rootnod3

Uhm....source?

And yes, I went into that a while ago on my blog (https://blog.wollwage.com/2026/20260212-daily-source-reading...)

Difference is that capsicum is after the fact and mostly about file descriptors. You need to open them in advance and _then_ call capsicum. But it does nothing about syscalls.

Capsicum is really nice if you plan ahead, but pledge/unveil is easy to drop into any existing code base.

And some code is absolutely unnecessary. Look at the yes command. GNU version is optimized to death for no reason at all[1].

OpenBSD's version is as simple as it gets[2].

[1]: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/yes.c [2]: https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/usr.bin/yes/yes.c

They mostly dropped it because nobody was around who could maintain it. Wasn't just about security.

Not really those execs paying that stupidity tax though. They still get their bonuses. Pretty much zero consequences.

You really think the manufacturers or retailers will lower the prices now that people are used to the new normal? How often do you see that happen?

And why does it sound like LLM output?

If Claude gave feedback then it’s not really 100% human written is it?

Came here to quote exactly that paragraph.

That's where something like Fossil is nice, because the tickets are part of the repo.

So, you don’t have any experience in it but want to run a workshop?

Elaborate?

Nice to see that HN is coming to its senses and people are realizing the flaws and BS in AI / LLMs. We are past-peak Bitcoin / NFT on the curve and I can't wait for this wave to end and move to the next thing.

I mean, good choice, but you see the point, right? As much as ANSI CL has it's flaws, it has a standard, as much of a mixed bag it might be. Scheme is just a general potpourri of "we kinda have a guideline, but do whatever".

I would very much prefer scheme if the different implementations had a working standard. But I can't take my Chez-scheme code and throw it into Guile-scheme.

But pretty good chance I can take my ECL code and throw it into SBCL or LispWorks.

Have you?

ANSI CL is such a breath of fresh air nowadays. Does what you need, doesn't get in your way, comes with batteries included. And conditions are just god-tier.

Which Scheme are we talking about? R5RS? R7RS-small? R6RS? With SRFIs? Without? Which scheme? Is it `(library...)` or `(define-module...)`?

Exactly. And when writing your own engine, you _should_ type these lines to render a triangle definitely by hand, to understand what is being done and then use that input to build the right abstraction so one doesn't have to type it over and over again.

I highly doubt it was ever really bottlenecked by typing speed. If _that_ is your bottleneck then you either don’t care about what you write or you have a perfect plan laid out and just need to type it in.

I don't think that analogy holds. Within Civ, you are in one game. Playing 4 instances of Civ, or better: 4 instances of 4 different games is more likely the comparison.

So, hands-off meaning "just let the AI cook and don't check it"?

Either you follow everything it does, revise the plans, do the code review, manual adjustments, etc, or you run sessions in parallel, not being that attentive and constantly context-switch (also resulting in less attention I guess).

I fail to see the benefits honestly.

And then Anthropic has an outage and you what...have a coffee break until then? All that time babysitting the AIs just to be a little faster but probably with less knowledge/control over what they did?

- PAIP - The Art of of the Metaobject Protocol - Modern C

Those alone are the ones I've been re-reading this year.

Exactly, the amount of patches needed in many FreeBSD or other BSD ports just to appease the Linux-centricity is bonkers. And many times the changes aren't even that grave.

Without a system prompt no. And in general they “know” nothing and just predict the next best word.

"haskell user smart". Condescend much?

And Haskell baking itself to Nix, also not sure if that is a good option. Try compiling that on say OpenBSD or FreeBSD.

Preferably there would be more implementation. But if they only implement the "standard" language, it will be missing a lot of things. That is the point! It's not Haskell anymore. It's Glasgow Haskell. It's its own language at this point.

Again, those are _GHC_ extensions, not "standard" Haskell. At this point it's not Haskell, it's Glasgow Haskell.

And those features are not a library that you just throw in, they are compiler specific.

But...so does the tech sector. They will also have to continually upgrade their AI slop data centers to run newer better models, generating a heap of waste along it. And that money has to be made back.