hndc

But it's bad writing, as GP points out. The second paragraph is particularly confusing—its central metaphor is clumsy (in my experience LLMs struggle with metaphors).

That said, maybe it's an artifact of being machine-translated from the original Russian.

A more apt analogy would be a world where virtually all restaurants serve food that tastes horrible and makes you sick, while grocery stores have essentially disappeared thus making home cooking impractical.

A monopoly is not a "state-imposed single seller". Where'd you get that definition from?

There are many examples of natural monopolies, which is a concept that has been recognized in economic theory for at least two centuries. Walter is either being deliberately obtuse or is ignorant of history.

AT&T, Western Union, most railroads, many local utilities—all examples of monopolies that formed "naturally" i.e. without state intervention.

Insofar as there was state intervention in the formation of these monopolies, it was because the state intervened on the company's behalf to suspend antitrust law—such as in the case of AT&T, where the government decided it would be most efficient to permit AT&T to continue operating as a monopoly (until it didn't, and broke AT&T up).

Recursion reduces each step toward a base case: each step is defined in terms of previous/simpler steps, not more advanced ones. The "recursive" in "recursive self improvement" has things precisely backward. Iteration correctly describes a process where each step is the starting point of its successive step, so it should be "iterative self improvement" but I guess that didn't sound as cool.

> The structural correspondence is the point.

> The choice of @form(vec) here is itself a real design decision, not an arbitrary one.

> The point of the surface isn’t completeness — it’s that every distinct kind of structural commitment a unit can make has a syntactic home. ... Each commitment is declared, not inferred from code.

> type is pure shape. A record. No lifecycle, no flow, no state machine, no bus participation.

And so on and so forth. Every paragraph, every sentence was transparently written by an LLM (sounds like Claude to me). It's difficult to get interested when the humans involved couldn't even be bothered to write down their own thoughts and make them coherent (and much of this text isn't, though it appears so at a glance).

As for the locus concept (https://aperio-lang.github.io/aperio/concepts/the-locus.html), the entire page reads like one of those LLM fever dreams in which it can't stop praising an idea you've pasted into the chat window. It's a kitchen sink primitive that codifies a specific architectural pattern. It's a program structure that probably fits the kind of problem the author has been seeing a lot lately.

Compiler artifact is still deterministic. Clearly not referring to runtime behavior that is input-dependent

Deterministic compilation, aka reproducible builds, has been a basic software engineering concept and goal for 40+ years. Perhaps you could provide some examples of compilers that produce non-deterministic output along with your bad news.

> I'm coming to the view that Rust mostly requires less cognitive load than other languages.

This view is only remotely within the bounds of plausibility if you intended for "other languages" to refer exclusively to languages requiring manual memory management

> DevOps was a reaction to the fact that even outsourcing ops to AWS doesn’t entirely solve all of your ops problems

DevOps, conceptually, goes back to the 90s. I was using the term in 2001. If memory serves, AWS didn't really start to take off until the mid/late aughts, or at least not until they launched S3.

DevOps was a reaction to the software lifecycle problem and didn't have anything to do with AWS. If anything it's the other way around: AWS and cloud hosting gained popularity in part due to DevOps culture.

That was one of the most frustrating seasons of any television show I’ve ever watched, right up until the finale—which completely redeemed it for me! What an ending.

This is one of the better applications of an Apple Watch, which will detect when you haven’t stood for a while and pester you to do so.

Of course, the watch comes with a giant bundle of other features that may or may not be desired. And building it yourself is so much cooler.

Wild? Using it in dialogue seems perfectly reasonable. It's a common malapropism.

You've misunderstood the theorem. It doesn't say you can't achieve any combination of mostly C/A/P; it says you can't have perfect C, A, and P at the same time.

This completely misapprehends the point of writing essays.

> "in my experience"

Here's some data: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Ignoring the programs using x86 intrinsics to do vectorized math, the top-performing Rust, Go, Java, and C# programs are all written in a simple, straightforward style; each is practically a direct translation from the other. The Rust program is fastest, but the others come in at 1.6x, 1.7x, and 1.7x the Rust program, respectively. These are not significant differences for the vast majority of applications.

Of course this is one artificial benchmark, and on that website you will find others where the Java, C#, or Go program will do especially well or especially poorly. But it's clear that those three are all roughly in the same performance class..

The entire selling point of pair programming is that your copilot would point out errors like this, not introduce them.

Pairing works when you either pair two strong programmers or pair a strong programmer with a weak one. In the latter case, the main advantage is that it's also a mentoring opportunity.

Copilot has invented a pair programming situation in which your partner constantly introduces dubious code you must painstakingly verify, but is itself incapable of being mentored.

In "But I think we can aim...", "but" is a conjunction, not a preposition

Also, his writing is fine: simple but clear and effective.

"Many of his sentences are phrases" — literally every sentence in this essay is a complete sentence. What are you talking about?

Among the drawbacks of excessive syntactic sugar is that it is often difficult or impossible to look up

It's as though you didn't even read the very article you linked

You're using integer arithmetic in Ruby and floating-point arithmetic in Go. Try replacing

  math.Mod(float64(i), float64(j))

with

  i%j

My results:

  $ time go run primes.go
  Found them! 78702

  real	0m0.835s
  user	0m0.787s
  sys	0m0.039s

  $ time ruby primes.rb
  Found them! 78702

  real	0m21.013s
  user	0m21.005s
  sys	0m0.016s