Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Z
Posts
1
Comments
273
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I think that it is impressive, but not necessarily that useful? In particular, you can't really trust what they're saying to be accurate so it doesn't actually give you that much usable information.

    Very cool, but I'm not sure what I would actually use it for.

  • Yeah thought that might be the case! It's just a thing that a lot of people have misconceptions about so it's something that I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to.

  • There are a couple of reasons that might not work:

    • Maybe we'll asymptotically approach a point that is lower than human-level cognitive capabilities
    • Gradual improvements are susceptible to getting stuck in a local maxima. This is a problem in evolution as well. A lot of animals could in theory evolve, say, human level intelligence in principle, but to reach that point they'd have to go through a bunch of intermediate steps that lead to worse fitness. Gradual scientific improvements are a bit like evolution in this way.
    • We also lose knowledge over time. Something as dramatic as a nuclear war would significantly set back the progress in developing AGI, but something less dramatic might also lead to us forgetting things that we've already learned.

    To be clear, most of the arguments I'm making aren't really about AGI specifically but about humanities capability to develop arbitrary in principle feasible technologies in general.

  • Another possibility is that humans just aren't smart enough to figure out AGI. While I'm sure that we will continue incrementally improving technology in some form, it's not at all self-evident that these improvements will eventually add up to AGI.

  • A breakthrough in quantum computing wouldn't necessarily help. QC isn't faster than classical computing in the general case, it just happens to be for a few specific algorithms (e.g. factoring numbers). It's not impossible that a QC breakthrough might speed up training AI models (although to my knowledge we don't have any reason to believe that it would) and maybe that's what you're referring to, but there's a widespread misconception that Quantum computers are essentially non-deterministic turing machines that "evaluate all possible states at the same time" which isn't the case.

  • What do you mean by its predecessor? C++? I think rust has a bunch of advantages. For one, designing a new language today gives you the benefit of hindsight meaning that they have a more cohesive set of features and a nicer standard library compared to C++ that has some bloat and cruft as a natural result of it evolving over several decades. It's also much easier to reason about undefined behavior in rust thanks to unsafe. Algebraic data types are really nice and traits are better than classes.

    The borrow checker isn't just useful for low level programming. One of the other main selling points is "fearless concurrency" or essentially the fact that the borrow checker can help you reason about thread safe vs non thread safe data.

  • You could still automatically delete all new posts and comments or something like that I suppose

  • If anything I think that the current rust discourse is a fad. I'm not sure what it is about rust that makes people have so strong opinions about it but I can't wait for it to become a "normal" language so that people can chill about it a bit.

  • Yeah it seems like most Brazilian twitter users have gone to bluesky. I'm glad that so few went to threads actually.

  • I think there's a cultural difference too. Bluesky is much closer to (a subsection of) twitter culture pre-musk than anything else. Weather you think that's good or bad is a matter of taste but it is probably the easiest thing to get people who like pre-musk twitter to switch to.

  • I dunno, CMake has one of the worst syntaxes I've ever seen, and despite that it's one of the most popular languages used for C/C++ build scripting. This is because it has certain technical benefits compared to its competitors. I'm certain that having "bad" syntax is a disadvantage but it's less important than other factors. Also I don't think that Rusts syntax is universally disliked either.

  • If you're hobby programming then do whatever you want obviously but if you're part of some sort of larger project that's trying to decide between Rust and C++ then subjective aesthetic arguments probably aren't going to be considered as heavily as technical ones (and rightfully so), which in Rusts case could be that certain classes of bugs are impossible. That's not to say that it's not possible to make a technical case for C++ over rust but syntax preferences probably aren't going to play a large role in how widely used either languages are, which is good.

  • I don't think that everyone has to switch to rust or anything but "I dislike the syntax" and "I only want familiar things" are really bad arguments for not using a language. Try something outside of your comfort zone for a bit, it will help you grow as a programmer.

  • There are non-propietary versions of android, I use /e/OS for example. Try searching for de googled android if you wanna find out more.

  • I'm surprised that no one seems to have brought up curl, which is maintained by Daniel Stenberg who is Just Some Guy™

  • Maybe paywalled subreddits are more intended to become competitors to maybe patreon and only fans rather than present day subreddits? Like a lot of patreons have discord access as a perk, the paywalled subreddit could potentially fill that role instead. Don't think it seems like a good idea and don't think it'll become more than a gimic

  • Beeper is a free app that is built on the same matrix bridges, and it takes care of hosting for you. Downside is that this requires you to trust beeper

  • When I'm just locally iterating on stuff I'll usually do a git commit -m "WIP: Description of what I'm trying to do" and then git commit --amend to it. A bit more ergonomic than stashing if I want to switch branches imo. I can also go back to old versions if I want to through the reflog.

    git commit --fixup some-commit is also great for if I discover things in the review for example. You can then do git rebase master --autosquash to flatten them into the commit they belong to and that way you don't have to bother with commit messages like "fixed typo". Doing fixups for small fixes is good because it allows you to keep your mr broken up into several commits without also leaving in a bunch of uninteresting history.

    Can recommend checking out the --fixup section in the git documentation if you haven't heard about --fixup before.

  • Nice, I'll check it out. I've been meaning to customize the desktop a bit more but it works well enough for the moment.