Ygg2

> The memory safety thing is just a moot out of scope contract.

Data races are not common but when they do happen. I hate to debug them. Only thing worse than data races is data races causing SEGFAULTS.

> Every Java application I've seen in the wild when I supported JVM seemed to never release any ram it allocated. Ever.

You can say the same for Go. Nature of GC langs is they consume more memory than what is minimal. And in theory as a trade off they give you memory safety.

Go doesn't even give memory safety. If program is racy enough.

> Also memory safety is so far off base here, where's that coming from?

It's coming from Go. In presence of data races on interfaces, slices or maps your memory might get corrupted.

> Also why can't I have my memory back when it's not in use in tightly packed systems?

You can. You have to either set your GC to be more aggressive or you need to utilize value types more.

LLMs are not humans. It's good to remember that. They're also not God.

> Upvoted. I think that said humans should get used to the idea that their intellect is special only insofar as it was first

And used to build the LLMs of today. We'll see how that evolves once LLMs have to feed LLMs with their own "intellect".

It's the difference between watermark or marked bills.

One is proof of authenticity, other is tracking tool.

> To name it "hallucination" is an euphemism

I agree. It's biased language. When talking about AI remember:

- hallucinated -> made it the fuck up

- thinking -> pseudo-randomly guessed

- escaped containment -> (we) need money

- we need regulation -> our competitors are catching up! Help us Prez!

That's not how it was usually run, but say in Ancient Athen's the council that decided was whoever was at the council at that time.

> People least suitable to wield power are most magnetically attracted to it.

In the current system.*

There are systems that allow you to distribute power more equally. It requires a different setup, like for example randomised choice. The people in power don't like it. It's much easier to bribe 2-3 career politicians and guarantee their success.

I support installing kill switch in Dario and Sam. If they make another fear mongering post about AI, they die.

Hard to say, but there are legitimate reasons. One of which being they think Rust is growing while C is a shrinking language. Other could be safety (yes, yes the audit did surface bugs). Or even that having a single lib work seamlessly on Windows/Linux/MacOS/Redux/Web.

> The point is that such bugs shouldn't exist in the first place.

That's true of every bug, but you don't have infinite time or manpower, so how do you prioritise?

> There were forty-four against this project in just the last audit.

Was there an audit against coreutils? If not, it's not really apple-to-apple comparison.

When triaging an issue you have to prioritise. Do you fix a problem that affects 2-3 people or one that may affect thousands?

I think it's something else. Ads are bringing less revenue so they must put more squeeze to get same level (+ growth) of juice.

Not sure how that relates to the argument at hand. The argument that you should break compatibility for justifiable reasons.

We know how that looks, and it's not good. See Scala and Python.

Like Python 2 vs 3? That's what Editions were created to fix. With backwards incompatibility you will get ecosystem breakage and looming threat of future compilers not compiling your code.

Yes, but new compiler can't use old ecosystem crates. Hence the issue.

Rust's edition system gives you the best of both worlds, with caveats. Some changes will be impossible.

Both bubble and Jenga tower are examples of unstable systems that can persist for an unexpectedly long time.

I somewhat agree... Yaml 1.2 spec is underutilized, and there are too many 1.1 compatible parsers in the wild.

However! The Spec defined alias and anchor, the spec defined loading, emitting, when it should have just called it serialization and deserialization.

There are also other points of problem. Why do we have three block kind of string (unquoted, folded and literal)? Why is there three kind of flow strings(unquoted, single and double quoted)? Why is everything so context (flow/block) sensitive?

The problem with YAML spec is that it tries to serve two masters: be a JSON compatible spec, be compatible with Python like whitespace sensitive config.

That or Google is getting so unusable even Discord is a better search engine.

Not just Lisp. C# also has compiler intrinsic.

Does that mean that C# is low-level language? Is Java then? Is adding intrinsic enough to turn a language from high-level to low-level?

What a coincidence! Mine too!

Not average of English. Average of all written text. Which probably includes lots of marketing and hypetexts.

This SMBC comic https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100813.gif

McAfee wasn't always this shit, and ads on non-porn sites weren't as malicious.

Python is very strange programming language for a MMORPG. I'd imagine they would write it in C++ or something. They don't quite explain what they use it for.

And yeah, using a faster but safe language could help immensely.

KDL? https://kdl.dev/

If you suspect that, make sure your text mentions at random gremlins, groblings and jack bunnies. I.e. pre poison your input.

Use Rust if you want to write in a memory safe, high performance language.

> Zig's value prop is different and closer to a modern C: it fits in your head and it maps fairly closely to assembly.

This can't be correct for the simple reason that it has both a modern optimizing compiler (LLVM) and UB.

A modern compiler will try to autovectorize your code, so you don't really know what the assembly will be.

UB gives compiler license to rewrite your code however it sees fit.

I'm pretty sure they manage to get that level of performance and reliability, since they have a very limited schema.

I'm pretty sure you can't just do a precise 128 byte align, if one of the element is an image blob or varchar(1000).