djha-skin

I call upon this body to draw up a spreadsheet of some popular AI marketing and their scores.

I would probably just call it hand coding, as we say we use hand tools in wood working. Many do this for fun, but knowing the hand tools also makes you a better woodworker.

It's an interesting question: Will coding turn out to be more like landscaping, where (referring to the practice specifically of cutting grass) no one uses hand tools (to a first approximation)? Or it will it be more like woodworking, where everyone at least knows where a Stanley hand plane is in their work shop?

If you're a Mac or Windows user, I mean, fine.

This is just not going to be a thing on Linux.

Are there app stores on Linux? Yes, that's what FlatHub and Snap supposed to be.

So what, should Canonical just block Ubuntu downloads to anyone in the state of California? No security researcher is going to download an operating system that asks them their age for example. I feel like it draws a red line for me also.

This law is so completely insane. It sounds like it was written by some Apple fanboy to whom there is no other operating system other than Apple. The very state that spawned GNU and BSD is the same state that is not only demanding your data but enshrining its use in spyware in law.

...because dumping stuff into the middle of what is already a barren wasteland isn't actually a problem.

> What would fix that is enforcing the regulations nation wide, then applying tariffs on imported products that don't enforce the same regulations.

This is the biggest lie we are told, and the most heinous. The only thing that will fix it is when people like you (and me!) stop purchasing things which were made in those regulatory environments. If you continue to purchase them under the premise that "I have no choice, I have to participate in this fallen world," so does the state of California. Banning these activities when there are alternative regulatory environments just pushes the problem to someone else.

A great example of this is the Obama-era fuel efficiency laws. No one actually wanted a more efficient truck, so to get around the laws, the manufacturers just made larger trucks, which caused more problems than they solved.

Outlawing something, then doing nothing to stop demand for that thing, that's just irresponsible.

You jest, but when I do interviews, I have prospectives write out a python program that ingests yaml ON THE WHITEBOARD. They don't have to be perfect. Their code doesn't have to compile. But, how closely they can hit this mark tells me if they have even a sliver of an idea what's going on in code.

> If you connect to a Wi-Fi network that isn't your company's, Teams will simply display the name of that network. So if you decide to take a "working lunch" and connect to "Starbucks_Guest_WiFi", your boss sees it instantly.

Looks like I need to rename my home wifi to "Corporate Network."

It's not that hard to create your own search engine, office suite, and school ecosystem. I mean, no single one of google's services isn't replaceable, especially if a country sets its mind to it. Just do that if you're worried about it.

> Instead, just look at go.mod. It lists the precise version at which all dependencies are built.

No, it does not. Minimum version selection means that the libraries will at least be that version, but it could be substituted for a later version if a transient dependency asks for such.

That I'm reading this blog post at all suggests there is a "market" for a single checksum/version manifest, which data is currently housed in go.sum . This is sad, but, Hyrum's Law and all that.

No. It's not adopted everywhere because it's awful. At least on the data center side.

Everyone who says this is a web developer. I have yet to actually meet someone with networking experience who has this opinion.

The reason it's not winning in the other places is because Network engineers hate IP version 6 as a rule .

It makes sense that it's won on mobile. In that scenario, NATs are stupid and lots of addresses are needed.

In the data center, fewer addresses are needed and NATs are vital for security.

Not really, this is only true for mobile devices.

Everyone who says this is obviously a web developer.

This is so right.

No One believes us on hacker News. It feels very gaslighty. I have never talked to an IT engineer in person that thought IP version 6 in the data center or in the corporate network was a good idea.

80% of my career knowledge as a devops engineer, systems administrator, and IT engineer has been on the job training. That's just how it works.

The real reason is IT people hate ipv6. They want NAT. They don't want all the security holes and extra complexity. I don't want having to work with a network stack that is poorly supported by some switches and routers.

IPv6 seems to be a great fit for 1) mobile devices, 2) massive data centers and 3) literally nothing else.

I have met zero network engineers who wanted to put IP version 6 in their network. It causes all sorts of problems and presents all sorts of security risks without much benefit other than the obvious one. In the data center, NAT is a feature, not a bug.

Instead, they provision IPv6-enabled load balancers and pass traffic back to load bearing servers using ipv4 instead.

It's a classic example of "this is the next best thing everyone should use it" which achieves some adoption but it's not really the next best thing. It's not the be all end all it purports to be.

We should just admit to ourselves that we need one kind of ip stack in some situations and another in another.

In short: Microsoft changed our business so that we can be for-profit, and asserted its rights over IP so that the whole OpenAI rebellion thing that happened earlier can't happen again.

I think it depends on the subject. Sure, I have heard a historian call it "Wickedpedia" because it gets all the facts wrong. But have a look at the "hash function" page. That is pretty in-depth.

However, this all misses the point that the article is making: It's a store of knowledge added to and edited by humans. At least they're not AI, the article says. I don't know if this is true, but if so, I find it compelling.

He calls the National Guard "federal troops". Just a quick chime in, the National Guard is a bit of a misnomer. The Guard reports to and takes orders from the governor of the state, in this case the state of California. Maybe they are "kinda" federal, but the only times I've ever heard the Guard activated are by the governors of various states. Yes, this is talking about someone calling for Trump to activate them, and I get that this guy is outraged over it. That's okay. Just wanted to add to the discussion.

> ongoing dialogue with gatekeepers

"Gatekeepers"? "Ongoing dialogue"? Tell me more!

I'm currently using Goose[1]. My brother in law uses Claude Code and he likes it. It makes me wonder if I'm missing anything. Can anyone tell me if there's any reason I should switch to Claude Code, or comparisons between the two?

1: https://block.github.io/goose/

My biggest complaint with Rust has not been addressed in the blog post: complexity. It's hard to understand what's going on in a Rust codebase, or what is connected to what.

The GCC compiler collection has been hit and miss though. Nobody uses gcj for example. I sort of doubt that they'll be able to implement a good compiler for a language that doesn't even have a standard without that implementation going wildly out of date in the future, just like what happened with Java.

The title is a bit of a misnomer. Rust will become mandatory in the build system, not mandatory for future patches.

Rust suffers from the same problems that functional programming languages suffer from: deep learning curve and high complexity. The high complexity is intended to push more runtime errors back to compile time, but boy does that mean the language pays for it. Rust is a tire fire of complexity.

For these reasons I believe it is not a good idea. The kernel also sort of rejected Rust. The kernel is complex enough without adding a Haskell type system and a lisp-level macro system capable of obfuscating what code calls what code. serde code is so hard to spelunk for this reason. Contrast this with Go's Unmarshall, much easier to follow.

My favorite paragraph:

> I’ve pulled many all-nighters, and I’ve enjoyed them. I still do. But they’re enjoyable in the right context, for the right reasons, and when that is a completely personal choice, not the basis of company culture.

Does this essentially mean that the Big-O "circuitry requirements" of factoring integers using Schorr's is super polynomial?

Article about emacs in the face of the employer company buying into Cursor.

Interesting excerpt:

> However, strict moderation is pushing people away. The high barrier to posting and the risk of questions being closed make Stack Overflow feel unwelcoming. Generic forums don’t fill the gap either—they are perceived as too broad, and members lack the expertise that Stack Overflow is known for. Faced with these failures, developers turn to people they know personally because they trust their contact has relevant skills and will respond promptly. Stack Overflow’s opportunity lies in digitally replicating these trusted expert connections.

Maybe the fact that they're working on imagen explains why Gemini is just so bad.