starkrights

Is there a ‘right’ (or simple/direct) way to generate this using various buildchains? I remember setting this up so I could use Sublime with intellisense a while ago, and finding that I could only get it to generate with a specific compiler chain on windows (ninja I think?)

Minor annoyance to have to make my c make project generate buildchain files for a compiler I’m not using & copy that file into my project root to commit it- unrelated to the original question, but also annoying that I have to manually generate it every time I make significant codebase changes.

And fwiw, I also think the image is really cool. It's insane the world we've built, and imagining the context of all the math, physics, and human power of will that are behind those streaks of light is awesome.

But a negative viewpoint can't be that hard to see, right?

You acknowledge the existence of things blocking <something>, and can't imagine that there are people who want to see <something>?

I feel like when <something> is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragmatically?

The following types of people might feel strongly about this for some reason or another- I feel like steelmaning hypothetical opinions they might have is a really enriching thing to do.

- Photographers / enthusiasts

- Astronomers / enthusiasts

- Those who enjoy nature

I personally have a mixed opinion, probably leaning towards alignment with the above groups, but I can also steelman the thought processes of those who'd think this is cool or fascinating (because of course, it is!)

I'm not trying to convince you of something about the post subject here; The rhetorical questions above are not intended to be read as "how don't you understand this and agree with me", but instead "how/why did these potential viewpoints not find you?" The lack of mention of any other viewpoint comes off as almost poor-faith or naivete.

In the SWE community, people place a lot of emphasis on attempting to find solutions to a problem yourself first, before asking a question (and detailing what you've tried/explored already) to a community. With that mentality, it irks me when I see comments that don't seem to apply the same rigor to rhetorical discussions.

At the risk of being overtly snarky, could you really not conjure anyone that might have an opposing viewpoint?

Took me a couple of seconds to realize that “land” was not a video game.

https://minecraft.wiki/w/Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/wiki.vg_mer... No rust on this list, but there is an actively developed Go project!

Edit: whoops, above link is for classic servers, this link is for modern servers. Includes the thread-titular Minestom as well as an actively developed rust impl! https://minecraft.wiki/w/Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/wiki.vg_mer...

Example problem that I’ve seen posted about a few times on HN: LLM scrapers (or at least, an explosion of new scrapers) exploding and mindlessly crawling every singly HTTP endpoint of a hosted git-service, instead of just cloning the repo. (entirely ignoring robots.txt)

The point of this is that there has recently been a massive explosion in the amount of bots that blatantly, aggressively, and maliciously ignore and attempt to bypass (mass ip/VPN switching, user agent swapping, etc) anti-abuse gates.

Can you provide a source for the illegal drug claim? I'm having a seriously hard time finding any articles on this subject mentioning drugs at all.

You ah, may want to take a peak at the leaderboards. The open-text-input-on-the-internet effect is doing its thing, so to say.

Fwiw, my initial thought (from the picture) was less “prove you’re not a criminal” and more “prove you’re not bringing a massive cart into the quick line. Idealistically, this would reduce the number of jerks tying up these lines for people who want the benefit you describe.

Don’t necessarily disagree with you though, I feel like there’s a decent likelihood it just slows everything down in practice.

I've seen both sides- my nephew is large into pc gaming, but is woefully unaware of how to operate a computer in most capacities. I only realized this when trying to help him troubleshoot and realizing he didn't really understand the concepts of archives or even folders.

I don't even know how that's possible because he plays modded versions of some of his games- how you get by without knowing what a zip file works at the surface level is a mystery to me lol.

Even if you do go to the builder, what are they going to tell you other than “yup. Lock got busted: here, here, and here, you should probably call the <people who investigate break ins for a living>”?

I feel like the notification already does exactly that, no? “Hey, your phone looks busted, go call the <people who investigate sophisticated cyber surveillance targeting for a living>.”

And from the angle of “yeah you guys installed the locks wrong and they just opened the door, you should fix that”- does anyone reject the idea that the vuln would get reported to Apple, and that they’d be on it like crazy?

Tangential, but I love your feedback responses. I’m nobody, but I feel like these are exactly how I’d show off a product & then respond to feedback.

Not mentioned is the large, laaarge youth subculture, sometimes called the ‘alt crowd’, that it’s become popular as a positive term- but honestly it’s permeated into the mainstream for sometime already as well. Calling things cunty or saying someone looks “so cunt” or “so cunty” is a term of praise and endearment in basically any situation I can think of among 3-4 separate social circles I’m in. The cutoff is pretty quick- I’d say the proportion of people who would be taken heavily aback has a sharp uptick starting around 26-28 year olds.

It’s not just Reddit, it’s tiktok and Instagram, the main, or at least two extremely, inconceivably large propagaters of youth slang and culture.

I don’t think that’s really “youtubeisms”, I think it’s just the humor he wanted to use, and it’s a genre present across every social media platform. The only YouTubeism to me was the like and subscribe bs.

Sometimes people like to do things just do do them, because the idea is cool. Sometimes an idea is cool because it has real world ramifications just for existing (trusting trust, supply chain attacks), though many people like to argue about whether or not this particular idea is Just Cool TM or Actually Useful TM. I don’t think the article made any false pretenses either way- it seemed evident to me that at least some of the motivation was “because how? I want to do the how!” And that’s cool! Also, I think the article pretty clearly redirects your question. Duh he could just cross compile rust. But the whole article, literally the entirety of it, is dedicated to exploring the chicken/egg problem of “if rustc is written in rust, what compiles rustc?”, and the rabbithole of similar questions that arise for other languages. The answer to that question being both “rustc of course”, and also “another compiler written in some other language.” The author wants to explore the process of making the compiler in [the/an] ‘other language’ because it’s Cool.

Just because something has already been done, does not mean there’s no worth in doing it- nor that there is only worth in doing it for educational and/or experiential purposes :)

This is the third time I’ve been nerd sniped with something qntm related in a weeks time. I’ve never been more pleased haha.

Holy shit, this is a world collision I wasn’t ever expecting to see. Thank you for pointing this out, “There Is No Antimemetics Division” is possibly my single favorite piece of fiction I’ve ever read, and I would’ve completely missed this connection otherwise.

I don’t know if it helps, but this is how I read through the graph from the first article after reading the authors conclusion. (I’m an idiot)

- okay, we’re analyzing DvrDrawImage - Let’s analyze the function on the left, GpBitmap::PipeLockBits - Up through ::Decode, takes up 100% of the time from PipeLockBits, so we’re just racing down the call stack to get to that point, and then other stuff starts taking up time - Lots of WindowsCodecs calls, I guess we kind of expect those to be valid since image processing needs codecs and stuff and things - Okay, now there’s a bar taking up ~45-50% of the ::Decode call, that’s not a codec or drawing related thing- it’s an os level pagefault. That’s fucky. - Since the ::Decode call is ~55-65% of the ::DvrDrawImage call, that pagefault is (~40% of ~60% =)~25% of this draw image call

So essentially I looked and saw a stack of bars altogether and went ‘okay, the call at the top of this is the only reason the call 6 bars up the stack (ie, 6 bars down on the flamegraph) is taking time, why?’, and start applying the same process recursively from there.

That is, until $why == ‘due to codec calls and an ntkernel call’, and the question becomes ‘is that valid?’ Then the question becomes “are these codec calls taking the amount of time I would expect?”, and “

iiuc peaks and colors don’t matter. Tbf I think the colorscheming on this chart is shit- afaik flamegraph coloring is just a way of marking the same (or from the same library? Implementation dependent?) function for easy spotting. Like why not make the functions wildly different colors. Redness != hotness of a certain codepath.

The only thing peaks indicate is calls that have deeply nested function calls, which I guess would be important if you’re having recursion issues.

And their point is that saying “copyright free” will probably be more immediately understandable to people who don’t know that and don’t want to read a small comment about copyright ‘intricacies’ (even if it’s not that intricate)

By saying copyright free, more people who need freely-licensed works like this are likely to use it instead of being warded off by “this does has a license, it’s copyrighted, but it’s actually free because of the license”

Colloquially, it’s the same thing.

Just got it. Have is the possessive definition, not the helper verb for a past participle.

Read like: How many tiles contain Neanderthals within their tiles?

Entirely off topic, but that post is borderline history. The commenter’s second-most-upvoted poster being u/unidan, to positive reaction? What a time.

This was extremely intriguing to me- I started looking and noticed that I was getting into the 400-500s of posts in the top/year, and not a single had been from within 8 months.

That said, on second glance there is something weirdly fucky here. This post [0] from a day ago has 4.2k upvotes- and yet, it does not appear in the spot it should in the top of year [1]. Tf?

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/185g0tf/whats_th...

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/top/?sort=top&t=year&coun...

Ever heard of STUXNET?

Genuine question: do you think you had to explain that “cheap ass” is insulting?

The problem is that anyone can make a website that asks you for your API key and promptly does none of this- you recognize this, right? You can say that “trustable” websites don’t do that, but that’s the point- why would anyone trust your random website when you could either be A) malicious, and purposefully steal their stuff (unlikely) or B) stupid, and fuck up their crypto and/or any of the other million moving parts in webdev security that people fuck up and end up leaking any arbitrary amount of data (extremely, comically likely) Now you could’ve just worded your response badly or we could’ve misinterpreted your words severely, but it sounds like you’re claiming that people just get it right every time someone makes a website. Even if we didn’t think A was likely, that line of thought doesn’t instill confidence that B is unlikely. Also you absolutely would NOT ask a user for their API key. The fact that you don’t immediately think you’d be using an OAuth authentication flow and getting a bearer token on behalf of the user is terrifying. The API token is for YOUR application. ——

Abject negativity over- your concept isn’t bad, and I kinda like it. You should pursue it, especially under the advice about what your outreach/advertising game is going to look like, given elsewhere in this thread. Please dear god though, talk to or hire someone who knows what they’re doing with webdev security if you’re going to deal with actual user bearer tokens- it doesn’t sound like you’ve ever built an application like this before, and you can make a million fatal missteps along the way.

Hey, that’s a neat story! Genuinely, I’m not trying to be sarcastic with that- but you didn’t answer his question at all.

What’s the point? Your goal is an “MVP stage”- what is your MVP? What are the minimum requisite features that are the core features of the language, and why are they important / better than any other languages, and in what specific ways?

If the answer is just “because I like these syntax/feature choices and i just want to make a language, that’s okay- you’re allowed to do whatever you want on the internet lol- but answer the original question directly and specify it as such.

The goals “get an MVP”, “stand on the shoulders of giants” and “innovate”, mean and say literally nothing- it’s just a smash of buzzwords that says nothing about your intents. They translate literally to “I want to make my thing work”, “i vaguely want recognition for being like xyz things”, and “I want to make it have more things”

What does “make it work” mean? Why does “be popular like rust and go” matter to anyone/what does it mean for your product? Why are you talking about innovating more things when you haven’t even told us what the first thing is?

These questions aren’t meant to be mean / dismissive- you made a programming language, and that’s cool (to me at least!) I wanna know!! If you want to stand on the shoulders of giants, you have to know what you’re doing- or if you do, be able to explain it lol.

What do you mean by this, genuinely? They describe in their paper- the literal citation that is given at the bottom of the article, exactly what they did to observe superconductivity in this material.

No one alleged anything of the sorts that the claim has no evidence- not in the comments, nor in the article.

I think you misunderstood the original reply to your comment. When you said “… another completely unfounded claim of superconductivity,” you were way off base. Lk-99 was not a completely unfounded claim of superconductivity. It was a misguided (or malintented- who knows), non peer reviewed claim of *room temperature* superconductivity.

We know of plenty superconductive materials- finding and claiming one is not super crazy or subject to any undue scrutiny for the most part. Finding materials that are superconductive at room temperature however, absolutely is subject to extreme scrutiny, because it has literally never been observed before, we’re not sure if it’s possible, and we it would literally change the world as we know it if it were to be discovered.

The commenter was signaling you that comparing lk-99 to this is completely unfounded due to this, because discovering a superconductive property of a new material doesn’t even remotely have the same ramifications as the discovery of a room temperature superconductor.

Why do you keep saying this? At the bottom of the article there’s a clear link to a peer reviewed paper in the journal Nature. Heck there’s a link in the first paragraph too. What is so suspicious here, like what’s the potential malintent being observed here? You seem to misunderstand what’s being presented here in its entirety, and are making a misguided point as a result. Granted, I’m no physicist, but it seems obvious to me that the rando group that reported lk-99 was making insane revolutionary claims regarding a supposed room-temperature superconductor, in a non peer reviewed paper. This is A) MIT. (Ie, extremely relevant in the name of physics) B) Only claiming the super conductivity of a previously unknown-to-be-superconductive material (or more aptly, a previously unknown process which makes a material superconductive), which is not anywhere even remotely close to being as potentially earth-shattering as the lk-99 claims. Plenty of things are superconductive- this one is just interesting because it’s new / novel (+ a couple of other important points I don’t particularly understand as I’m not a physicist. Go figure) C) Peer reviewed in a major journal Why do you keep pressing this angle as if the “claims” are so murky and unfounded and malevolent? There’s nothing about this paper to support that ideal that I can discern. What does “deliver” even mean in this context? They already have, in their peer reviewed paper. Arguably the Korea University students “delivered” with their paper on lk-99, it’s just that everyone checked after because of how crazy their claims being true would be, and found that they just fucked up. The two things you’re conflating here have no reason to be- they’re not remotely the same situation.

Do these guys actually think you should only write a singular (or maybe even a low plural number of) html file(s)? That’s crazy haha, that’d be pretty rough to maintain!

Could they have been joking that, maybe, there’s a lot of folks who are a little too tunnel visioned on the newest most modern js metaframeworks that they have little or limited knowledge of the foundations of their ecosystem? Given that you know something about html files and basic web servers, was your position necessarily the original subject of the joke/point here? Surely it was! Gruff old school devs are so obstinate and short sighted haha.

You opened, intending to construct an argument on your genuine position, with a massive strawman, on a lighthearted commentary over a line from the article that was purposefully taken slightly out of context- not even remotely a tirade on “js hating.” You’re not having an argument in this comment thread with anyone, because no one was even discussing anything to begin with.

I think there’s things to laugh at here (like the original joke) that aren’t how genuinely stupid you think the commenter who is ironically replying to every of your comments in a vague and mystical tone.

I think the original commenter is right- correct me if I missed what you’re getting at.

Keeping it all in the same units until the end here:

1 millionth of 1 meter = (1 / 1,000,000)m = (1e-6m)

1 millionth * 100 = 100 millionths => (1e-6m) * 100 = (1e-4m) = 100 millionths

(1e-4m) = .0001m | 1m = 1000mm => .0001m*1000 = .1mm