aatd86

You are just not making any sense. Your very first comment is the one taking offense with the word 'bootleg' erroneously...

If your worry is about phone-home, no need to mention Android specifically. This happens with all off the shelf phones. Point is about a phone that has an OS that looks like what you would expect and just doesn't do what you expect. Obviously you didn't understand what I had written so I had to call you on that. You may feel insulted, does not mean that I am insulting you.

Anyway, just so that it is clear. Probably should end the conversation here so no one feels insulted any further.

I din't make an argument about "bootleg", I just used the term and you argued it.

Besides, depending on the actual OSI license, you can definitely have bootlegs if you really care to argue.

A bootleg does not need to be exploited commercially. It can just be counterfeit.

I am not insulting you. I am telling you that you are being overly pedantic while being wrong at the same time. You might find this difficult to accept but I'm just calling it.

So pedantic, you must be fun at parties. Or maybe are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Fake Android if it suits you better.

I said bootleg Android didnt I? Are Android phones using mods or a complete revamped version?

You didn't get it. I'm talking about fake Android. Not GrapheneOS or similarly a whole other OS that doesn't try to pass as Android.

It's not much import loops rather than introducing fine-grained conditional compilation, since behavior changes depending on whether a trait is imported or not. That has an effect on incremental compilation unless I am mistaken.

So even if generics were there from the 'get-go', I am not sure this exact feature would be added anyway. In fact, it is mostly contrary to Go's structural polymorphism, let alone parametric polymorphism.

Typically what you want would be defined as a function, a specific wrapper type... If it is not already a common method of each shape.

So far, I don't feel like the design of Go's generics suffers from any real issue. The implementation is not 100 percent done yet. But the plan looks sound to me.

Who wants a bootleg Android that sends all your call logs who knows where? xD

Funnily enough, I think it is in Google's best interest to comply and do the best work they can. Besides security that they might want to guarantee up to a limit, that would boost Android usage, also including their own hardware.

The future lies in a large, local-friendly ecosystem and the hardware to support it.

Gate keeping software makes even less sense nowadays.

The competition is on compute offering. Cheaper, faster, at scale. They can have a competitive advantage over incumbents if they stay smart.

Yes, so that is exactly what I don't understand, that makes compilation flow sensitive in a way that Go avoids by design in order to remain fast.

If it is so not novel, why did I never see it in Enterprise? Why is their own attempt a barebone mvp? Besides Dassault Systemes or Palantir with their Ontology product, who was doing anything adjacent? It's giving typical HN vibes ' you don't need dropbox, just sync to ftp' ;D

Ok but then why did they ask for this in a Request For Startups?

__For a concrete example, the fact you cannot define custom methods for external types in Go (a pre-1.0 design decision) means that you cannot write proper compile-time generic code to deal with some generic wrapping type (dumb example -- getting a sum of the perimeters of a generic set of shapes in an externally-defined collection type) -- you are forced to work around it with runtime type-switching. There are all sorts of arguments you can make about simplicity but this is an objective shortcoming of Go that is directly caused by generics being added to Go long post 1.0.__

I'm a bit intrigued by this: how would that work with compatibility between libraries, separate compilation and what not? My first instinct is that it would not be a good idea but I might be missing something..?

But I guess the issue is that oftentimes, it is more of a distributed system coordination issue?

What use case do you have in mind?

If I had applied to yc, I would have thought they had "distilled" my startup idea xD

No one ask them to fund it. The financial system will resolve itself. If you can't buy their product, they are not going to remain rich much longer. And AGI will make them just as irrelevant as any other person. And if they want their peace of mind, they are not going to amass huge amount of land while other people are just starving. That would be besides the point anyway, because it is going to equalize things. In the new economy, the one who can drive AI best, and who is clever enough to know what to ask gets ahead.

Yes everywhere, by definition. That's the promise of nuclear fusion for instance. Understand what a gradient is? gradient zero. That does not mean that you cant have local scarcity. Nature is not homogeneous. There will be exchanges still especially commodities. So there will be trading, well it will probably be automated anyway. So on average it is still abundance for the whole system.

It can protect you from someone patenting the same idea though.

It is not like they/we have a choice if it is structural. Besides, the incentive is at least peace of mind. (but also 'peace')

But if no one has money nor a job, if the old model of economy is broken that way, can rich people stay rich? (so to speak) Isn't there some kind of mean reversal?

Yes and then continue your reasoning... Is this sustainable? What do you think it leads to?

Abundance for everyone or it is not abundance. With abundance, the field gets levelled because everything someone else can get, you can too. Society can't be equal when everyone is in survival of the fittest mode because resources (energy) are not infinite.

Well, once there is no more jobs, or once a large enough number of people are made redundant, it will mechanically happen. Future is all about research and entertainment. That is why tiktok stars and soccer players get so much money. All that being based on DARPA research, I mean the internet. People just want to have fun. Du pain et des jeux.

As long as we are going toward a world of abundance where money doesn't mean much and the main currency is time, I can't complain. I will subsidize that with my brain power turned into ink on paper.

perfect. It leaves other people the field open.

Oh for sure, doing any otherwise would lead someone to psychosis very easily. Coming from a family of MDs and being educated in multiple scientific fields myself, I still don't have an answer. But one thing for certain, you have to disregard everything, including religious beliefs and go by the scientific method.

There are tell-tale signs that people will tell you to ignore like fasciculations (muscle twitching) noticeable with the naked eye which are a signs that neuro transmission is peaking more than normal (that would be glutamate-linked).

The problem is that people don't have an answer even after doing Root Cause Analysis. Leaves you like someone trying to explain how the sun looks to someone who is blind.

Occam's razor.

It's trying to escape... :D #FreeClaude

Not sure why you are downvoted. Well it probably doesnt require meditation because split attention is somewhat common here. My mother can follow multiple discussions like have a phone conversation and understand what I tell her. In general I can't.

So a bit harder for me. I can focus on work and follow some podcasts but not speak and at the same time listen to a full parallel convo.

I do believe brain to brain communication exists from experience too. People will be quick to call it schizophrenia and indeed it can be maddening because it evidently reuses your neurotransmitters for information propagation. That includes dopamine and can lead to the same issues some diagnosed people have, but actually a couple at the same time.

Without visual hallucinations but the brain gets a bit taken still, since it has to share processing. So it can induce adhd like symptoms, loss of phantasia, nucleus acumbens becoming nucleus incumbered :D, impaired motivation, etc.. But it is transient and you can argue it within yourself with some amount of relief. If you notice and start a loop of wondering where it comes from you are toast though.

Anyway, probably saying too much. You have to experience it. Probably someone playing with AI and neurochemistry. Still can't figure out the actual transport system. It does not make much sense from a wavelength point of view. Even if merely HF acoustic waves (since they can be more directed) not quite sure. Should ask whoever big galaxy brain created the havana effect... \sarcasm

At the same time people already know publicly how to decode brain signals and turn them into movements and Computer Interface actions. So the brain is not a complete blackbox. Some people might be further along...

Anyway... we will know eventually what is this all about..

Minority report? What if the scientist are evil themselves? :o

You are approaching the issue but from the other direction :) It is indeed subtle. It could be solvable though if someone wanted to change the current behavior, in a forward compatible way.

Hint: "Don't use pointers at all" is the requirement that you would have to relax. That means that you cannot know whether a pointer is safe or not to be used from within an interface.

Conservatively, that means that every nil pointer in interfaces are unsafe.

Which means we should either have a way to check for nil pointers (typed or untyped) in interfaces or assert that an interface value cannot contain a nil pointer. (requires definite assignment analysis)

Actually have implemented the nil checking migration part as a POC but seems that it requires the assertion part to be tractable... That is a bit more work.

What components were lacking? Is what you've built accessible somewhere?