quocanh

I don't think this was super important given the core goals of the project. I agree that effortless tagged unions are a very valuable feature in a language, but it's also one that is paradigm shifting and requires a different set of goals.

Without naming names, there is a language out there with some overlap with Zig's domain that does have really good tagged unions. But that project has a different set of goal than Zig's and that's okay. They're both good projects.

An alternative: `zellij` is better is better. With `tmux` I never get the sense that I have "mastered" it. I simply don't know all the controls - I only have a few of my most commonly used ones. Stepping into `zellij`, I feel like I've mastered it within a few hours of using it.

How does copyleft license work in this case? Aren't they legally required to open-source their sources and publish it publicly or can they hide that behind a request system?

Partly because it's an ecosystem that I'd like to see grow. More people using it means that the other Rust-based projects I use will be better too.

Partly because it is the "carbon fiber" of programming languages. Just its use is something you can use to market to other engineers.

Partly because it's very ergonomic and I enjoy working with it. I'd much rather dive into esoteric Rust code than esoteric C code.

Partly because code written in of Rust will have less errors than code written inside of C. It isn't just memory safety - it's all of the type theory/best practices we figured out in the last 50 years.

I understand why it was written in C. It's an easier language to work with and they probably needed something out quickly. But coding in Rust is a sign (not proof, but a sign) that a program is of quality make.

I so very much want this idea but coded in Rust. Alas, I'll have to try this out.

And the largest benefit of modern technology comes from the fact that so much of it is "free" (ad-supported). Without ads, there would simply be no effect at all.

Tiny negligible impact on the industry (Except cut advertising revenue in half, but who cares. What do ads pay for anyways?)

If this is true, then there's a chance that there's no secret sauce to GPT4 that [Google doesn't already know about](https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16668).

I think that whole thing was a bit overblown. RHEL is free for individuals. When I need the stability of a server OS, I'd rather just use the real thing.

Do people on social media believe that all employees should freely share confidential internal information? Or is it that this is an email from a frustrated person and no one should ever share "bad feelings"? Or is it that CEOs should never be aggressive and "how dare he punish someone who broke the rules"?

Am I crazy for thinking that this is completely reasonable in context?

As someone who has been using ChatGPT to code recently - code reviews are one of the worst ways to use ChatGPT. Sure, it'll catch some stuff every now and then, but realize that it's still just a language model and things like design or code reviews require real understanding.

Using ChatGPT to code review is very much like posting a picture of your code on StackOverflow or Reddit.

This actually reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately. What we call honesty is actually two different things: truthfulness and openness. Americans are probably truthful and not open.

Also see mozilla/sccache for Rust.

https://github.com/mozilla/sccache

You're telling me it's so stable and mature that it hasn't needed an update in 7 years? Incredible.

> We found that the more a firm responded to complaints, the more likely it was to fall in both value and in perceived brand quality.

Could someone with access to the actual paper tell me if they instead meant firms that responded through public strategies versus firms that responded through closed strategies? This sentence implies, rather, that firms that received more complaints fall in value and brand quality (duh).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002224292110021...

Resnet was when we figured out how to throw a fuckton of perceptrons together and make it actually work. We didn't think networks scaled before that.

What evidence have you seen? Every research paper in the first page of this search is evidence that it works.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=mindfulness+meditation

It seems to be a staple for therapists and psychologists to improve emotional intelligence. It gives you clarity about what you're feeling, why you're feeling it, and what you're going to feel soon. From there it can be used for a whole host of other maladies: addictions, anxiety, depression, etc.

I didn't know communication networks could be described with resistors. Are inductors, diodes, and voltage sources also relevant? How far does this go and why would you model networks this way?

No one says that the barrel isn't necessary. Just that it's there and we should be judicious about when we want to apply it.

It doesn't have to be significant. Just having 1 hacker in the 100 PLAYERS PER LOBBY will ruin the game - there will be no chance of a legitimate player winning, ever.

Games have been abandoned even though companies actively catch cheaters because no one wants to play against someone with an unfair advantage. If Epic releases a game where they literally cannot catch cheaters, that game will be abandoned in a week.

Your defense of cheating is laughable. People are trying to play a game with a closed set of rules. Saying that your hacks are legal because they're turing-complete is completely nonsensical. You are not playing the same game that people signed up for. You're hijacking someone else's enjoyment for your own power fantasies.

I know what my next interview question is gonna be.

For me it's philosophically reminiscent of the Berlin Wall or the Chinese Great Firewall. Personally, my knee-jerk reaction is that it threatens certain freedoms, but I am also a liberal raised with a Western education.

"Don't make HTTP calls outside of our borders."

"We're not fragmenting the internet."

???

Interesting. Maybe it's video games. This was true for me. If that's the case, we might see a surge of female programmers since more women become gamers than before.

Again, no one is saying women are less suitable. It's a question of how many women are choosing to do this sort of work versus men.

Holy crap thanks for the bbq facts!

Well it's not about who is more clever. I think the research shows that its pretty even between men and women after all is said and done. It's about what naturally interests us and there are differences there.

The discussion here is: what parts of culture are motivated by biology? It's obviously cultural. But what is motivating the culture?

Also interesting to me that grilling is manly started in the 50's. That seems to be about the time that household appliances like microwave were getting popular, no? Maybe men who liked to cook needed to find a manly outlet.

But you have to ask why men step up to take the dangerous jobs? We didn't sit down and have a Socratic discussion about who takes which job. I posit that it's more than merely logic, that the motivations are rooted in our intuition.

It's also simply not true that this is not supported by what we know. "Common sense" says that men die younger than women. And indeed we can find statistical proof of this wherever we go. Take car accidents. No one wants to get into a car accident. Yet men are 3x more likely to die in car accidents than women.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/192074/drivers-in-fatal-...

Getting into car accidents yourself doesn't prevent child-rearing members of society from getting into car accidents of their own. What else explains this gender difference? Maybe men have worse vision? Worse reaction time? Are women stronger at turning the wheel than men? Maybe men are more distractable than women? I think not. People who have been driven by both mom and dad know: men drive more dangerously than women do.

Every statistic related to safety shows that men are more willing to get into danger than women. Even in suicide rates, men are more likely to succeed, even with women trying more often.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-why-more-men-kil...

There are so many examples like this. It's almost certainly true that men have a higher predilection for danger compared to women that is driven by some biological factor. If you think it's not the mind, then you would have to come up with a different explanation for every disparate piece of evidence out there. Not that it's impossible, but there's a simpler conclusion to draw.

1) I think it's worth removing all gender-based forms of adversity from every field. These do exist in STEM fields in the forms of biases and microaggressions. It's not evil - it's human. It's just what naturally happens when a field is dominated by one group and our minds forms patterns. We must always take a conscious effort to combat it.

2) Women may not be interested (organically) in certain STEM fields. It's still worth figuring out if we can change that. Only after understanding what it would take should we have a discussion of if its worth it. The benefits are real. Every field could benefit from having more diversity in perspectives - just like every species benefits from having diversity in traits.