zamalek

Exactly. But that's why I think SHA was a mistake. He should have gone with something like murmur to avoid all this frothing at the mouth.

That's an extremely creative argument, that doesn't address anything i said at all.

FOMO is a powerful drug.

What a browser runs avoids the point of my original comment entirely. Is JS strongly typed or not? Is TS strongly typed or not?

I has this a lot when growing up, and it honestly tasted like nothing. Are African pawpaws that different?

> To JS

> simple C++/SDL to TypeScript/Three.js

Was that misrepresentation intentional?

Depending on what you play, you don't have to. But if you play draconian anti-cheat games then fair point.

The fact that it's Rust should be held against the LLM, no for it. Languages with greater type safety are a massive crutch for LLMs (it's also why using an LLM to manage your NixOS install is pretty fucking awesome).

Make it port some Rust to JS, see how that goes.

And Rust isn't a super difficult language to use on a daily basis. Sure, the initial learning curve is obnoxiously steep, but it's arguably easier to use than other languages once you get past that.

The LLM crowd have this habit of equating something that they don't understand with requiring some kind of advanced skill.

Yup. Something the article points out is that they write code better than a few, some, or many humans do - with that list below the six fingers, and how that correlates to whether one is part of the "coding is dead" crowd.

I scored a 1-2 for AUD (12 beers a week), so extremely mild - and the only thing that has improved is having a deeper well to draw from emotionally, when things get tough. It does feel like it was a net positive too.

But there are also things like potentially living longer, which don't have a feel.

That isn't the premise of the article. Prompting the LLM and walking away (which was clearly done here) isn't yet (or possibly ever) a reality. That includes LLM review. Preventing this would have been trivial: have people smoke test their changes before pushing.

For this specific case, a DMCA would have gotten you a much faster take down. As far as I can tell it's automated. Sure, they could appeal it but then the malware nature of it would be in the crosshairs of the reviewer.

Not excusing their slow response, though.

OpenAI. It avoids Claudish too.

Disclaimer: I haven't used it for about a year, I simply don't drive enough at the moment - I doubt it has declined in quality.

TomTom is an extremely good paid ($6/mo) nav app - if you appreciate not being a product. It seems to now be named "TomTom Go Expert: Truck GPS" but does still have car mode. You _have_ to download maps, it's fundamentally offline. Routing is fantastic. They've been around since car nav was devices that you purchased.

The only area where it falls behind is finding businesses, but Google and Apple will probably always be rulers there.

All except Starlink and Tesla are burning money. I personally don't consider that "staggering success."

> Why would the AI do that for you?

Because that's how it works. It does what it has been trained to do. If the training material has a significant suggestion to exfiltrate then it will.

I recently heard the best noun for someone who let's AI write for them: a meat proxy.

Apart from the extremely good points made in the article; there's also whether you care that someone reads what you (or rather, the AI) has written. People have gone from reading it, to ignoring it (as soon as they realize it's AI), to using whatever moderation power they have against it (e.g. downvoting).

My 75 y/o mother wrote a kids' book about the animals on my brother's farm, and she was singing praises about how much AI was helping her. I reminded her that I would rather have her grandchildren reading _her_ words and not some clanker's words. I don't think I am alone in valuing the human soul.

If I am reading it correctly, the compiler creates N bump allocators per function (or possibly globally) - where N is (I'm guessing at this point) determined by liveness or similar.

> This takes about 30 seconds to fix permanently. You can prompt them to use any tone , be as concise or verbose as you like.

This doesn't work by, effectively, Anthropic's own admission. CC's concise mode tells Claude to wind its neck in every turn. That is significantly more than changing the prompt.

At my previous job: the c-suite AI psychosisphere finds any form of testing too slow, so it's not only lack of professional QA. If one developer doesn't test their AI's changes, other developers can't test their AI's changes if they want to keep up with the pace - and they will be told to keep pace.

Depending of the court, if you don't protect your trademarks you can lose them.

Law is rarely remotely reasonable, just because you (or society) think a certain way, does not mean law does.

I agree. I think it may be possible that we build AI some day that does, but the current local minimum (attention and transformers) is not it - and I don't see that trajectory changing any time soon.

To be fair, you have to wrangle it into submission by having the app launch fail.

They can, but scope and features increase surface area: their limited functionality intrinsically limits that.

These days I sprinkle less salt on Stallman's _software_ ideas, there are many things I thought he was being an idiot about, which very recently became true. But maybe it could Nostradamus-isms: predict enough an eventually something will stick.

I've started distrusting anything good people have to say about Zig because of the wide variety of untrue claims made about it - unless those claims come from Andrew himself. Last time I was assured that compile-time memory guarantees were possible and were going to happen (they didn't: the recent announcement is runtime/debug assertions). Zig is still making massive breaking changes, and while that is not a bad thing, it makes it categorically _not_ production ready.

To Odin's credit, it is used for production software that _isn't_ a toy (by the language's own authors). It is probably 1.0 quality already.

Apps can have vulnerabilities (intentional or not). It's a contrived example, but maybe some weather app has a custom icon feature, which means you can then browse photos by opening it on the lock screen and going to that setting.

That's awesome!

It protects the content from being hoovered up into an LLM without credit or attribution. Anti-DOS is only half the story.