Yes, here is another example of major work in this area:
https://arxiv.org/html/2605.22763v1
> Our most capable agent autonomously resolved 9 of 353 open Erdős problems at the per-problem cost of a few hundred dollars, proved 44/492 OEIS conjectures
1,506 karma · joined November 17, 2013
https://arxiv.org/html/2605.22763v1
> Our most capable agent autonomously resolved 9 of 353 open Erdős problems at the per-problem cost of a few hundred dollars, proved 44/492 OEIS conjectures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...
Specifically, that is the position of the intelligence agencies of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and also the conclusion of investigations by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal. That's really the best we know about it.
It is true that there were a few incidents, but they only account for a very small fraction of the death toll.
What it does say is
1. Israel must do more to prevent the possibility of genocide. Genocide is killing a people with the intent of killing them for the sake of destroying them, and not as collateral damage, so it does not mean stopping all death. Collateral damage, unfortunately, remains on the table.
2. Israel must report back in a month with how they are doing that. For example, they could show lower amounts of collateral damage, an increase in aid, punishments for officials that make statements that could be construed as genocidal, and so forth.
That is better than nothing, to be certain, but it is far from a ceasefire, unfortunately.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-enters-gaza-th...
That should be enough in theory. But see details in the article, there are many logistical challenges remaining to actually get it to those in need.
https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/
Its true that many of those companies are also members of the Bytecode Alliance. But the W3C community group is where actual specs and standardization happen. That's where votes occur, and that's the Github organization in which they are published, and so forth.
And also eventually it will do something bad, like tell someone depressed to end their lives in very convincing text.
But I agree that friendly competition is a good thing! I feel this article was a little past that, though.
I'm pretty sure that's true for the great majority of software developers, but of course they don't even use a non-GC language!
Part of the reason they don't is that productivity. Not that they chose it personally for that reason, but e.g. historically enterprise code moved to Java and C# for related reasons.
(I also agree there are people that are equally productive in non-GC languages, or even more - different people have different programming styles.)
I interpreted the author's point as "GC is now potentially viable for games", in the sense that older GCs might have pause times larger than 16ms, making them obviously inappropriate, whereas today 1ms pauses is something that can be budgeted for at least in some cases.
As you said, malloc/free also have costs, and also GC has other benefits, like bump allocation, moving things to compact memory and improve cache locality, etc. 1ms pauses means GC is worth considering even for a game, in other words.
But I think it would have been an even better article without the negativity about Go and how the author thinks "the Java guys are winning" in his words. That felt a little petty.
That's because of a huge increase in mouth and throat cancer among men, likely caused by an increase in oral sex.
Boys getting the vaccine can prevent them from getting cancer decades later, basically.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/nuclear-energy/
but yes, it's a rare position.
Yes, it may find a niche subset of Flash content it can do well, but there have been many attempts at Flash replacements, and all of them have failed, including serious ones with corporate backing like Shumway. Another cool one is Lightspark [1]
The only real chance at 100% preservation of Flash content is for Adobe to open source all of it - the VMs, the runtime including the graphics, etc. - and to compile that.
In Rust you can leak due to reference cycles for example: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch15-06-reference-cycles.html
C# will clean up reference cycles, but an unintended reference can cause leaks (if you forget to remove it).
In both languages such leaks are not good, but at least they aren't memory safety issues.
It is definitely false for the author to say Rust is "superior to C# in regards to better memory protections", in any definition of "memory protections".
> C#, a programming language developed by Microsoft, also features some memory access improvements but is not as advanced as Rust. [..] Besides [Rust] being superior to C# in regards to better memory protections
That's false, isn't it? C# is a memory safe language, period. It relies on GC for that.
In fact C# has arguably better memory safety than Rust because you can do things safely in C# that you would be forced to use 'unsafe' in Rust for. (Granted, then you have overhead from GC, but that's not what the author is talking about.)
> Rust is also more popular with developers these days and might be easier to recruit for.
The author has misinterpreted what "most loved" means in the quoted survey: it means that among Rust developers, it gets a very high rating. That says nothing about how big that group is, nor how popular it is in the general population of developers.
The Rust community is growing but still very small - it's an emerging language. Almost everyone that uses it decided to use it because they like it. (That doesn't diminish the accomplishment - there are other emerging languages that are not as loved by their users.)
Wasm does provide that property for C++ & Rust. I'm unsure how important that is in the server space.
This is a survey of all tech workers in the US. It's not focused on Silicon Valley, and it's not focused on startups (in fact they only surveyed people in companies with 500+ people). Of course the tech giants + startups are not all of tech, but on the other hand, a lot of press coverage of tech is of them. The difference matters here - for example, people in the top tech companies are much more left-leaning on average than the people in this survey, since many are in the left-leaning Bay Area and Seattle, and we have political donation data on them confirming that.
And to be specific, just 20% of people surveyed are in the West (which would include the Bay Area and Seattle), while 37% are from the South and 20% from the Midwest. So over half are not from the stereotypical "tech industry" that the media covers.
Also the survey shows that many tech workers have mixed feelings about the media. The article tries to explain it by right-leaning politics (that the media is too liberal, a backlash against feminism, etc.). However, the article states,
> women in the tech industry are less likely to hold a positive opinion of the media than their male counterparts.
The article spends only this one sentence on that topic. But it may matter quite a bit, since women tend to be more left-leaning in their politics, and make up almost half of the people surveyed (44%). Given that, the article's explanations don't seem sufficient - there's something else going on here.
1. 11 billion may be too much.
2. This isn't uniform across the globe. Japan's population is shrinking due to a very low birth rate, and that may be a bad thing (loss of cultural and genetic diversity, for example). And this is the more relevant aspect given the context.
One specific concern is that mandatory paternity leave may discourage men from becoming fathers, further decreasing the birth rate which is already quite low in many advanced economies.
Another is that if taking paternity leave impacts men's careers, then in many cases both parents will suffer such an impact, further disadvantaging couples from having children.
Overall, it's an interesting idea, and definitely worth discussing.