that there is a nested copy of ubuntu/fedora running for every container.

So does the one it's in reply to. But you skipped that one to complain about this one.

It's absurd that anyone could pretend to believe that more people having guns is a "deterrent" mild or otherwise to lethal use of force? In every interview about why american cops shoot and kill orders of magnitude more people than most civilized countries, americans always argue it's because their citizenry is armed so the police need to be prepared to make life or death decisions in a split second at every moment on the job.

Going from the Netherlands to Budapest I started my journey with Deutsche Bahn. My train also did the split in half and go different directions trick. Was I supposed to learn Dutch, German, and Hungarian in order to buy my train tickets?

As a quick and kind of oversimplified example of what zero copy means, imagine you read the following json string from a file/the network/whatever:

    json = '{"user":"nugget"}' // from somewhere

A simple way to extract json["user"] to a new variable would be to copy the bytes. In pythony/c pseudo code

    let user = allocate_string(6 characters)
    for i in range(0, 6)
      user[i] = json["user"][i]
    // user is now the string "nugget"

instead, a zero copy strategy would be to create a string pointer to the address of json offset by 9, and with a length of 6.

    {"user":"nugget"}
             ^     ]end

The reason this can be tricky in C is that when you call free(json), since user is a pointer to the same string that was json, you have effectively done free(user) as well.

So if you use user after calling free(json), You have written a classic _memory safety_ bug called a "use after free" or UAF. Search around a bit for the insane number of use after free bugs there have been in popular software and the havoc they have wreaked.

In rust, when you create a variable referencing the memory of another (user pointing into json) it keeps track of that (as a "borrow", so that's what the borrow checker does if you have read about that) and won't compile if json is freed while you still have access to user. That's the main memory safety issue involved with zero-copy deserialization techniques.

s/Wireshark/wireguard

I'm amazed that so many people here completely miss the point. Clippy being annoying/horrible UX or not has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the reasoning for it being compared to modern software trends.

The point is that microsoft got _nothing_ regardless if you were using or not using clippy. So clippy being bad could only be because they sucked at making something good for their users. It was not because they chose maliciously to make the user experience bad for an ulterior motive like collecting and selling user data or pumping up telemetry numbers for a promotion. They genuinely thought clippy would be a net benefit to their users in some way even though they were clearly wrong.

The point Louis is trying to highlight is the difference in intent, not in execution so that is why clippy is being used as the moral backdrop to compare modern software against. Saying clippy itself is "user hostile UX" is besides the point, and either shows a lack of comprehension or intentional feigned ignorance so that you can complain about a badly thought out feature you didn't like that hasn't existed for over 20 years.

Automatic updates are pretty unrelated. Google can just release an updated version of google play services or a device verification API and everyone's banking/government ID apps will stop working until you manually update anyway. They have a pretty big stick to whack you over the head with if you don't update to the new version "for security"

It's not entitled to not want to try out some new thing if it has major drawbacks over what you are already successfully using.

If someone randomly comes up to you and offers you an apple with a rotten spot and you say "No thanks, there's a big rotten spot" would you expect them to scold you for being entitled and looking a gift horse in the mouth? _They_ came up to _you_ offering an apple!

If you viewed the source and reproduced a software project you don't have a license to redistribute, that's cut and dry copyright violation. If the code looks similar enough you are toast. That's why there's the concept of a "clean room" reimplementation. The same is true if you feed the source into the context of an LLM and asked it to reproduce it. You have done nothing but introduce the possibility of transcription bugs.

Since you are clearly an AI enjoyer I asked my local LLM to summarize your feelings for me. It said:

> As evidenced by the quote "I think a disclaimer is a carte blanche to do literally anything", the hackernews user <gruez> is clearly of the opinion that it is indeed ok to do whatever you want, as long is there is a sign stating it might happen.

* This text was summarized by the SpaceNugget LLM and may contain errors, and thusly no one can ever be held accountable for any mistakes herein.

That's not what the person said. Give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt when interpreting posts. Using the context of a person who grew up and was educated in the Anglosphere. Obviously the ivy league is going to be one of the more attractive options for finding a larger group of elite mathematical researchers. They have a ton of funding compared to most places and draw in many other brilliant people from around the world. That doesn't mean there's no elite thinkers anywhere else, just that it's inevitably going to be a strong contender for where a very bright person looking for that kind of environment would consider.

> Last time I plugged in an HDMI source and the darn "smart" television showed the image for 0.5 seconds before displaying a menu that asks me to press a button on the remote to show the image.

That's entirely the fault of your crappy smart display with some crappy OS and has entirely nothing to do with HDMI as a standard.

I would think as a plug and play standard for A/V stuff, HDMI is one of the farthest along the "just works" spectrum for the vast majority of people. Occasionally I see a device where there's something stupid like switching to a different HDMI source doesn't switch the audio source and you have to use some dumb OSD menu with many nested levels to get to the audio sources, but again, that's not HDMI's fault.

I have had quite a few broken HDMI cables in lecture halls at uni and in meeting rooms at various work places, but I think that's the reality of any connector that gets plugged and unplugged tens of times per day (especially by people who don't care and don't have to pay for them when they break). They just need to replace the cables more often.

It's a company who bought the domain of the exact name of the largest open source project that they directly compete with and then advertise themselves on it? This is at the very least unethical. You can't just use a competitors exact name to run a website that tries to snipe users looking for your competitor and call it a "fan site".

The comments on this submission are pretty strange. What are the chances that a bunch of non-sockpuppet HN type of people are in support of this kind of garbage? Generally with sort of abysmal behaviour like the email communication in the article, there's people going to bat against actually defensible actions purely in the name of civility on HN. These bitvise people seem bad from both angles and yet the of early comments are either ignoring the issue and redirecting (e.g. "who even uses putty") or outright defending their shitty behaviour?

> You can even get double free in Rust if you take the time to build an entire machine emulator and then run something that uses Malloc in the ensuing VM. Rust and similar memory safe languages can emulate literally any problem C can make a mine field out of..

That doesn't have any relevance to a discussion about memory safety in C vs rust. Invalid memory access in the emulated machine won't be able to access memory from other processes on the host system. Two languages being turing complete does not make them the same language. And it definitely does not make them bug for bug compatible. Rust _really_ does enable you to write memory safe programs.

A trademark on the word "Rust" has nothing to do with whether the language itself is proprietary. Clearly and Objectively.

What you can call something and whether you can legally make the thing or have a permissive license to an existing implementation are two completely unrelated things.

For example, you also can't make a C compiler and name it the "microsoft C compiler" due to your lack of trademark right. Does that mean C is also proprietary?

See also: The most famous open source project is trademarked https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage

If you still aren't convinced, you are definitely using a different definition of the word proprietary than everyone else.

I'm not a python dev, but if you read HN even semi-regularly you have surely come across it several times in at least the past few months if not a year by now. It is all the rage these days in python world it seems.

And so, if you are the kind of person who has not heard of it, you probably don't read blogs about python, therefor you probably aren't reading _this_ blog. No harm no foul.

I'm really struggling to see why you might assume that google decreases the maximum query length over time when that's generally the exact opposite of how things develop?

And indeed, in the early days the maximum query length was 10 words. So no, you have never been able to paste an entire stack trace into google and magically get a concise summary.

If you are changing the original claim that you were responding to to "I can do my job without llms if I have google search" Sure of course anyone can. But you can't use that to dismiss that some people find it quite convenient to just dump the entire stack trace into a text chat and have a decent summary of what is important without having to read a single part of it.

Pretty incredible for such a short argument to be so inconsistent with itself. Complaining about counting CPU cycles and actually measuring performance because... modern software development is bad and doesn't care about performance?

I think the point of the comment you replied to is that "reviewing code" is different in a regular work situation of reviewing a coworkers PR vs checking that the LLM generated something that matches what you requested.

I don't send my coworkers lists of micromanaged directions that give me a pretty clear expectation of what their PR is going to look like. I do however, occasionally get tagged on a review for some feature I had no part in designing, in a part of some code base I have almost no experience with.

Reviewing that the components you asked for do what you asked is a much easier scenario.

Maybe if people are asking an LLM to build an entire product from scratch with no guidance it would take a lot more effort to read and understand the output. But I don't think most people do that on a daily basis.

According to a quick search on google, which is not very useful these days, the maximum query length is 32 words or 2000 characters and change depending on which answer you trust.

Whatever it is specifically, the idea that you could just paste a 600 line stack trace unmodified into google, especially "way before AI" and get pointed to the relevant bit for your exact problem is obviously untrue.

there's still a VM involved to run a Linux container on a Mac. I wouldn't expect any big performance gains here.

At some point you hit the pixel driver with a bunch of bits, unless your pipeline involves digital signing of copyrights in everyone's future cyber eyeballs, it will always be possible to get the video if you have hardware access.

And the article goes over how there is already an industry standard for the encryption pipeline that goes all the way to monitors and television sets themselves and how you can get a cheap device which just pretends to be a TV and passes on an unencrypted HDMI out.

> if you're so skilled?

I think this is needlessly snarky and also presupposes something that wasn't said. No one said it can write something that the developer couldn't write (faster) themselves. Tab complete and refactoring tools in your IDE/editor don't do anything you can't write on your own but it's hard to argue that they don't increase productivity.

I have only used cline for about a week, but honestly I find it useful in a (imo badly organized) codebase at work as an auto-grepper. Just asking it "Where does the check for X take place" where there's tons of inheritance and auto-constructor magic in a codebase I rarely touch, it does a pretty good job of showing me the flow of logic.

Yea so you have to add the compiled queries to your back-end to be able to get them on prod, which is what you came out swinging against with a somewhat strongly worded to level comment berating people who choose to not use graphql for having to deal with. Exactly what you just described doing is what the parent comment expected you were doing.

The code says to call into_iter and consume the iteratee, so rust does that. If you want a reference, use the &, just like in zig/c/c++/etc. You are saying an even more extreme version of "If there's a way what I wrote could possibly be interpreted that could compile, it should do that" ignoring the fact that there's almost assuredly _many_ ways that your code can be interpreted that could compile.

Slowing down type resolution/compilation (by making every unannotated loop a generic T|&T) and adding more syntax (since rust would need new annotations to explicitly specify borrow/take in for loops), in order to save a single character that matches the behavior of most other related languages and is perfectly clearly explained by the compiler, is maybe a bad move. Considering compile time and complicated syntax are two of the biggest things people who actually write rust complain about.

Just to be clear, you are aware that universities are composed of more than just the sciences right?

Do you also think that biology professors should strike and protest because the first year painting classes don't utilize the scientific method?

The fact that gender studies is a liberal arts degree kind of gives away that it's not pretending to be a science.

The part I was indicating was incorrect was your usage of "could" It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.

Like saying I choose to not be the richest person in the world. Sure it could be technically true, but the statement is incorrectly implying that it's up to me, or within my power to make the alternative choice.

It's very strange that you keep using these intentionally awkwardly phrased, misleading-adjacent statements.

The rest of your comment is attempting to refute something no one made a case for in the first place, which coupled with the rest of it makes it seem like you are just trying to argument-bait, so I'll tap out here.

The file titled LICENSE contains a copyright notice. That's what a license file _is_ in the context of software a LICENSE to use someone's COPYRIGHTed software. You must abide by the terms under which you are granted the license, otherwise you don't have access via the license, and are thus violating the copyright. They aren't two unrelated concepts.

Anything else is noise, they violated the license. They blatantly copied copyrighted works. They can't "oopsie" that away or claim it as a mistake, honest or not. You simply are not allowed to do that.

Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. They don't get to choose whether or not to respect the license. And they don't need to remove the link, That's got nothing to do with the copyright issues. No one at Microsoft thought that call out was somehow the legally required attribution clearly explained in the MIT license.

Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread.

You:

> I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...

Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to:

> The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...