akira2501

> There isn't a cabal of people

There are people who take "Rust evangelism" to a level that few other languages have witnessed. In the old days you could find serious arguments that not using Rust was akin to violating human rights by a series of absurd extensions. It is unusual and it is remarkable.

> A lot of these suggestions are coming from people who have significant experience with unsafe languages and are sick of having to keep dealing with them.

And my commentary is coming from experience in codebases that try to "modernize" themselves incrementally, particularly, open source code bases. I would love a 100% Rust git replacement. The idea of slowly subsuming Rust into C git feels like a distracting and misplaced effort.

> it's Git developers wanting to use Rust.

They're full time developers exclusively for git? How long have they been doing this? What is the set of their contributions to date? Of the total set of developers how many of them want this?

Is their set of desires anything more than "lets use Rust?" Is there a specific set of new functionality that would depend on it? New use cases that could be served with it? Is there even a long term plan for "new new C code" at some date?

I sense disaster fomented by poorly articulated goals.

> Also, there's already a separate from-scratch re-implementation of git in Rust (gitoxide).

Sounds perfect. Then each project can maintain the focus on their core language and not potentially take several steps backwards by hacking two incompatible pieces together with no roadmap.

> We realized we may be hitting the AWS limit for how much traffic can be sent to a VPC resolver

Never rely on an AWS service until you've understood it's quotas. They are reliable services, but to maintain that standard, they have to impose limits at many different levels of the plane. There are some good "quota surprises" tucked away in there.

It's impossible to discover novel phenomenon if you are unwilling to start without evidence. Meanwhile, you yourself _just_ made a meta-theory, without any burden whatsoever.

> exactly had happened here

It actually wasn't. The case was decided on a default in discovery and no facts were ever tried. Then the separate penalty trial was started immediately afterwards. The judgement is being appealed, but in Texas, you can collect anyways. If the appeal is successful, then the claimants may have to pay any difference back, or reduce the total amount they can expect to receive from escrow.

I really don't think people appreciate the precedents involved here. Including that one of the claimants is was an active FBI agent at the time and was suing over claims involving his job performance which has never been done before.

> Jones as a deliberate lair

Well, it could be that he actually believes what he says, if so, what exactly should happen then? This was never heard by a jury or judged on those merits.

> limited productive use they have seems to be constrained to software development.

It can write functions in some instances if you're exceptionally careful with your prompting. It can't do "software development."

> and king rules that all mirrors need to be destroyed.

You're not describing how this would cause more harm than not doing it. Is that because you believe that mirrors are so insanely beneficial to society that they must be kept, even though, some of them suggest to their owners that murder is okay?

Is there no other way for someone to see their own reflection? Must we put up with this so a mirror manufacturer can continue to profit from a defective product?

> Obviously it's hard to tell how cherry picked the complaint is—but it's arguing that this is a pattern that has actually damaged a particularly vulnerable kid's relationship with his family and encouraged him to start harming himself, with this specific message just one example. There are a bunch of other screenshots in the complaint that are worth looking over before coming to a conclusion.

Conclusion: Chat bots should not tell children about sex, about self harm, or about ways to murder their parents. This conclusion is not abrogated by the parents actions, the state of the childs mind, or by other details in the complaint.

Is that the sentiment here? Things were already bad so who cares if the chatbot made it worse?

> Interesting to see duck typing advertised as a feature.

Speed of development is a legitimate factor to consider when making a choice of language for a project.

> I feel like the programming world is going strongly in the opposite direction.

There's a concerted corporate effort to push the programming world in that direction. It's not born out of a particularly strong rationale and not backed by the kind of organic efforts that would actually ensure it's long term success.

Meanwhile we have the technology to fully isolate every process on a machine from everything else on the machine. Do we use this? No. Instead we harass programmers to use languages based upon corporate tastes instead of actual engineering acumen. The desktop doesn't get any more secure and opening a random text message can destroy your life regardless of what language the messaging application was coded in.

What are we doing?

[flagged]

> are the ones who least understand it.

It's horrifying to me that when people don't like a defendant they're willing to justify almost any reduction of that person's rights in an effort to see them "punished."

> you can and should be punished.

This is a civil case. Why should he be "punished?" Shouldn't he just have to pay a settlement? Why is a billion dollars a reasonable penalty for his actions? Why must he necessarily sell his platform when the platform will make the most money staying in Jones' control? Why is it important to the victims in this case to ensure that a specific owner controls these assets?

> I’m reminded of the Twitter engineer who said

Okay, does that have any bearing on this particular case, or it's details?

Default judgments are a punishment.

Your right to sell things derives from the first amendment.

> They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements

So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront?

> He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.

Actually, with this ruling, he does not. Roger Stone's group will get a legitimate change to purchase it to keep it under Jones' control. If you think that's a miscarriage of justice, as the OP does, can you explain why?

Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?

> I’m not sure where we’d be.

They didn't solve any new problems. They took old ideas and just cranked the dial all the way up to 11. Then an entire market formed around building the hardware necessary to crank it even further. This all represents a revolution in computing power not in what neural net folks were doing at all.

> Faith and Vision are truly spiritual things, even in tech.

Yea, but money isn't.

> Then why is this the top thread on the post?

Do you have anything other than a single counter example?

> for most of us HN would be more of a retirement community than a startup community.

What data have you seen that makes you believe it isn't? What makes you think it's a "startup community?" You're also forgetting just how long it takes for new technology to penetrate and how often it gets _integrated_ with what already existed. Merely seeing that this would occur did not magically create new opportunities. Not all technologies are transformative as you suggest.

I mean it was obvious that people would eventually order pizza using the Internet. That didn't mean you could run out and start an Internet enabled pizza business and then cash out.

> but I can also manage to temper that with my certainty not being absolute.

Battery life, weight, and connectivity were _obvious_ issues. If you think like an engineer rather than a temporarily embarrassed venture capitalist you might find that confidence very easily.

> it's even easier to say ${new_thing} _isn't_ going to take off

Not around here it isn't.

> but it's hardest to actually have a clue when you're talking about something which changes life forever

Most of us saw the Internet coming from a decade away, Google Glass was never going to be a thing, and once cryptocurrency "mixers" got invented everyone saw the writing on the wall.

> building a company on top of it.

So be sure you proceed in such a way that never contributes any money or code back to the original project.

> The U.S. government wants everyone to abandon C/C++

That's the position of two federal agencies, namely, FBI and CISA. They don't describe how this change will reduce CVEs or why the languages they prefer still produce projects with CVEs.

I don't particularly hold the technical or social acumen of FBI or CISA in particularly high regard and I'm not sure why anyone would by default either. Mostly because they say things like "switch to python!" without once accounting for the fact that python is written in C.

It's an absurd point to invoke as a defense of this idea.

Any system can get messy when the project size grows. Defect rates seem to be correlated with the addition of new features. Stable projects only including bug fixes with good test coverage become more stable over time. This is all regardless of language.

There may be a case that typed languages ship with fewer initial defects in new features but I'm not entirely convinced it's always competitive with the return in development speed and simplified testing you can get staying untyped. Particularly when your underlying problem is not CPU bound.

My job is to produce more value than I cost. Otherwise you're going to get laid off anyways.

> The lack of explicit typing.

The JIT seems to figure it out just fine. Otherwise typeless programming is just a particular style and it's not particularly complicated just different. I've never understood this rationale in a language that does not have pointers.

Isn't it really just processing with matrices of imaginary numbers? Which is why you need error correction in the first place because the higher temperature the system the less coherent the phases all become? Thus having absolutely nothing to do with multiverse theory?

I think string theories ideas about extra curled up dimensions are far more likely places to look. You've already got an infinite instantaneous energy problem with multiverses let alone entropy transfer considerations.

Since 2018. In an effort to cause WHO projects to focus their research on broader themes rather than individual strains. I'm not precisely sure how you meant this to be any sort of counterpoint, and this looks _even more_ like terrible public health consciousness to me.

> The facts here are inaccurate. You should never trust a ChatGPT answer, but it can point you to better information, and give you an idea of where to look.

That just sounds like a search engine with extra steps and a monthly fee.

> make ersatz enums?

The author is describing 'iota'. You can easily combine this technique with a custom type wrapper which provides the "full enum" if that's actually what you need. In which case this provides a level of capability and convenience above that of C.

In practice, it really is quite remarkable, when you first use it to it's fullest extent.

That's one of potentially unlimited use cases. iota composes with just about any static math expression to generate almost any kind of sequence. The most common is obviously conveniently constructing bit vectors; which is possible in C, but not as an automatically composed sequence. This really is a nice feature in practice and certainly not the only type of convenient sequence you can create.

A contrived example might be:

    const (
        A rune = 'A' + iota
        B
    )

    func main() {
        fmt.Printf("Hello %c", B)
    }

You can, of course, just write it like a C enum if you were so inclined and that willing to go out of your way to show your disinterest in something.

Also the physically smallest letter of the Greek alphabet.

> This looks like plain old enum in plain c.

It very nearly is.

> Did I miss something that makes it remarkable?

Yes. The literal 'iota' keyword. There is no equivalent to this in C.

The purpose of the commercial is to create demand where there otherwise would not have been. Do you think that demand comes from the parents or the children? Which parts of the commercial do you think are most important for fomenting this demand?

> This makes a zero value union very similar to a nil interface, which will also fail all type assertions.

Yet is still directly comparable with 'i == nil' which yields true. Two different interface pointers of the same type that are both 'nil' can also be compared this way. Plus interfaces can be manipulated under reflection.

> At this point my feeling is that Go might as well stick with interfaces and not attempt to provide union types.

The language, and most particularly the runtime, is not compatible with the idea. I'm not sure why it gets brought up other than language level FOMO.