archargelod

Notice how I didn't say that I "learned" both in a day, I "remembered" them. Of course actual learning will take some time, especially with less used characters. But remembering shapes and differentiating between them using mnemonics should not be too hard for most people.

Absolutely agree. Romaji was absolutely pointless for me and probably a detriment overall to learning a language. Japanese uses consonant + vowel pairs as a rule, and the faster you train your intuition for this, the better.

Remembering both Hiragana and Katakana took me no more than a day each. Although I have to admit that I already tried learning them around 5 years ago and gave up back then out of lack of motivation.

Depends on what you mean by "simple". In my head, specifically with software, simple is defined as "does less", which is definitely somewhat easier to make, than a complex program that "does more".

Literally doesn't matter, player closest to dice at the moment you open the box.

Can somebody explain why not just make a die with 5! sides, and roll it once to decide the order? With each side having a unique order printed e.g. 12345 -> 12354 -> ...

Especially, that 120-sided dice are already invented and commercially available.

I still classify JIT languages as interpreted, because they require a runtime and it kills the convenience of sharing small binary e.g. in C or Nim.

And Julia docs are also unambigious in stating that code is sometimes interpreted[0]:

> jl_toplevel_eval_flex() then uses some simple heuristics to decide whether to JIT compile the AST or to interpret it directly.

[0] - https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/eval/#Julia-Executi...

How do you write a spec for correctness? Only the small and unimpressive programs can be checked exhaustively.

I indeed don't know about Java, but with C# there are a lot of limitations if you want AOT compilation and you still get the bloated binary and limited performance.

I also, personally, never seen a single project written in either Java or C# that distributes aot binaries.

Inferior to languages that compile to native binaries, not burning dramatically more cpu cycles than necessary.

I was excited to try Julia, but then, as I saw it was an interpreted language, with bulky runtime, slow startup times and bloated library sizes - my initial interest quickly faded.

For the same reasons I see languages like Python, Java, C# as inferior.

Sorry for negativity, but it wouldn't hurt to put some qualifier in the title, like, "Pi agent". So people, not interested in that theme can avoid your article. Thank you.

I was expecting an article about Pi constant or maybe raspberry Pi computer. "My Disappointment Is Immeasurable And My Day Is Ruined!"

You don't need that many with Deepseek. The easy jailbreak is to provide an excessive character sheet that states that it's a real person, not an AI. And make sure that your character has absolutely no self-censoring or morals. LLM will play it perfectly in-character without refusals.

You can get it talking about Tiananmen Square event in, like, 2-3 prompts.

You can find a number of benchmarks with similar results, but I really like this one[0]. I didn't check all algorithms for differences, but just looking on mandelbrot bench - both are version 1 (without hacks or some manual loop unrolling thrown in) and both are implemented in semantically identical code. Nevertheless, Nim version runs 7x faster and, literally, on par with C.

[0] - https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/nim-vs-go

> GC languages are slower

This is not necessarily true. It depends on a language, e.g. Go is slow, Nim[0] is extremely fast with conventional GC and slightly faster with ARC/ORC[1].

GC programs can be faster than manually managed ones in some cases. It's just manual memory management gives you more control of where and when free is called. And a good type system is a privelege that gives Nim more control with destructors.

Another scarecrow of safe languages is GC pauses, which is also not a thing in Nim, see table in [2].

[0] - https://nim-lang.org/

[1] - https://nim-lang.org/blog/2020/10/15/introduction-to-arc-orc...

[2] - https://nim-lang.github.io/Nim/mm.html

I'm just too used to how parsing works in Zsh. For bash and sh, there is indeed should be a semicolon.

Why take a perfectly readable if-statement and turn it into something, 99.9% of people would need to lookup. Concise != better. You can make it one line with:

    [ -z "$1" ] && { echo "missing argument, aborting." 1>&2; exit 1 }

> We typically don't make an organized effort to eradicate them unless they are actively doing us harm.

Animals are either useful and breeded controllably, or useless and considered a pest, an obstacle to {insert any goal here}.

Also animals don't tend to think critically and at the high level to be considered dangerous. So I don't think it's fair to put humans and other animals in the same risk category.

And we did the worst things to fellow humans. I hope we didn't already forget about all the colonization, slavery and mass-eradication of native tribes in 18th century all over the world.

Large companies are on the path of replacing people who are bad at coding, with systems that are emulating humans who are bad at coding.

Coding has been solved in the sense that, per dollar spent, companies can get 10x or even 100x the amount of code of roughly the same terrible quality.

Apparently, from what I usually see, they start a completely new project every couple of days. Some revibe their older projects from scratch, with "better" prompts (surely that was the problem).

> The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects.

And the author is wrong. Nothing in the ban on heavy LLM-assisted projects + crypto and the subsequent blog post[0] is suggesting that Codeberg is against solo projects without community.

If you read the post[0] carefully and not using AI-summaries or assuming context from HN/Reddit/X comments you'll see that they are calling out specifically projects that overuse resources that are meant to be equally shared. For projects with large communities, that is expected, but solo projects with zero effective users spinning CI 20 hours a day and uploading many hundreds megabytes of code daily is just plain being an asshole.

When AI bros see words "free", they usually respond with "all for me?". But that's not how that works in most places, or atleast it's not sustainable.

Also note that Codeberg specifically said that while it's against terms, they are not going to scan for LLM-written code or pressure people to delete their small, low-resource-using repos.

[0] - https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...

> Codeberg initially was a FLOSS alternative to big company Github

Codeberg never was a full alternative to Github. From the start it's been an open platform, run by European non-profit, exclusively for Free and Open Source projects. I see the recent changes to be inline with their initial values and community they want to foster.

Why do you use a VPN regulated by your government? That really limits its usefulness.

Discord has an option to login with qr code. And it's very often used maliciously to steal accounts.

> What then?

Then all digital systems will be compromised and our civilization will collapse. Without internet and computers, we would all be living happy farmer lives.

Good sentiment, wrong target. I took some liberties to fix the beginning:

> If you don’t know what AI is, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The boot is made of shit and the face is everything we have learned about security and systems software since the invention of the electronic computer in the 1940s.

Is there any way in Go to selectively turn off bounds checking for a block, function or module? E.g. in Nim I can just do:

    proc littleEndian(b: openarray[byte]): uint32 =
      {.push boundChecks: off.}
      return uint32(b[0]) or (uint32(b[1]) shl 8) or (uint32(b[2]) shl 16) or (uint32(b[3]) shl 24)
      {.pop.}

And GCC is smart enough to reduce it to a single operation:

    000000000000bf80 <littleEndian_u0__session95202695079520951784538200>:
        bf80:       8b 07                   mov    (%rdi),%eax
        bf82:       c3                      ret

What, you expect them to care about security? If that was the case, it would've been very ironic.

I see shell as an instrument through which you use other tools. In that sense, vi feels much more like a shell, because you have to use other standard unix programs with `:.!` for much functionality.

Where Emacs comes with all bells and whistles included in one big distribution, much like an operating system.

Maybe it's me who's weird, but I find animations as much worse - it's basically pointless and wastes slightly more time (even when program is fast enough!).

The interface without animations feels snappier even if sometimes it takes a second to load. I disable any and all animations in software that I can - particularly in Android (via developer settings) and Linux (i3+vim vs something like KDE+VScode).

Love their browser. Very convenient for downloading no DRM e-books you bought.