atq2119

In the input to the final optimization, there is only one store between the place where q is allocated and the place where q is used.

That one store is clearly identified as going into p, not into q.

Therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude that q has not been changed.

If we weren't allowed to conclude that, we would almost never be able to put stack variables into registers, and that would make even simple programs run a lot slower.

(The other point, which is another argument that it's the second optimization that should be considered incorrect, is that the program before the final optimization has a store to p[1], which is an out-of-bounds access into an array, which should be considered an error in all reasonable programming languages.)

It's a bit of both. Village societies don't have a lot of privacy. But they also don't make it possible for powerful individuals to datamine personal information of millions.

Most of us have more privacy than 200 years ago in some ways, and much less privacy in other ways.

Perhaps a case of subversion by following the letter but not the spirit of an order?

It's not a fallacy, and I think we agree on most points.

Russians today can't get rid of Putin through votes.

Russians in the past did vote him into power though. Because of that, they carry a part of the responsibility for what's happening today. Don't let them off the hook.

That's a bit of revisionist history. Russians definitely chose Putin. Not all of them did, of course, but too many to ignore.

Just like many Italians chose Berlusconi and many Germans chose Hitler.

I feel sorry for the Russians who didn't choose this, but we shouldn't let the ones who did off the hook.

The difference is that Bitcoin only has resale value.

The other examples you mentioned generally have some significant additionally value beyond just resale value -- e.g. stocks pay dividends or are expected to at some point, a house is something you can live in or get an income from by renting it out, and so on.

Even if you can't be punished retroactively for previous behavior, continuing to benefit from it can be outlawed. In other words, it would be compatible from a legal perspective to ban the use of LLMs that were trained in violation of copyright law.

Given the political landscape I doubt that's going to happen, though.

It's not that I know people who casually encourage bugs, but I know plenty of people who don't habitually do the kind of thing you describe in your first paragraph.

I don't think the distinction is about whether the organizations make money; the distinction is about entertainment. Professional sports are primarily a form of entertainment. Sports fans are a bit like music fans in that regard. The rivalries in sports can get toxic sometimes, but there's weird snobbery in music and other arts as well.

Think correctly even if it may seem inconvenient, and thinking correctly becomes an ingrained habit. And then, a lot fewer bugs.

That's the analogy to the author's story about their exam.

(I'm pretty sure the "no bugs" part is just hyperbole to make a point.)

> What they don't do, is waste time walking around looking for spare money that has been dropped. Because that would almost certainly be a waste of time.

Why is it usually a waste of time? Because people rarely lose multiple bills of money, and if they do, our vision system is well equipped to spot the other bills quickly.

The opposite is often true with software in my experience.

When there is a bug, it's often because the software is in a state of imbalance and confusion, and there are multiple bugs nearby.

And humans tend to be relatively bad at spotting bugs.

So, when you see a bug it is usually worth spending a moment to reflect on whether you've fixed the bug properly and whether there are other bugs in the vicinity. It is likely to be worth it just for the bug fixes.

But there's also the learning effect that comes with it as described by TFA.

Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly (heh) on market economies. Market socialism is a thing.

It is common in universities in at least some parts of the world for the dean(s) of departments to rotate among the faculty.

That seems to align somewhat with those ideas.

It's much more than that. It also allows one thread to make progress while the other is waiting for memory loads, or filling in instruction slots while the other thread is recovering from a branch mispredict.

Compilers tend to do a lot of pointer chasing and branching, so it's expected that they would benefit decently from hyperthreading.

In the same vein, better reviewability of series of commits. It's absolutely baffling to me that GitHub still doesn't support the original workflow for Git.

Interesting, but note that the first bug pointed out by Claude is probably a false positive.

In the original version of the code, if a link is removed and it is the last link, then the condition `remove_idx == worst_idx` must be true, which leads to falling back to the most general update function, which handles the case of an empty list correctly.

(Of course, the suggested fix doesn't hurt, and people may disagree about which version of the code is clearer.)

To paraphrase Rowling, LLMs are rather cleverer than most software, and so their mistakes tend to be correspondingly cleverer. The trick is to ensure that their mistakes don't become correspondingly huger.

Right, but it's still German. So the statement "It's not German, but Alemannic" is just plain false.

Yep, same with overlapping unaligned loads. It's just fairly cheap to make that stuff pipelined and run fast. It's only when you mix loads and stores in the same memory region that there are conflicts that can slow you down (and then quite horribly actually, depending on the exact processor).

Uhh... lawyers are doing quite well for themselves, aren't they?

If McDonald's insisted on having a long sales phone call to sell me a burger, then yeah, I'd expect them to be able to provide me that information.

As a non-USian looking in, it seemed fairly average and non-horrible to me? I find it interesting to find several comments like this one here so prominently compared to the discussion thread about SpaceX launches.

I think it's a reasonable question to ask, and there's surely some churn that we could do without. But don't underestimate the effort that goes into device drivers.

The irony is of course that unionization of tech workers is bound to come, and I'd say it's a safe bet that it's going to come first in workplaces that are heavily RTO.

> I regularly have to work with other people's C++ where they don't have -Wall -Werror.

To be fair, -Werror is kind of terrible. The set of warnings is very sensitive to the compiler version, so as soon as people work on the project with more than one compiler or even more than one version of the same compiler, it just becomes really impractical.

An acceptable compromise can be that -Werror is enabled in CI, but it really shouldn't be the default at least in open-source projects.

It's only minutes for the inner planets. But of course that's already enough to require special treatment.

Not sure what exactly you mean by "necessary", but I feel like the entire field of mathematics would disagree. Proving statements about infinite domains has a very long tradition.

This doesn't feel like a convincing argument. If you wanted to multiply uint8 * uint8, you'd naturally use an unsigned multiply with a uint16 result. That doesn't overflow either.

I believe a better argument is to appeal to the structure of neural networks. Activation inputs into a matrix multiply come out of a non-linear function, and ReLU is a popular function which causes activation inputs to be unsigned. Weights then need to be signed so that the matrix multiplication can have negative outputs -- without negative outputs, you would lose the non-linearity of ReLU.

When you render a higher resolution natively, you typically also want higher resolution textures and more detailed model geometry.

As a European, I can confirm that wheelchair accessibility is traditionally better in the US than in Europe.

I suspect it's a combination of getting relevant laws earlier (don't know that, just guessing), having less old infrastructure (building new with accessibility is easier than upgrading existing buildings), and having more space (so adding a wheelchair ramp is less of a deal).

Europe is generally catching up, but I'd say it's still behind the US. At least the places I know.

But of course, that's not the whole story, as another commenter illustrates with some concrete examples for the cost of wheelchairs and wheelchair maintenance.

Regarding the first paragraph, I have the impression that gamedev and graphics folks have largely moved to Mastodon. There's a gamedev Mastodon instance.