There are 3rd party ads in Discord now, and they are probably going to expand as an ad platform. I think this is what the parent comment was upset about.
That too, I have to be on Nitro because of work. (Managing communities, streaming resolution, etc), and the level of ads triple after being a customer. Even worse if you need to blend in like adopting some of the customization since the cult goes deep.
To be fair, I put myself there and I voluntarily work with those audiences. I am aware I don't belong to the same level they do, and I'm ok with that. I just wish I could customize it my way too. In my view, if this was a protocol rather than a PaaS locked-in system, like IRC for example, we all would be winning.
I once heard Hollywood described as a network of law firms that happens to make movies. It's the most litigious industry on Earth, or one of them. They don't just sue you and I. They sue each other constantly, battling over royalties and residuals and rights and IP theft (which does happen in Hollywood of course).
I love good film as art but the industry seems certifiably insane in lots of ways: litigious, nepotistic, backbiting, full of sex abuse and other nastiness. I have sympathy and respect for anyone (actors, actresses, writers, etc.) who love the art enough to deal with that crap.
I feel like there should be some sort of direct "judicial review" by non-attorneys. The only reason stuff like this is possible is because we're governed by lawyers; they've captured law and shaped it towards their ends, and away from its utility as dispute resolution so that people can get back to non-law, non-dispute life.
Western democracies would be far better off with some sort of legislative body that was comparable in power to the existing bodies such as the senate / parliament.
Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses the 'none of the above' option than that election is a do-over and the candidates who ran are forbidden from running in that jurisdiction for a period of time -- let's say five years.
A couple cycles of that will flush the crap out of our system real quick.
But like you said... the system is run by lawyers, for lawyers, so we're not likely to get these kinds of changes.
> Another solution to our existing problems in western democracies would be a mechanism to select 'none of the above' on a ballot. If a super majority of the electorate chooses the 'none of the above' option than that election is a do-over and the candidates who ran are forbidden from running in that jurisdiction for a period of time -- let's say five years.
If you are starting a new government from scratch, I think it would work. But bolting it onto an already broken system would create perverse incentives for the outgoing broken politicians to deliberately nominate terrible replacement candidates. If everyone chose 'none of the above', the broken politicians would get to stay in power forever (or alternatively the position is left vacant forever).
I am a big fan of rank-choice voting. I like the fact that the incumbent legislatures are scared of it. If they are scared, it must be a true threat to them. While this would be a threat to both Democrats and Republicans, it is mostly the red states that try to ban in, going so far as to amend their state constitutions. Alaska has/had it for a brief moment and as a result have a higher number of independents in their state. But even they have factions trying to undermine it.
Most of the decision-making power within lobbying organizations lies with lawyers. Effectively, most lobbyists are lawyers, regardless of if most of the staff within those orgs are not.
There’s dirty copyright abuses and lawsuits left and right, but the one that really puts you off is a legitimate case where a little guy actually created something?
The little guy managed to prove through an absolute avalanche of community remix that he made the original weird little drawing on the internet. On websites basically designed to be anonymous and contribution free, in communities that really hate people identifying themselves.
It taught me that without removing copyright as a legal concept, people can come from left field to claim things after they get popular and ruin what has been adopted as community owned.
Like the trollface image itself is one thing, but its popularity, that makes it valuable in terms of merchandising, has come from not just the original image but its endless viral remixes and crossovers. Thats communal labor that has suddenly been enclosed and monetised.
You can have a community of iconoclasts communally creating content without expectation of recompense and one bloke can stick their head up and ruin it for everyone.
etc etc etc. Needs to die. For this reason and what Conde Nast did to Doc Savage.
People tried to "just do that" (write their programs in a memory safe way) in C and other languages with manual memory management for decades, and we have countless vulnerabilities that prove this simply doesn't work. That's why newer languages, with the notable exception of Zig, prefer more advanced memory management methods.
> People tried to "just do that" (write their programs in a memory safe way) in C and other languages with manual memory management for decades, and we have countless vulnerabilities that prove this simply doesn't work.
Who are these "people" you speak of? It's possible to write software in low level languages that don't have these problems. Not a "non-zero" it might be possible, it can be done thoughtfully, and the popular notion it can't be done is backed only by incomplete anecdotes.
Should everything be written in low-level languages? No, that would be absurd. Is it a simple fact of life that not every person/team/organisation is capable of meeting certain standards of rigour? Yes. That's not to say anyone in the Bun team could not become sufficiently competent in the future. For whatever reason, current experience, incentives, and personal motivations did not make for a conducive environment to make Bun watertight in Zig.
Yes, it's possible. It's also possible for experienced pilots to fly an airliner completely manually for the full duration of a transatlantic flight without crashing. Still, over the last decades, autopilots and other assistance systems with ever more sophisticated features have been developed, and I would argue that without this technology crashes would be much more frequent than they are today. Same goes for memory management: you can do it manually, and it might work out most of the time, but if the programming language is helping you with it, the likelihood of memory safety issues decreases drastically. And the problem with avoiding these issues only by "meeting certain standards of rigour" is that you might only find out that you have failed to meet them years later, when you learn that your software has a vulnerability.
> Same goes for memory management: you can do it manually, and it might work out most of the time, but if the programming language is helping you with it, the likelihood of memory safety issues decreases drastically. And the problem with avoiding these issues only by "meeting certain standards of rigour" is that you might only find out that you have failed to meet them years later, when you learn that your software has a vulnerability.
Zig does help you. Array slices, explicit nullability of pointers, defer errdefer, explicit allocators, built-in leak detection, bounds checks, overflow detection, the list goes on. If you need to play around on that side of the fence, Zig gives you a lot to make sure you don't mess it up. If we were talking about C I'd give you your flowers, but we're not. The most common issues and vulnerabilities that crop in C from manually managing memory are strongly mitigated by a quarter of that list.
Just people like the linux kernel, all major browsers, most of our popular webservers, etc and basically all non-trivial software projects written in C.
The good news here is that we have more than just anecdotes to support this, we have empirical evidence.
That's like saying that they should have used assembler but they just weren't capable of it. It's personal insult dressed up as a nonsensical technical argument.
It matters what software you're writing. When it's a JavaScript runtime, it's not as if you can get away with preallocating all the memory you'll need like some games used to do.
In the figurative sense it's highly versatile across contexts, but still replaceable. For example:
"Her optimism was load-bearing,"
versus:
"Her optimism was enduring."
Exactly the same meaning and connotation. It stands to reason that the terms with the most semantic flexibility will have preference across all contexts. So in response to:
> maybe we should be learning from Claude rather than complaining.
I'd say let's not steer ourselves into regular language and keep some vivacity in our expressions.
The first means that her optimism kept her in some functional state, without it, she would collapse.
The second means that her optimism continues over time, despite obstacles.
The first doesn't emphasise how longstanding her optimism is, the second does.
The second doesn't emphasise how important her optimism is, the first does.
Both points are specious. C disassembly is usually not an orthogonal translation of the structures in the code, usually due to optimisation.
> In C you have loops, functions structs. All things that make no sense in assembly.
One can reasonably infer that a loop will roughly translate to some type of conditional jump instruction. Function structs are just pointers and call instructions. The former point was that there is little runtime getting in the way of how the constructs could be expressed, and a long time ago it may have been the truth, but not for modern compilers.
The condition that made this possible is that this task is well within frontier LLM capability and he had tokens to burn. Domain knowledge is separate to language semantics.
> Except that said AI can now themselves use your software and find and fix bugs themselves, not to mention drive new features.
Anyone with sufficiently good taste in how to program effectively and architect will disagree with you on this. The short leash method is how you ensure good results when you're functioning outside of the training data. If you're even a modestly above average programmer this is afaik the only way to ensure fast, quality development with LLMs.
> This again feels outdated. I think we're mving towards humans no longer needing to understand a codebase, and letting AI drive it.
I think you are perhaps unaware of a world of programming where AI is still woefully inept. I have observed very consistently in all languages with manual memory management frequent issues with handling it. Trust me, it's not as simple as sticking it in a loop with Valgrind.
I think the irony here is that LLMs are the ultimate tool for auto-didacts and people who love to learn independently, bar none. Using them to cheat is such a profound waste to me. I've beeen able to accelerate my learning thanks to LLMs, and it saddens me that the potential for this kind of personal enrichment is lost on most.
Brown's PLME program is famous for getting you into med school.
And med schools are quite focused on grades.
Same goes for Law Schools, which, again, Brown is an outlier for JDs.
Look, the professor here is right. But he's living in a different time. The students are under the gun here and are responding to their incentives. The prof's gripe should not be with the students but with the AMA or the Bar associations, ultimately.
Essentially, the system is sick, the kids and prof are caught in the middle of it. Don't fight each other, fight the power.
Another language that is in a similar space to Zig that I think deserves more attention, particularly for funding is Odin. While I think Zig is a great language, there is a consistency of design and simplicity to Odin that makes low-level programming more ergonomic and enjoyable to me. While Zig boasts a lot of impressive projects, Odin was used to build the JangaFX suite[1].
Ginger Bill, the Odin language developer, is openly hostile against package managers (he wrote a post called "Package Managers Are Evil") so he maintains his own wrappers of popular C libraries in vendor folder next to the compiler. That doesn't sound like a healthy ecosystem to me.
I think zig is also highly opinionated but it always seemed to me that Andrew started from solid pillars and made an excellent job of carefully considering each feature that was added to the language:
- No hidden control flow.
- No hidden memory allocations.
- No preprocessor, no macros.
Odin on the other hand is just some developer's personal taste marketed as "Programming Done Right". So, if you disagree with any choice Bill made, you're not doing programming right.
> Ginger Bill, the Odin language developer, is openly hostile against package managers (he wrote a post called "Package Managers Are Evil") so he maintains his own wrappers of popular C libraries in vendor folder next to the compiler. That doesn't sound like a healthy ecosystem to me.
There are good reasons for this (supply chain attacks, dependency hell), and while Odin doesn't have a package manager it does have a concept of a package. There is nothing stopping anyone from downloading and adding them to a project, in fact Odin developers do this already. The Odin core library is absolutely massive and contains a lot of what you would need for most projects, vendor rounds it out. The purpose is to be batteries included so your project doesn't have to rely on as many dependencies.
> I think zig is also highly opinionated but it always seemed to me that Andrew started from solid pillars
It's funny you say that, because I hold the same stance for how Odin was constructed, and the examples listed hold for Odin too. There is a lot about Odin's design that is consistent with Zig. Check it out, you might be surprised ;)
> Odin on the other hand is just some developer's personal taste marketed as "Programming Done Right". So, if you disagree with any choice Bill made, you're not doing programming right.
What do you think every programming language is trying to do? Solve the issues of the author. Bill has strong opinions about programming, so he made a language and a reasonably successful one at that. Given the swathe of people who would just complain, it's refreshing when people try to instead better the world relative to their values. Say what you will, he does it because he cares.
Appreciate Odin, especially the batteries included approach (simple to use structure of arrays, matrices, array programming, the context system for custom allocators, ...). To be fair though: the heavy lifting in JangaFX is likely done by a ton of C++ code, it being high performance real time graphics programming.
I assume C++ outweighs Odin in their code base by a significant margin (accounting for all dependencies).
JangFX is the company I believe. They have many products. One of them, EmberGen (a fluid simulator), is fully written in Odin. No idea what the rest are written in.
edit: grammar
reply