riwsky

A case of https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-keep-using-that-word-i-do...

“Permission for concurrency is not an obligation for concurrency. Zig lets you explicitly permit-without-obligation, to support the design of libraries that are polymorphic over a/sync ‘function color’.”

It’s about time.

“We underpaid you relative to what price you were able to command on the market, and you left, how DARE you!”

Because it’s not about “who can do it”, it’s about “who can do it the best”.

It’s the difference between running a marathon (impressive) and winning a marathon (here’s a giant sponsorship check).

Most users of written English are not the Great Authors, though, nor are they writing literature. Hemingway is a much more appropriate model for business communication than is, say, Wallace. Though for attention-grabbing copy, you’d probably want Morrison’s or Nabokov’s dynamism. And if you’re code-golfing, nothing beats a Borges, Chiang, or Cusk.

Anyone optimizing for some specific taste already has an implicit theory of linguistic efficiency. Most writers aren’t optimizing for anything at all, and they have no taste, and their writing is boring, and it wastes my time, and I hate it.

The Jumbotron of the Soul

Ah yes, David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest, a famously “meet the reader where they are” book

software capitalists don’t want to commodify software. But their complements do: I could totally see Apple pushing for something like this to make the iPhone more valuable and integrated.

Don’t forget tags! Tags very 2.0, none of this straitjacketed directory-hierarchy-only mentality.

Don’t talk to Opus before it’s had its coffee. Classic high-performer failure mode.

Update: It’s actually been divided into multiple sections; if your code assumes a single section, it will break as of the addition of multibyte characters in Unicode v7.1

I can't even.

…Until now.

On the other hand: https://kysely.dev/docs/recipes/excessively-deep-types

Heck, you don't even need to run something like GitLab. Owing to Git's design as a distributed version control system, a "Git server" isn't even really a separate piece of software—it's the same software being used in a different way. Details @ https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-Setting-Up-... , but you basically just need to `git init` somewhere on your VPS that you can later ssh to and add as a remote a la `git remote add origin username@yourvpsserver:/srv/git/project.git`

And also, somehow, Fantasian

Like “dead give away” instead of “dead giveaway”?

Hallucinations are kind of the default, like finding hay in a haystack. The leads (needles) people search for are on what causes non-hallucinations.

Running Gemini models, for one.

Oh, that? That’s just Bob. He helps out around the busy season sometimes. Didn’t know this much about his family, though—neat!

They’re not—they’re talking about this guy who replied to yegge: https://x.com/Beirutspring/status/1898689770563260535

Probably!

In 50% of possible worlds, it’s 100% certain!

“Cogito ergo cogito”?

> the quiet cries of the one to two experienced engineers on the team arguing sprint after sprint that "this doesn't make sense!"

“I have five years of Cassandra experience—and I don’t mean the db”

Said the quiet part out loud! Or as we say these days, “transparently exposed the chain of thought tokens”.

"can map A to B, solve B, and use that to solve A" establishes the pre-order A ≤ B; you seem to pronounce "A ≤ B" as "B reduces to A", which indeed lines up with the wikipedia page for preorders in general—"when a≤b, one may say that b covers a or that a precedes b or that b reduces to a"—but compsci pronounces that the other way around, as per the Reduction (complexity) wiki page: "The existence of a reduction from A to B can be written in the shorthand notation A ≤m B, usually with a subscript on the ≤ to indicate the type of reduction being used (m : mapping reduction, p : polynomial reduction)". As inelegant as the discrepancy may be, the compsci conjugation is much more common than the category-theoretic one, and this is a programming forum. Just think of it like an irregular verb.

> >A does not require demonstrating doc-rank problems map to n-day problems > Of course you have to, that's pretty much the whole operation of reducing A to B. You may be doing it implicitly but you're doing it for sure.

But the article isn’t mapping docrank to nday, nor is it claiming to reduce docrank to nday. Its choice of A and B is clear.

Nday didn’t have an understood solution to leverage like docrank did.

> one typically reduces the problem that one knows best (more general, known bounds solutions, etc...) into the one that you're studying

Wikipedia: “”” There are two main situations where we need to use reductions:

First, we find ourselves trying to solve a problem that is similar to a problem we've already solved. In these cases, often a quick way of solving the new problem is to transform each instance of the new problem into instances of the old problem, solve these using our existing solution, and then use these to obtain our final solution. This is perhaps the most obvious use of reductions. “””

This is what the article does, reducing the new nday problem into the known docrank one.

“”” Second: suppose we have a problem that we've proven is hard to solve, and we have a similar new problem. We might suspect that it is also hard to solve. We argue by contradiction: suppose the new problem is easy to solve. Then, if we can show that every instance of the old problem can be solved easily by transforming it into instances of the new problem and solving those, we have a contradiction. This establishes that the new problem is also hard. “””

This is your ‘transform A to B, this is called "reducing A to B", for some reason, and then you can say things like "B is at least as complex as A" and "I can solve some instances of B the way I solve the general case of A’. “Nday discovery is at least as complicated as document ranking” is obvious, though, which is why it’s not the subject of a blog post.

Even if you believe B, that’s still not reducing document ranking to n-day vulnerability discovery; it’s “reducing some n-day discovery to document ranking”.

A does not require demonstrating doc-rank problems map to n-day problems, since reduction isn’t required to be symmetric.

Where you might be getting caught up is in the mapping of problems vs the mapping of solutions. “Nday reduces to docrank” implies we can turn every nday problem into a docrank problem, and every docrank solution into an nday solution, but does not say anything about whether we can turn docrank problems into nday problems, or nday solutions into docrank solutions.