saghm

22 ms·

451.
by saghm 3mo ago
Classic C++, any issue is at most three years away from going away! There will definitely not be any other issues that are also three years from getting fixed when you reach that year though
452.
by saghm 3mo ago
That's a fair criticism; it's just not the same one you initially gave. I can understand being frustrated having to link the guidelines, but like, that's what they're there for!
453.
by saghm 3mo ago
Who said they deployed it themselves? I would expect that they made a PR (probably with some benchmarks), and that there are tests ensuring that the results are the same independent of timing, so then the author of the comment could verify
454.
by saghm 3mo ago
I agree with you that it's not quite minesweeper, but I also agree with the parent that it's not reverse either. It's sorta just expedited minesweeper
455.
by saghm 3mo ago
Given that the parent comment literally stated that they worked in adtech, this is not "begging the question" in the way that you're implying. You might disagree with the assertion that adtech is immoral, but that's a di
456.
by saghm 3mo ago
I started writing up a giant response to this about how all of LLMs are spooky action at a distance but for better or for worse, that doesn't make them any less useful, and a few paragraphs in I suddenly noticed what you actually wrote
457.
by saghm 3mo ago
This is basically how I've always designed things, and I really feel like it's the best approach. Pick the right way to model data, and the algorithms will flow naturally from it. The cognitive load of reading "data" cod
458.
by saghm 3mo ago
Not having an exact number of hours works in both directions; there's no lower or upper bound on how much you're expected to work, and with most tech jobs being at-will employment, it's not like they couldn't fire you wi
459.
by saghm 3mo ago
Same, honestly. I've dabbled in trying to come up with some UI stuff with LLMs, but I'm still not at the point where I'm totally comfortable. At my day job, luckily I have people much more talented than me at design who can p
460.
by saghm 3mo ago
> He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it. I would expect that if they didn't think they were unnecessary anymore, they would have said something like "I helped build the case for freeing pre
461.
by saghm 3mo ago
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that there were never any memory-safe alternatives to C before Rust (and re-reading my comment, I still don't think it sounds like that's what I was trying to say, but if that's how peo
462.
by saghm 3mo ago
Interesting! I hadn't heard of Cyclone before.
463.
by saghm 3mo ago
Ah, I didn't originally read what you said as promoting a distinction as much as arguing that the distinction already exists, which I think is where some of the disconnect is. Looking back at the comment that spawned all of this discu
464.
by saghm 3mo ago
> Oh, so people are annoyed at me because they aren't getting the point, maybe? The commenter who mentioned Steven Covey knew what I was talking about I mean, sure, if you think that there's literally no way for you to improve
465.
by saghm 3mo ago
I asked this once in the past, but...do car alarms actually stop any actual crime ever? My entire life, every time I've ever heard a car alarm go off, literally everyone around just rolls their eyes and ignores it. If I actually looked
466.
by saghm 3mo ago
I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted you (I didn't land on this thread until after all of this discussion about downvotes had happened), but I also don't really understand what you think is valuable about the idea you prese
467.
by saghm 3mo ago
Somewhat tangentially related, I sometimes use my (above average sized) nose to swipe away notifications on my smartwatch when I'm holding things on both hands and don't feel like putting anything down. My wife always finds this i
468.
by saghm 3mo ago
It seems very common for people to misunderstand that having strict accounting for unsafe is part of why Rust does what it does so well rather than just disallowing unsafe outright. I think it's easily confused because being able to ch
469.
by saghm 3mo ago
I don't know that it's clear that the motivation is that it's "helping" their competitors directly. Maybe the motivation is "if we rely on these, then the next time a US president arbitrarily decides to block u
470.
by saghm 3mo ago
> It seems like "can switch on unsafe whenever" vs "has no escape hatches" is an obvious line in the sand and a very useful distinction with real world implications. Sure, although to me, the obvious distinction is th
471.
by saghm 3mo ago
You can just...not use it though? It's not comparable to trying to avoid it in C/C++ because there's literally just one keyword to never use and then you're good, compared to it being possible to silently introduce in an
472.
by saghm 3mo ago
Yeah, my understanding (which is not from first-hand experience) is that a huge part of the origin of Rust was that there was a lot of research in memory safety techniques that had been going mostly unused by mainstream languages, so the id
473.
by saghm 3mo ago
My experience is that unless it actually writes it down somewhere, it's almost definitely going to forget within the next time or two that the context gets compacted. Even if it does write a rule down, it still may or may not actually
474.
by saghm 3mo ago
You called it "normal and expected". When not everyone has it happen to them, that's not "normal and expected". (It's not necessarily abnormal , but "expected" at the very least is a stretch).
475.
by saghm 3mo ago
> Kids are raised by their parents. Parents try to impart their wisdom on their kids, often in the form of rules meant to protect them. These rules are necessarily over restrictive due to simplification during various ages. These rules a
476.
by saghm 3mo ago
> So your best bets is to keep backups of your data soemwhere else. Which you should always be doing. Generally backing up a git repo is easy; it's all of the other stuff that tends to get hosted together with the code (issue tracki
477.
by saghm 3mo ago
Taken literally, this question just misunderstands what the point of coding is for most companies. The point was never to maximize quality of software, but to make the most money. Coding being "solved" implies it was a problem, an
478.
by saghm 3mo ago
> It does exists for any bank. No one is disputing the existence of the question. > In Codeberg case, what I would be looking at is the actual banning process, not "assurance" they won't ban me later. Okay, so then, wha
479.
by saghm 3mo ago
Yes, and the baseline amount of trust seems to be substantially reduced for Codeberg for a lot of people in the wake of this change relative to most of the other options. I don't even necessarily think the new policy is bad in a vacuum
480.
by saghm 3mo ago
I'm not convinced either of those are substantially more niche than people who need to install the JDK

More ›