tw061023

7 ms·

31.
by tw061023 3y ago
Without intention to offend. It's Golang, the language that famously ignored over 30 years of progress in language development for the sake of simplicity. What answer do you expect?
32.
by tw061023 3y ago
> What is "real" AI to you? An AI able to reason, obviously. Ideally able to reason better than human - and be able to explain the universe better than humans did so far. So don't feed me hallucinating LLM stupidity. >
33.
by tw061023 3y ago
You misunderstood. I am trying to make the task easier for you. Just reproduce the code with LLM of your choosing. If you manage to actually do so - please feel free to add graphics with any other model.
34.
by tw061023 3y ago
I see six tweets in the thread, how many do you see? If you also see six tweets, please reproduce the result following instructions in the tweets and share the recording of you doing so. Graphics don't matter, let sprites be colored re
35.
by tw061023 3y ago
There are 6 tweets in the thread: announcement, link to the game, introduction, graphics, programming, conclusion. These tweets do not describe the exact and specific steps to reproduce the complete result. They only provide rough and obvio
36.
by tw061023 3y ago
Which, precisely, achievement? Show all prompts step-by-step and let people reproduce. Someone claims they did X using a couple of AI instruments, without sharing anything to prove the claim, and everyone is excited. I understand that the i
37.
by tw061023 3y ago
Except it didn't.
38.
by tw061023 3y ago
This article is about precisely nothing, as almost all AI articles are. By the way, I have a nice bridge for sale.
39.
by tw061023 3y ago
I call bullshit. No prompts, no nothing, just the finished product and a few claims. Almost 200 comments and Ctrl-F "repro" is zero. Also let me be straight: I am full-on believer in AI. But not in Midjourney, DALL•E 3 and GPT-4 (
40.
by tw061023 3y ago
> basically "I wonder what amazing and important reason they have for doing this" That's not what I said. I don't care who does this, I will despise it either way, I just hope that Apple at least has a proper justific
41.
by tw061023 3y ago
I understand the theory. I just hope I will live long enough to see a winner in this race. To be honest, I've been interested in the domain for quite a time and I still want to build a fusor or a polywell at some point just to see it g
42.
by tw061023 3y ago
My understanding is that WHATWG doesn't govern standards at all - it basically documents what browsers are doing at the moment. So when Google rolls WEI in a Chrome update, it will become a WHATWG "standard" automatically. Is
43.
by tw061023 3y ago
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the web ad market, and thus this is kind of irrelevant - they aren't forcing this down everyone's throat. Though I cannot help but wonder why exactly they did that. Some kind of a corporate re
44.
by tw061023 3y ago
How critical that is, compared to WEI - and more broad problem adopting it entails, namely a single company basically dictating the whole web what it can and cannot do?
45.
by tw061023 3y ago
And we still have people crying Safari being new IE all the time. The remaining minor incompatibilities that we have now are nothing compared to what we had in IE6 days, and yes, this is the price we pay for not giving complete control of t
46.
by tw061023 3y ago
What's interesting is that stellarator actually is not just an alternative, but a wholly parallel branch of evolution - it's not like one was invented strictly after another, and the authors of both designs never knew about the ot
47.
by tw061023 3y ago
While I agree with you, my point was specifically the cost of a malloc. As someone who had actually profiled a pool vs malloc, this is kind of a salient point for me. In some workloads short-lived allocations are common. Like memory is allo
48.
by tw061023 3y ago
> Yes, overwhelmingly so. I wonder how common business tasks can be coerced to this model. Also I believe this is not a good excuse - the language should still provide a way to properly manage allocations even if it is not needed most of
49.
by tw061023 3y ago
I respectfully disagree. > to use different allocators on a per-collection basis It's far more than that. There are different memory management optimization patterns that are hard to implement in Rust, ie. splitting allocations to d
50.
by tw061023 3y ago
Long story short, heap allocation is painfully slow. Any sort of malloc will always be slower than a custom pool or a bump allocator, because it has a lot more context to deal with. Rust makes it especially hard to use custom allocators, se
51.
by tw061023 3y ago
These are microbenchmarks, thoroughly optimized to the point some of them are written almost completely in SSE intrinsics. I would expect Rust to be 2x-3x slower in real production code, solely due to approach to memory allocation.
52.
by tw061023 3y ago
From a cursory glance this seems to be a contender for libuv, so I would like to learn more about motivation for this project. Unfortunately, none is given, as well as why is it limited only to POSIX APIs.
53.
by tw061023 3y ago
I apologize, but how is this relevant? Just looking at the Wikipedia page for this standard makes it really clear why it has never seen widespread adoption (and I, for one, am really happy it didn't). The project OP is referring to ins