CerryuDu

7 ms·

1.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> The objections to non-profits, OSFs, education, healthcare, and small companies all boil down to: they don't pay enough or they're inconvenient. Those are valid personal reasons, but not moral justifications. You decided you
2.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> you need some insane mental gymnastics Perhaps. I dislike google (have disliked it for many years with varying intensity), but they have done stuff where I've been compelled to say "neat". Hence "mixed bag". Th
3.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> didn't spare a thought for Google's other (in their opinion, bigger) misgivings, for well over a decade That's the main disagreement, I believe. I'm definitely not an indiscriminate fan of Google. I think Google has
4.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> non-profits I think those are pretty problematic. They can't pay well (no profits...), and/or they may be politically motivated such that working for them would mean a worse compromise. > open source foundations Those
5.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> We all are slaves to capitalism Yes, but informedly choosing your slavedriver still has merit. > Extrem fast and massive automatisation around the globe might be the only think pushing us close enough to the edge that we all accept
6.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
For those of us who consider programming a way to self-realize, the potential vanishing of programming as a lucrative job definitely seems threatening. However, I don't think it could disappear entirely. Professions replaced by machine
7.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> You either surf this wave or get drowned by it I don't think so. Handcrafted everything and organic everything continue to exist; there is demand for them. "Being relegated to a niche" is entirely possible, and that&#x27
8.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> I still glue everything else together myself. This is the core difference. Just "gluing things together" satisfies you. It's unacceptable to me. You don't want to own your code at the level that I want to own mi
9.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> Not all of AI is consumer LLM chatbots And as long as that used to be the case, not many people revolted.
10.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
I've tested the "emerging new thing", and it's utter trash.
11.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
yeah, me too: > while maintaining perfect awareness "awareness" my ass. Awful.
12.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> Criticizing anthropomorphic language is lazy, unconsidered, and juvenile. To the contrary, it's one of the most important criticisms against AI (and its masters). The same criticism applies to a broader set of topics, too, of cour
13.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> AI makes people feel icky Yes! > it’s important for us to understand why we actually like or dislike something Yes! The primary reason we hate AI with a passion is that the companies behind it intentionally keep blurring the (now) s
14.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
... not to mention that most of the time, what AI produces is unmitigated slop and factual mistakes , deliberately coated in dopamine-infusing brown-nosing. I refuse for my position, even profession , to be debased to AI slop reviewer
15.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Others in the thread seem to be saying that he has retired (sort of) a few years ago.
16.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Can you elaborate on the "all parts of an experience are valid" part? I may be missing something. Thanks.
17.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
> We’ve been compromising on those morals for our whole career Yes! > The needle moved just a little bit That's where we disagree.
18.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Don't be ridiculous. Google has been doing many things, some of those even nearly good. The super talented/prolific/capable have always gravitated to powerful maecenases. (This applies to Haydn and Händel, too.) If you unco
19.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
... not to mention the time it takes to load directory entries and inodes when the cache is cold.
20.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
motif apps? xmag? xfontsel? forwarding over ssh? ~/.XCompose? "links2 -g"?
21.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Vector Clocks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_timestamp
22.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
I find the repeated "yolo" qualifications very tiresome, yawn-inducing. At least in this article: https://fil-c.org/runtime the term "classic C" is still used. I don't expect for a moment that Fil-C
23.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Thanks!
24.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Thanks for the answer. I disagree because I've seen closures shine (in OCaml) and suck terribly (in C++). Same concept, extremely different programming experience and debuggability. Syntax matters, language psychology matters. Closures
25.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
return in_reverse? (right > left) - (right < left) : (left > right) - (left < right); I prefer (with "greater" being ±1, defaulting to +1): return left < right ? -greater : l
26.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
From the introduction, your paper seems like a counterproposal: support closures, just not the way others propose. But the paper seems to accept that closures / nested functions, supported at the language level directly, are a "go
27.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
I am salty, but not because I'm impacted by this. :) The reason I'm salty is that most linux desktop envs are unusable in their own right. I very much feel the pain of being forced to use some centrally-dictated craptastic linux
28.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
That's all there is to it. I don't understand the whole obsession with closures. I've used lambdas extensively in modern C++. I hate them with a passion. I've also used OCaml. An awesome language where this stuff is supe
29.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
I'm finding myself in a weird position now, because I disagree with a whole lot of things in the blog post (well, the parts I was willing to read anyways), but calling that variable static for the sake of persistence was correct. T
30.
by CerryuDu 9mo ago
Not to mention the potential signed integer overflow in (*right - *left) and (*left - *right), which is undefined behavior. And even if you rely on common two's complement wraparound, the result may be wrong; for example, (INT_MAX-(-1)

More ›