roetlich
Here it's a type of argument, and it's only sometimes a fallacy. Seems like this how it's defined most of the time, unless you explicitly look for "ad hominem fallacy". Ad hominem without any context can be vague, I guess, so I tried to be more explicit.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, English isn't my first language, but I think "Obvious Fabrication" (capital letters) is a bit silly.
But he is. Both in the title, and in later half of the blog post, he directly enters that discussion. I'm not saying an ad hominem argument is always bad, but this clearly is one.
This is like the textbook definition of an ad hominem.
Can you explain how the lessons are generated?
It looks like there are no pre-generated lessons, they are created on the fly by the AI. Wouldn't it be possible to write a skill or similar that does the same with your existing coding agent?
No, you can't "agree".
> What if you ask about 9/11?
It answers the question.
That would be 24.
I think there must be some misunderstanding? I think deathanatos just wants an easy way to send files between computers when the internet is down, which seems decently reasonable.
Is this linked list type then mostly meant to be used as an internal implementation detail, and not be exposed in a public API? Because if I see a function that takes a non-generic list I won't really know how to call it. :)
I don't know much Zig, I just wanted to ask how to use the type that the article talks about?
Let's use the very simple example from the article. Let's say I want to extract this code into a function:
while (node) |n| {
const user: *User = @fieldParentPtr("node", n);
std.debug.print("{any}\n", .{user});
node = n.next;
}
1. How does that look, what's the type signature of this function?
2. What happens if I put in a list doesn't contain users? Do I get a simple to understand compile time error, or can I segfault because I'm accessing bad memory?And I don't think that would need any generics, since the list type isn't generic, right?
> And it's typesafe: if you write invalid code the compiler will give you an error.
One more question, if @fieldParentPtr("node", n) is typesafe and can get you a User, the compiler needs to know that the struct has the fields of a User, and that this pointer is indeed pointing at a node field, right? Then why do you need to specify "node" at all?
I think I don't understand Zig at all :)