TheMode

8 ms·

61.
by TheMode 3y ago
$4 to play a sound on every keystroke, how deep did we sink to not realize the state of software development?
62.
by TheMode 3y ago
Some ISAs are definitely more complex than they should, but RISC-V/x86 is the least of my problem if the goal is to interpret some windows/macos/linux binary. The complexity goes beyond a list of instructions. As for licensin
63.
by TheMode 3y ago
I don't really see how the ISA is relevant, maybe that it affects 3% of a chip performance, 15%, or perhaps even 30% but either way it is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Our software is order of magnitudes slower than it could b
64.
by TheMode 3y ago
A simpler spec means more competition, which is more sustainable than 50 standardized APIs. More competition means having an easier time finding the perfect browser (or even make your own). I do not know about Gemini but the problem with cu
65.
by TheMode 3y ago
We are only talking about the browser here, where the few choices come from the extreme complexity of the spec. However, I do believe the same for operating systems and application binary in general. Nobody would ever complain about X or Y
66.
by TheMode 3y ago
There is none, but we should have a transition period to make a simpler web spec, entirely immutable (to ensure no future bloat). We have no reason to indefinitely use our web.
67.
by TheMode 3y ago
> Our collective history is too valuable for us to be breaking stuff just to make engineers’ lives easier. I'd argue that software standards make it harder for everyone to write a "history". How many people simply gave up
68.
by TheMode 3y ago
Designing an API is a ton of work, especially if you care about backward compatibility (otherwise you may as well use that internal API). And at some point will be deprecated for removal. Without a standardized way of writing devtools - ass
69.
by TheMode 3y ago
My bad then, I stand corrected. Although the rest of my message remains correct, if writing a dummy browser only took a few hours/days, nobody would ever ask for new APIs.
70.
by TheMode 3y ago
It is how it works. What's your suggestion for the fancy devtools API? Beg Google? Making the implementation of the web standard simpler means increasing the options available, meaning more chance of finding a devtools you appreciate a
71.
by TheMode 3y ago
We need less API/standard, not more. To have more competition in web devtools, we need to simplify the web standard so more browser can appear instead of forcing some new fancy API on our almost monopoly.
72.
by TheMode 3y ago
Humans are quick at adapting. Saying that our specie has been living in absolute terror for the past millenniums and that we somehow solved it in our century is pretty arrogant.
73.
by TheMode 3y ago
I am not a religious, but being happy seems more important than being right. I do not know what battle you are fighting.
74.
by TheMode 3y ago
I agree, but in some way I do not believe that this is a bad thing. The more people realize that the internet isn't "real" or "social", the more they will be pushed to find an alternative. There is no need to save o
75.
by TheMode 3y ago
I have watched many Dave's video and completely agree. Though even from a performance perspective only, this seems like the obvious path ahead.
76.
by TheMode 3y ago
Instead of encouraging developer to optimize beyond what their programming language expose, shouldn't we change our software model to include space? A simple example would be cellular automata (not necessarily "automata") whi
77.
by TheMode 3y ago
CPU cache, main ram & disk are all treated the same at the software layer. All memory accesses are somehow expected (in theory) to be O(1). The best you can do with such a model is try to predict space (access pattern etc). On the other
78.
by TheMode 3y ago
Not sure if this is on topic, but couldn't a processor designed to run cellular automata scale better? I have doubt that it is possible to scale an architecture that by design attempt to hide space.
79.
by TheMode 3y ago
How do you plan to update such natural language code? Words change meaning. This is what I meant by stable
80.
by TheMode 3y ago
The problem then isn't that people refuse to pay for software, but that it needs permanent maintenance. Feels like a lot of busy-work.
81.
by TheMode 3y ago
There is intrinsic complexity involved in distributing physical goods. Software complexity is mostly made up. Would billions solve software distribution & longevity? How?
82.
by TheMode 3y ago
Why do we insist on making software paid? Wouldn't it make more sense to work toward making software more stable so I could decide to make a calculator app during my free time, and have it somehow still used 200y later? Software is stu
83.
by TheMode 3y ago
> Right now, it’s not that reliable, of course, but eventually it will be. As everything else, it will evolve What make you think that natural languages will ever become reliable/stable? It hasn't been for millennia
84.
by TheMode 3y ago
> If kindness is the default response to your fellow human. You cannot guarantee constant kindness, you will need to answer to violent responses as well, and be sure that it doesn't snowball.
85.
by TheMode 3y ago
May she goes to 320
86.
by TheMode 3y ago
As a general guideline, I tend to believe that anything that has lived X years will likely still continue to exist for X more years. It is obviously very approximative and will be wrong at some point, but there isn't much more to rely
87.
by TheMode 3y ago
Because it has been the case for billions of years, and we adapted our assumptions as such. We have no strong reason to believe that we will figure out ways to indefinitely improve these chat bots. It may, but it may also not, at that point
88.
by TheMode 3y ago
> Good luck turning those into silicon with any kind of performance. It doesn't have to be the hardware ISA, nothing would prevent the hardware manufacturer from including a compiler. > Because string comparisons are slow. Non-st
89.
by TheMode 3y ago
> 2 hours is pushing it for pretty much anything. bf could, lambda calculus as well, or potentially cellular automata. Also implementing IO is still important, as the apps depend on it. What I am saying in my case is that the hardware ma
90.
by TheMode 3y ago
> The vast complexity of modern software and hardware comes from the ever more complex environment they interact with. 100% agree, hence my suggestion to completely remove environment access from the instruction set. No syscall. > It

More ›