When I was in university the course was called compiler construction. Making a language like G# is very simple and about the level that the final project of the course would be if the team was working together really well and went for maximum bonus points.
We have so many programming languages because it's a fun and relatively easy thing to start, and lots of people have differing opinions of how it should be done. Also making a programming language seems like a difficult thing from the outside so it has a certain allure.
Swift exists because objective c has archaic language design that modern developers reject. Objective C exists because as far as I know at the time smalltalk style object oriented programming was hip and C++ made the wrong decisions in their eyes. It could also be that C++ wasn't popular enough yet at that point for Apple to commit to it. In that period basically all major operating systems went different ways. The Unix derivatives went all in on plain C, Microsoft went C++ and Apple objective c, though I think OSX itself is plain C for the most part.
I don't know how CarPlay is, but Android Auto restricts the apps and app interactions you can do in the Android Auto user interface. On my phone the only apps that show up are google maps, spotify, and my podcast player and my phone interface I think.
They might, but the final outcome of that depends on whether the tokenmaxxing rust-using zero-user startups are using more memory in ci/cd than the users of efficiently written successful apps are using in production.
Seems like not being compatible with Sentry's agent is a missed opportunity for Appsignal, which I think is the premier EU based (Amsterdam) APM suite at the moment. It sounds like Bugsink is rather barebones in comparison and I bet a quick agentic coding session would make short work of a migration to AppSignal.
Ok so how does he know that? This whole podcast is about how we don't even know how tau clumps and amyloid build ups relate to the progression of the disease.
A transistor effectively is an AND gate. If there is a charge on both the source and the gate, then charge can move to drain. So if you charge up the capacitor and you connect it to the source of another transistor then you can check whether it is still charged by putting a charge to the gate and see if there is charge on the drain.
And you are right, that charge on the drain can then be used both to drive some logic and to activate the recharging of the capacitor that was just discharged.
By the way I am being handwavy about "charge" moving about, if you really want to learn the electronics it is more correct to call it a voltage relative to some ground that the charge always moves towards.
It might count, but it is easy with git as well, what is the feature in jj that makes this easier? Switching branches and pushing changes to remotes is the core feature of git and in my opinion really easy so I'm curious how jj improves on it.
I came into Steins;Gate completely cold. I watched it when it came out and I only just realised there's more to the universe. It's a ridiculously good anime, probably a top 10 for me. It's got a really cool storyline with loads of plot twists, interesting characters and deep mystery.
Never worked at a FAANG, but from what I read from their cultures I don't think a letter to the CEO from a senior engineer would go entirely unnoticed there. CEO's might receive crazy letters, but hopefully not regularly from their senior engineering staff..
No we can't. In the early 2000s we desperately tried to get our governments to be less dependent on Microsoft and we completely failed. Europe is not a federation like the US, worse many of the countries in Europe themselves are governed much like federations. We are easy prey for big American corporations. It's easy for Palantir to sell their product and then a thousand little government organizations will claim there simply is no alternative at the same quality level.
I know it can, but it can't download it faster than the network card can write it into its buffers. That's the part I would count as the 50ms that both can't improve upon.
> That's not how anything works. Different languages will perform differently on IO work, different runtimes will degrade under IO differently, etc. That's why even basic echo HTTP servers perform radically differently in Python vs Rust.
> This isn't how computers work and it's not even how math works.
What are you disagreeing with? There's some baseline amount of I/O that the kernel does for you, that's what I'm assuming is 50ms, and everything else like runtime degrading is overhead due to the language/platform choice. I'm saying Rust is upwards of 100x faster in that regard thanks to its zero cost abstraction philosophy. You can't just include the I/O baseline in a claim about Rust's performance advantage. You'll be really disappointed when Rust doesn't download your files 100x as fast as the Python file downloader.
Anyway, I'm sorry I provoked your antagonism with my terse messages, I wasn't trying to be blase. I believe uv is the sort of tool that wouldn't suffer much from the downsides of Python and that in most situations the reduced runtime overhead of Rust would have a negligible impact on the user experience. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't build uv in Rust. Most situations is not all situations, and when a tool is used so widely you'll hit all edge cases, from the point where the 10s of milliseconds of startup time matters to the point where Pythons I/O overhead matters at scale.
I'm saying that the Rust might execute in 50ms and the Python in 150ms. You are the one not making sense, we are talking about application performance, why are you not measuring that in milliseconds.
That is assuming Rust is 100x faster than Python btw, 49ms of I/O, 1ms of Rust, 100ms of Python.
What is more expensive, copying the message, or memory fencing it, or do you always need both in concurrent actors? Are you saying the message passing overhead is less than the cost of fragmented memory? I wouldn't have expected that.
Why couldn't a machine that identifies relations between tokens be AGI? You're imposing an arbitrary constraint. It is either generally intelligent or its not, whether it uses tokens or whatever else is irrelevant.
Also, languages made up of tokens are still languages, in fact most academics would argue all languages are made up of tokens.
Anyway, it's not LLM's that achieve AGI, it's systems built around LLM's that achieved AGI quite some time ago.
Less than 5% of the population knew what it meant to install an app when the iPhone launched. I believe Steve Ballmer ridiculed the idea when asked about it.
A great many amount of people use Android to this day because of its more open nature, and that's despite Google's involvement. If Motorola could go back to its native roots, shake the idea of Chinese influence, and do open source proper, I bet there's a lot more than 5% of the market ready for it.
My company helps companies do migrations using LLM agents and rigid validations, and it is not a surprising goal. Of course most projects are not as clean as a compiler is in terms of their inputs and outputs, but our pitch to customers is that we aim to do bug-for-bug compatible migrations.
Porting a project from PHP7 to PHP8, you'd want the exact same SQL statements to be sent to the server for your test suite, or at least be able to explain the differences. Porting AngularJS to Vue, you'd want the same backend requests, etc..
The Falcon Heavy is $97 million per launch for 64000 kg to LEO, about $1,500 per kg. Starship is gonna be a factor 10 or if you believe Elon a factor 100 cheaper. A single NVidia system is ~140kg. So a single flight can have 350 of them + 14000kg for the system to power it. Right now 97 million to get it into space seems like a weird premium.
Maybe with Starship the premium is less extreme? $10 million per 350 NVidia systems seems already within margins, and $1M would definitely put it in the range of being a rounding error.
But that's only the Elon style "first principles" calculation. When reality hits it's going to be an engineering nightmare on the scale of nuclear power plants. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd spend a billion just figuring out how to get a datacenter operational in space. And you can build a lot of datacenters on earth for a billion.
If you ask me, this is Elon scamming investors for his own personal goals, which is just the principle of having AI be in space. When AI is in space, there's a chance human derived intelligence will survive an extinction event on earth. That's one of the core motivations of Elon.
I am working on code generation at Bosun.AI. Previously CTO at Aeroscan.nl, and lead engineer at Phusion.nl.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/tinco; my proof: https://keybase.io/tinco/sigs/0OUuceCURCXaFpxf5PCgpBOzDSX8K7Ux-FTuhO2zK9U ]