leftyspook

> So even if “open core” is a strictly better model, we lack the intuition and experience to feel confident starting there. By thinking of Elm as the “open core” at first, we give ourselves time to learn and flexibility to expand the core later.

https://acadia.engineering/license/faq

The way I read this, Acadia is an attempt to finance working on both it and Elm.

The sensible regulation would be aiming at socially harmful features of tech, not forcing people to provide proof of identity to a third party in order to continue harming themselves with the same exact features.

Imagine if such an approach was taken to, for example, food safety? Instead of closing down a restaurant that has poor hygiene, you'd be instead horce the restaurant to hire a private security contractor to check people's IDs to verify that they are old enough to consent to getting a foodborne illness. That's an absurd approach.

All software runs on somebody's hardware. Ultimately even an utterly benign program like `cowsay` could be backdoored to upload your ssh keys somewhere.

The meat brain is the only one that can be held accountable.

Do you think the attention and engagement is because people think this is some sort of an "ai misalignment" thing? No. AI misalignment is total hogwash either way. The thing we worry about is that people who are misaligned with the civilised society have unfettered access to decent text and image generators to automate their harassment campaigns, social media farming, political discourse astroturfing, etc.

I think when Fish shell announced the Rust rewrite, they especially highlit that, in the form of "being more attractive to contributors" as one of the reasons.

> I'm not 100% clear on what you mean here

The core of their complaint is that if you use `jj edit` it's not obvious how to get a diff of what you did. The answer, of course, is that you can use `jj evolog -p`.

Ah, I see Tom the Genius has moved on from using Subversion for his enterprise JSON DSL

I think a part of the point is to question the need for things like that. Do your users actually need all of these bells and whistles?

Nothing changed, you need to know that host:port first, and that's where the problems with the official serverlist being flooded with fake entries become apparent.

That really is not a solution.

Third party servers used to host plenty of non-standard gamemodes that Valve does not provide. Retakes, mentioned in the blogpost, is one of those modes.

Could it be that it gets no credit for things it got right because it got barely anything right?

I think you make a pretty bad case for how embedding a Scheme interpreter is going to help with the pain points of async. Listing "stack traces full of tokio code" and then seemingly proposing to solve that by adding more glue to pollute the stack traces is especially weird.

I'm not saying they are related, just saying that the committee committeing is going to take half a decade at least for both.

Coming right after profiles are done, probably?

Yes.

That essentially comes for free with stack unwind, and will not be possible with `panic=abort`

As if the stock owners have any more engineering knowledge. They are sewn from the same exact MBA cloth.

I'd imagine not seeking employment at Google is a big part.

Set of concepts derived from "whatever the hell Ken Thompson had in his environment circa 1972".

I've had more luck running games from 97-00 under wine than on modern Windows.

Yes, but Sonic Pi DSL feels a little more Lisp-y than natural language-y.

It does. Not sure if publisher can opt-out though.

Another point is that Steam DRM is a) optional b) unlike always online GaaS trivial to circumvent

I may be projecting, but I feel like the kind of person to get excited about crafting interpreters wod also get excited about crafting databases or OSes.

All praise Bob!

On a more serious note, have you thought about trying to aim lightning at the same spot again and write another book about implementing something most programmers take for granted?

It is a tool for checking that your unsafe code doesn't cause UB. It doesn't really settle anything, but the commenter uses it as a gotcha to say "rust is no better than C, because you still can compile code that contains UB".

> Well, the general 'Rewrite All in Rust' consensus is that it solves all general programming problems, ever.

a) There is no such consensus. The actual consensus is that even if Rust solved all problems, it would not be financially feasible to rewrite pretty much any substantial project.

b) While Rust does solve many problems, it is nowhere close to solving all safety, otherwise there would be no `unsafe` keyword. Alas, fully proving safety in an impure, turing-complete language is mathematically impossible.

c) The only reason you would think that there's some sort of woke Rust lobby, is if you spend way too much time subjecting yourself to opinions of literal sixteen year olds on twitter.

I haven't tried Loco, but Rocket is not Rails-like. It does, to me, have the friendliest API among Rust frameworks, but it is nowhere near as battery-filled and opinionated as Rails.

I've heard about Pure Data but here aim is to a) emulate the feel of a real rack (to which end I am rewriting the UI from scratch) b) relatedly, aim is to be friendly to non-programmers, cause all musicians I know can't use a computer for more than opening a DAW

From what I can tell, VCV is a bit higher level, I aim to let users combine individual parts into modules, as well as customizing their visuals.

Also, funny thing but I did not know about VCV before today :)