thefaux

This design seems very similar to async in scala except that in scala the execution context is an implicit parameter rather than an explicit parameter. I did not find this api to be significantly better for many use cases than writing threads and communicating over a concurrent queue. There were significant downsides as well because the program behavior was highly dependent on the execution context. It led to spooky action at a distance problems where unrelated tasks could interfere with each and management of the execution context was a pain. My sense though is that the zig team has little experience with scala and thus do not realize the extent to which this is not a novel approach, nor is it a panacea.

If the value of human labor is going to zero, which some say ai will induce, wouldn't the oxbridge model become the most cost effective option?

Yes, they are similar and in both cases what we know about them was passed down by their unreliable students with an agenda. I have studied both over the past few years and I find myself disagreeing with Plato's Socrates often whereas I find the Jesus of the Gospels much harder to argue against.

I am not a fan of function chaining in the style advocated in the article. In my experience functional abstractions always add function call indirection (that may or may not be optimized by the compiler).

You don't need a library implementation of fold (which can be used to implement map/flatmap/etc). Instead, it can be inlined as a tail recursive function (trf). This is better, in my opinion, because there is no function call indirection and the trf will have a name which is more clear than fold, reducing the need for inline comments or inference on the part of the programmer.

I also am not a fan of a globally shared Result class. Ideally, a language has lightweight support for defining sum/union types and pattern matching on them. With Result, you are limited to one happy path and one error path. For many problems, there are multiple successful outputs or multiple failure modes and using Result forces unnecessary nesting which bloats both the code for unpacking and the runtime objects.

Even better is to use tail calls instead of loops and eliminate mutable variables entirely.

I find the direction of zig confusing. Is it supposed to be a simple language or a complex one? Low level or high level? This feature is to me a strange mix of high and low level functionality and quite complex.

The io interface looks like OO but violates the Liskov substitution principle. For me, this does not solve the function color problem, but instead hides it. Every function with an IO interface cannot be reasoned about locally because of unexpected interactions with the io parameter input. This is particularly nasty when IO objects are shared across library boundaries. I now need to understand how the library internally manages io if I share that object with my internal code. Code that worked in one context may surprisingly not work in another context. As a library author, how do I handle an io object that doesn't behave as I expect?

Trying to solve this problem at the language level fundamentally feels like a mistake to me because you can't anticipate in advance all of the potential use cases for something as broad as io. That's not to say that this direction shouldn't be explored, but if it were my project, I would separate this into another package that I would not call standard.

If you are going to attack the sacred text of two billion people, it would be better to avoid a lazy comparison to Hitler. Have you read the Quran? Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged? Do you know how it had been used and abused? What is the relationship between modern science and islam? How has it been used to justify violence? How has it been to argue for peace? Have the people who have used it to justify violence understood the original meaning? How does the violence/body count compare to other dogmatic religions, especially christianity?

There is violence in every ideology. To deny this is to deny reality. Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view. That does not mean that one cannot point out the shadow side, but one should look in the mirror of one's one preferred ideology, whether that is christianity, atheism, scientism, nationalism, rationalism, etc., before casting blanket aspersions at others.

I do work while strolling all the time. In fact, I consider long walks an important part of my workday.

Chalk it up to youth perhaps, but this piece would benefit, in my view, from more "for me..." or "I found..." and less "You should/must/are..."

I have reached a point in my life in which I recognize that I do not generally appreciate direct advice, especially not the unsolicited variety. Even the bits that I agree with in this piece are tainted by the many cases where I did the exact opposite of what he advises and excelled academically.

I cannot express how liberating it feels to opt out of "advanced" editor tools like lsp. I program in neovim with no plugins, no syntax highlighting and no autocomplete of any kind. There is a discipline that this imposes that I believe leads to better quality programs. It's not for everyone I suppose, but I really recommend trying it.

Lua has tail call optimization and js doesn't. For me, this is a dealbreaker for js.

Lua also has operational advantages compared to javascript. You can build it from source in at most a few seconds and run it anywhere that has a c compiler. The startup time is negligible even compared to a compiled c program so you can run entire scripts that do very useful things faster than most js engines can print hello world. There is also the benefit that in spite of what this article discusses, it is possible for most problems to write a lua solution that works for all lua >= 5.1. This is wonderful because it means if I stick to the standard library, the bitrot is essentially zero.

Calling into c is very straightforward in Lua, especially with luajit, which makes it superior to js as a scripting language (the node ffi api is quite painful in my experience and ffi runs against the js execution model).

Lua also essentially got lexical scoping of local variables correct from the beginning while js blessed us with the nightmare of var.

Of course Lua is far from perfect, but while there are some similarities, the differences are quite significant and meaningful.

Like llms, I think google made a small class of people more productive and effective and did indeed make most people dumber and less effective.

As of last Tuesday afternoon, there was a giant billboard on Divisadero in SF advertising an ai product with the tagline: What's better than an ai therapist? Your therapist with ai.

Truly horrifying stuff.

The wonder of Bach goes much deeper than just the aesthetic qualities of his music. His genius almost forces one to reckon with his historical context and wonder, how did he do it? Why did he do it? What made it all possible? Then there is the incredible influence that he had. It is easy to forget that music theory as we know it today was not formalized in his day. The computer programs that simulate the kind of music he made are based on that theory that he understood intuitively and wove into his music and was later revealed through diligent study. Everyone who studies Bach learns something profound and can feel both a kinship for his humanity and also an alienation from his seemingly impossible genius. He is one of the most mysterious figures in human history and one could easily spend their entire life primarily studying just his music (and that of his descendants). From that perspective, computer generated music in his style is just a leaf on the tree, but Bach himself is the seed.

> These people haven't suffered from the fact that mass production of media is cheap, they've benefited from it.

Maybe? This really depends on your value system. Every moment that you are focused on how you look on camera and trying to optimize an extractive algorithm is a moment you aren't focused on creating the best music that you can in that moment. If the goal is maximizing profit to ensure survival, perhaps they are thriving. Put another way, if these people were free to create music in any context, would they choose content creation on social media? I know I wouldn't, but I also am sympathetic to the economic imperatives.

There is a naive belief that media does not matter so long as the same content is presented. For various reasons, I believe books are far better learning tools than digital devices for most things. Among other things, memory is linked to place and space. A physical book is a link to the real world that grounds the learning in space and differentiates it from other materials. My theory, based on my personal experience, is that reading a physical book, you have an experience with that object that helps link the content into the spacial memory system.

Physical books can be totemic symbols of learning. Just having them around is a reminder of what you've learned, or what you've been putting off if they remain unread.

Physical books are also wonderful gifts that digital can never replicate. A wise old man once gave me a book that he cherished and had been given to him in commemoration of his contribution to its production (it was a very important book). Every one of the hundreds of pages was filled with many of his annotations. Whenever I read from it, I am connected to him and his study. What would be the equivalent for digital? Giving someone a used phone?

When I was a kid in the 90s, I knew multiple kids who were severely injured by cars. For whatever reason, this did not seem to have any impact on my mother's parenting and no new limits were placed on my freedom as a result. For the record though, one of the kids I knew who was hit was leaving the property of their school with plenty of adult supervision around at the time of the collision (and received a large settlement from the school).

I had a similar experience and sadly the culture seemed to shift during the 90s so that children were stripped of most of their autonomy. Having not experienced it themselves, many struggle to even imagine the possibilities or benefits.

I will also mention I experienced periods of absolutely crushing boredom at times during the summer when I did not have friends or parents around and had nothing to do but watch daytime television. But I learned from the boredom. It is sad to me that so many today are instead being fed from the drip of constant personalized entertainment that makes it harder to get to the place of complete boredom that ultimately can spark creativity instead of succumbing to learned helplessness.

I can't tell if this is serious or not, but I strongly disagree with this advice if it is.

Yes, because the people pushing the boundaries do not understand the value of the thing they are trying to commoditize. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to commoditize it. There is a pervasive attitude among technologists that they can improve things they don't understand through technological efficiency. They are wrong in this case and getting appropriate pushback.

Personally, music is sacred for me so making money is not a part of my process. I am not worried about job loss. But I am worried about the cultural malaise that emerges from the natural passivity of industrial scale consumerism.

It is embarrassing how much time I spent playing that dumb game instead of actually practicing a more versatile instrument.

I would suggest that instead of feeling demoralized by ai that you instead ask what can you offer musically that an ai cannot. I also would suggest trying to let go of the notion that music is primarily about achieving a certain level of technical proficiency. There are no limits on your growth musically unless you artificially constrain them because you are deluded by a technology to believe that you don't already have what you need inside of you.

Do you regularly play with other people? That is a good way to disabuse yourself of the notion that all that matters is technique.

Pretty on the nose that the only sports category is road cycling.

In the long run, the only way things can get better is through individual action as daunting and hopeless as that might feel in the face of the current system.

Counterpoint: I am personally skeptical about the long term value of arch supports. The reason is that while they can undoubtably help with short term pain, they also inhibit strength development and introduce an unnecessary dependency (kind of like a software library). I am not disagreeing with your experience or discouraging people from using supports to deal with injuries. I am just questioning making yourself reliant upon them.

About 20 years ago, I was riding my bike everywhere and hardly walking. I went on a trip to NYC and was walking 10+ miles a day. I developed severe shooting pains in my feet. Getting some supports helped dramatically and so I started wearing them whenever I wore shoes.

I did this for about 15 years and completely swore by arch supporting shoes. Then, one day I was playing basketball and landed on someone's foot going for a layup. My foot basically folded in half in the opposite direction of the arch. This was a major injury and I could not walk at all for a week and it took multiple years before I stopped feeling pain regularly in that foot.

After the injury, I completely stopped wearing arch supports. I had a theory that my feet had been weakened by using them and that this weakness was the underlying reason for the severity of my injury. For the last few years, I have averaged about eight miles of walking a day and mostly wear zero drop minimal shoes. I have developed the ability to run on concrete with them, though I do not particularly enjoy this (primarily because my running efficiency is poor).

If I were running a marathon, I would certainly wear shoes with padding, but I don't find much padding or support necessary or even desirable for brisk walking for hours at a time. And for almost 15 years, I never left the house without bulky supports.

For many, backwards compatibility == long term employment.

I can't help but notice the subtle ways in which git has corrupted our understanding of the word commit.

Honestly, I think a lot of this is as much marketing as it is about actual value. This helps the industry narrative about how transformative the tech is. These inflated comp packages perfectly match the inflated claims around the tech. "See this tech is so incredible we are paying people 1 BILLION dollars!"

These types of comp packages also seem designed to create a kind of indentured servitude for the researchers. Instead of forming their own rival companies that might actually compete with facebook, facebook is trying to foreclose that possibility. The researchers get the money, but they are also giving up autonomy. Personally, no amount of money would induce me to work for Zuckerberg.

Yeah, who knew that Kerr would have the more successful overall career in basketball?

And are almost never offered fast/stable software that solves their problem. When they are, it will come with aggressive fud by the competition or they will just lobby the government to mandate the incidental complexity of their own software so that the competition cannot even enter the market without being brought down to their level.