dundarious

Was the 2% figure counting all those things? I don't think so. This is changing the grounds of the discussion. Ridiculously so. Do you take me for some zealot who hates tensors or matrices or something? I don't even hate LLMs, though I have huge issues with how data has been gathered. I feel like this discussion is useless.

It was written in a specific context:

> [AI] that most people hardly use at all

and while ambiguous, I meant that quantifying the number of people that use it, results in a not large number. I've had discussions in other threads about how to talk about transitive use, etc., so as with everything at all times, there are certainly ways to skin the cat that justify or invalidate the statement. One has to rely upon good judgment to decide which way is best, and reasonable people may disagree.

I was referring to AI in that statement, I wrote it somewhat poorly.

Every company is using it? The deli and the laundromat too? Every consumer? Maybe transitively because they use Google or what have you, but most people I know still don't really know what AI is, never mind have a puritan revulsion over using it (some people are quite performative about this on here), but they just don't use it themselves, except transitively on occasion.

If it was 2% for VOD streaming, and 3% for every other service that is delivered by a networked computer, I would think "wow, streaming is huge". 2% for one thing that most people hardly use at all, versus 3% for everything else on the computer, is still a remarkable statistic. I'm not making any value judgment in order to say that.

I also don't think it's particularly conclusive about anything though. It doesn't on its face make me think anything like "it must be stopped", but it's remarkable.

The point was that one rational approach is that it's OK to not be top ranked in a market that has significant medium-term profitability issues. Apple has no problem creating new markets, but not if being top ranked requires years and years and years without return on investment after launch, and large subsidies. Not to say Apple hasn't failed at creating new markets either, or anything like that.

My understanding from this exchange is that for you, large distinctions of meaning and reason are reducible and accurately described as meaningless language nitpicks, but regardless, you dress up the last post as if it's the opposite, so I will not respond further.

It wasn't a point about exact language in and of itself. It was a point about the conclusion, and how it doesn't account for highly relevant aspects of the publication record and industry. This was not "a better word would be" or similar. This was "the meaning was wrong, the thinking was wrong, and here's why".

"HN doing HN things" over someone saying "good discussion, however, one point about the conclusion" and having that point be very rational and still open to debate.

Is discussing such secondary but still highly relevant aspects verboten? Must every comment here be by a lead researcher in the specific field? Would a biomedical science researcher necessarily have any more expertise on these important secondary aspects?

"Trust me, I'm a scientitian". No thanks.

If the novel parts are don't transcode, and clean up before adding to library, then you can just do that, right? Without having to create a frontend, which is the fiddly part (especially since losing the AppleTV client I can use with Jellyfin server would be a sacrifice). It's pretty easy to, for example, make a python script that grabs metadata from tmdb when given a URL (so the script has no need for disambiguation logic -- that's what humans are for), generate an ffmpeg command that adds that metadata, and does whatever re-encoding/re-muxing you want. Can embed subtitle files this way too.

e.g., of generated command: ffmpeg -y -hide_banner -i /mnt/storage/rips/bluray.mkv -i ./eng.sdr.srt -map 0:v -map 0:a -map 1 -c:v copy -c:a copy -c:s mov_text -metadata:s:a:0 language=eng -metadata:s:a:0 title=eng -metadata:s:s:0 language=eng -metadata:s:s:0 title="English (SDR)" -disposition:s:0 hearing_impaired -metadata title="Film Title" -metadata genre="Pretentious Comedy" -metadata artist="Alan Smithee" -metadata date=2026 -f mp4 -movflags +faststart "/mnt/storage/movies/Film Title (2026).mp4"

Do whatever encoding you want in advance too of course. Note, the above is generated from a script (not created manually) that is run like `./cleanvideo.py ./bluray.mkv ./eng.sdr.srt https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/985-eraserhead`

After doing this for over a decade, I find that Jellyfin, or even just a caddy directory listing, make a great media library browser. Jellyfin will almost never identify things incorrectly. Can always fall back to just listing things and playing your content with `mpv https://machine.tailnet-name.ts.net/movies/...` even remotely given the use of tailscale. Or VLC from my phone, etc.

Given the alternative proposed by OP was more of the same but with layers on top, saying "how about just using xargs and sh anyway" is a simplification -- learn 2 tiny things vs start depending on some new tool whose only purpose is to let you avoid learning those 2 tiny things by adding template language, etc., on top? I'll learn the 2.

As for widening the scope to other tools, I've written about that on here before, how I have lots of powershell experience, some nushell, etc. I haven't become a convert (definitely not on Linux, of course occasionally on Windows).

Happy to respond to any input or anything, but you should reply directly to people if you're going to criticize them -- very poor form to blanket criticize while also taking an uncharitable read.

I don't remember which was the odd one out, but in the 00s I was using Mac OS X and FreeBSD (and maybe some other more niche alternatives) a lot, and something didn't support xargs -0.

If you want a shell to interact with the results, you can of course just use a (sub)shell.

    ls -1 ./*.sh | xargs -rd\\n sh -c 'for i in "$@" ; do ... ; done' sh

1. not strictly necessary to use -1 as I believe all common ls detect !isatty(stdout) and produce line-by-line output anyway.

2. xargs -r just doesn't run the command if there's no input, also not strictly necessary but I'm addicted to using it because it's the sensible default to me.

3. xargs -d\\n makes it collect fields as full lines, which is what you typically want, unless you're able to generate NULs.

4. use whatever shell you want of course, but I don't use bashisms, etc., by default, /bin/sh is fine for me, even if it's dash.

5. the trailing "sh" at the end is due to a quirk of `sh -c` usage, where $0 is the first non option argument, so `printf %s\\n 1 2 3 | xargs -rd\\n sh -c 'for i in "$@" ; do printf "%s " "$i" ; done ; echo'` (note the lack of trailing "sh") would only print "2 3 " as $0 is not included in "$@" ($0 is 1, $1 is 2, $2 is 3). It's very easy to just always give the shell name itself manually as $0 instead of trying to ingest "$0" into your logic.

Of course, you could `find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -name '*.sh' -print0 | xargs -r0 ...` instead, depending on what you're up to, that may be the easiest. It's definitely the simplest -- as long as your xargs has -0 support.

What's the implication or inference based upon this? So you're seeing comments sharing a general attitude. And?

As it is now, your post is meaningless to me.

Yes, as someone who has read the literature section of the (small) national newspaper with some regularity, this is pretty much all old news -- could glean most of this from reading for a year. You hear about the longlists and shortlists and panel of judges (after the winner(s) is chosen), and one would hope that at least the literary prizes are highly subjective.

I know, I use switch and restore now (for the most part). I'm explaining how knowing the internals does help understand the 2 use-cases being originally implemented via 1 command, i.e., checkout. The post I was responding to said the checkout case ran counter to the idea that knowing the internals helps use the commands, when it's actually a pretty standard case where it does help.

Switching branches involves: updating the field marking "current branch", and then updating the working copy to reflect the objects referenced. So for all trees/files, recursively restore wc to match the referenced blobs.

Restoring a different version of a specific file/tree, involves recursively restoring wc of those files/trees to match the referenced blobs.

So both are actually primarily the same task. Knowing a little about internals is exactly how it is easy to understand how the same code (and hence the verb "checkout") came to be used for both tasks.

The reason it's still not great UI is that switching branch and restoring file arise in very different circumstances, and I want different guarantees and warnings and confirmations -- so using the same command still only makes sense when thinking very mechanistically.

So if you leave a post unchanged, it's proof you meant what you wrote; and if you edit it, it's even stronger proof you meant what you wrote, even if the edits signify some change.

I understand that many interpretations are open in such things, but this kind of logic seems ridiculous.

>>outstanding relationships with essentially everyone who openly uses Zig and talks about it publicly

> Essentially everyone? more blogposts incoming?

Andrew is explicitly saying the opposite, but you're entitled to your supposition that that is bluster, I suppose.

It might be helpful to read the latest revision of Andrew's post, which may address this concern for you. It received several revisions: https://github.com/andrewrk/andrewkelley.me/commits/master/p...

Yes, while I'm not a fan of fully networked, recorded, ubiquitous license plate tracking, it is quite different than the cell phone.

License plate number is a registered identifier mandated to be fully plainly visible, with that identifier tied to a registered individual; compared to cell phone which has identifiers, sure, but they're not registered to an individual necessarily, and not mandated to be plainly visible, rather only "visible" as a means of service provision.

This is the centerpiece of TFA:

> When it was their turn at the register, the Hennessys started loading their groceries on the conveyor belt but were told to put the groceries back in the cart. The woman at the register asked if they had alcohol. They didn’t. Then she waved them toward the exits.

> “Go home and be safe,” she said.

Attack or customer

What you have written does not seem to be in close contact with the OP. He talks positively about the GLM news and whatnot. He is highly skeptical only of the "doom" scenarios, including upending most or a massive amount of jobs, and how that is deployed to keep the investment machine working at such breakneck pace.

I don't assume "Mars mission" to necessarily mean cargo for settlement or humans. In fact, that all seems quite distant at this point, so I ignore it entirely unless specific concrete actions occur.

So for many people like myself, the title is perfectly reasonable. The world does not revolve around SpaceX and its purported plans.

It's not special in this regard in the language, or even especially so in the available tooling. Nevertheless, the culture in rust is to add many many dependencies. I occasionally use self-professed "small, modern" CLI tools that use ~400 crates (e.g., interactive podcast downloader).

Relevance is relative, very much so.

How many systems have the relevant NICs, and followed the non-automatic setup steps in https://docs.kernel.org/networking/iou-zcrx.html, and are not running within a VM/container disabling io_uring?

This seems on the low impact end of the numerous historical io_uring issues.

Interesting and important all the same.

No worries, overall a very useful summary comment.

You can't sudo echo and redirect from the non-sudo shell like that.

    echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

or

    sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'

Also fixed your typo in /proc...