josephg

17 ms·

361.
by josephg 5mo ago
> If the LLM does it, you achieved nothing. Oh get off your high horse. You may as well say "If the compiler compiles your code, you achieved nothing". Its the same argument. I love meaty algorithmic challenges. And I enjoy the
362.
by josephg 5mo ago
Everything I want to make is new. I don't understand the objection. For example, the photo backup system I want to make will let me manage my ~400gb photo library. I want my library backed up on a couple devices, running linux and free
363.
by josephg 5mo ago
Really? I'm more motivated than ever to make stuff at the moment. I have a long list of projects I've always wanted to make, but I never had time. The barrier is so low now. For example, I want to make: - A mini OS on top of SeL4
364.
by josephg 5mo ago
The trick is this: The white text is not visible to humans, and therefore not binding as part of the contract. But if lawyers use LLMs to assess the contract in part of the negotiation process, the LLM will be confused by the contract'
365.
by josephg 5mo ago
Eh. This causes some problems for rust. Right now you can have a function return impl Trait instead of a concrete type. Very handy - and essentially required by async functions. But the language also requires that types have names in lots o
366.
by josephg 5mo ago
What did you find works best?
367.
by josephg 5mo ago
On the whole, I think vibe coded test suites can be pretty good. But it really depends on how you prompt. I often get the AI to brainstorm needed tests into a text file while it works. Then later I get another agent to write tests based on
368.
by josephg 5mo ago
Yes, microkernels like SeL4 do almost all real work out of the kernel, and in userland processes. It’s much more secure that way.
369.
by josephg 5mo ago
Yeah. Or they should run in a sandbox. I would have no problem with a post install script which ran arbitrary commands in the context of the installed package itself. But arbitrary scripts + user level permissions is a recipe for disaster.
370.
by josephg 5mo ago
True, but capability calls in SeL4 are supposedly faster than linux syscalls. Because caps are such an important primitive, they're extremely heavily optimised. As an example, when you invoke a capability, your process hands the callee
371.
by josephg 5mo ago
> On the other hand, I cannot see how this approach can be scaled to something like a personal computer. Personally I think the biggest challenge is UX. The systems engineering is good, and it works just fine. > For other programs tha
372.
by josephg 5mo ago
> If the capabilities are very fine-grained, to make certain that IPC really cannot happen, that might be cumbersome to use, while coarse-grained capabilities could be circumvented. In SeL4 it’s kinda like this: A capability is an opaque
373.
by josephg 5mo ago
> Sorry where are we seeing that it failed? Try it yourself. I've been using claude to make a project over the last few weeks. Its written ~70k LOC to solve a complex problem. I've found that it can get surprisingly far in a 1-
374.
by josephg 5mo ago
Experts are people who have made all the mistakes there are to make in their chosen field. Including all of the above.
375.
by josephg 5mo ago
I sometimes run multiple claudes at the same time, with each terminal working on a different task. I have 2 going right now. Its very easy to burn through your quota if you work like that. Especially on high / xhigh.
376.
by josephg 5mo ago
Yeah, v4. I would have been much more impressed with v4 about 6 months ago. But I've been spoiled by opus 4.7. Deepseek isn't at the same level.
377.
by josephg 5mo ago
You're assuming the elevated error rates are due to the system being overloaded. We have no evidence this is actually the case. Its much more likely due to a simple misconfiguration or failing router or something.
378.
by josephg 5mo ago
Wow, I'm really surprised. I tried deepseek (their best model, through the official API). Its extremely cheap, but its clearly not as good at programming as Opus 4.7. It seems nowhere near as good at making high level design choices. D
379.
by josephg 5mo ago
"Mini" usually denotes physical size. Is the neo physically smaller than the air?
380.
by josephg 5mo ago
Taking functionality away from a product after you bought it is a scum move. If the law lets them get away with it, the law should be changed. When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and funct
381.
by josephg 5mo ago
Right; because in zig the default behaviour is to leak memory. Rust adds an invisible free() call. Leaking is something you have to do explicitly. I understand zig's philosophy here. But I prefer rust's default behaviour.
382.
by josephg 5mo ago
> If it's doing a drop in the hot loop that may be an unexpected performance regression that could be carefully lifted. Yeah, I've heard of people being surprised that when they make massive collections of Box'ed entries,
383.
by josephg 5mo ago
> and its possible to cause problems if you aren't aware where rust picks to drop. Can you give some examples? I've never ran into problems due to this. > don't use that attitude to suck oxygen out of the air. rust come
384.
by josephg 5mo ago
It'd take more than that to match rust's borrow checker. Rust's borrow checker tracks lifetimes, and sometimes needs annotations in code to help it understand what you're actually trying to do. I suppose you could work a
385.
by josephg 5mo ago
True. But rust does make it a lot harder to leak memory by accident. Rust variables are automatically freed when they go out of scope. Ownership semantics mean the compiler knows when to free almost everything.
386.
by josephg 5mo ago
Nope! Zig is like C in this regard. There’s no borrow checker. Managing memory is your responsibility. It gives you a few more tools than C - like a debug allocator, bounds checked array slices and so on. But it’s not a memory safe language
387.
by josephg 6mo ago
I doubt it, but you can probably get pretty close. This is something a lot of people misunderstand about unsafe rust. The safe / unsafe distinction isn't at the crate level. You don't say "this entire module opts out of
388.
by josephg 6mo ago
> Re OpenBSD: I think it just shows we’re all human(fallible) at the end of the day :) Yeah. Its yet another reminder that "being really careful" isn't an adequate security policy. Attackers only need to find 1 bug. Defend
389.
by josephg 6mo ago
Making use of win32 functions doesn't turn off bounds checking in your rust code.
390.
by josephg 6mo ago
No they really don't. 95% of rust is safe rust[1]. Also unsafe rust doesn't remove bounds checks. arr[idx] is bounds checked in every context. You can opt out of array bounds checking by writing unsafe { arr.get_unchecked(idx) } .

More ›