senfiaj

I guess the tendency is the problems shifting to higher levels, while for lower level or common problems things are getting more robust and better.

I agree, people are too nostalgic about old UIs. But I think modern UIs also invent square wheels, such as invisible scrollbars, too large margins, etc. For example, Windows 7 had the best UI (maybe needed a handful of small additions for year 2026, such as ability to scroll without focus). Later versions of Windows significantly degraded user experience. Windows 11 has somewhat improved look, but it's too bloated and inefficient (that famous desktop context menu opening in 2-3 seconds, jeez).

Architecture is still important for large systems. And there are tons of legacy systems with spaghetti code.

AI is starting to successfully decompile binaries, unless the binary isn't purposefully obfuscated, I guess it's almost "open source".

I've no experience living in Asian countries but asian cultures seem to be workaholic / ambitious and obedient. At least in South Korea many children's childhoods are ruined by insane educational pressure, lack of recovery time and sleep. In Korean culture, a child's success is directly linked to the family's social status. And I can only imagine the level of suffering among those children, let alone neurodivergent ones.

Japan seems to have a similar problem, although a less extreme version.

>> I never had an issue with ADHD growing up in Asia. Nobody friggin cares. It's only western people making a huge deal outta nothing.

Interesting, I thought that Asian countries are the most hostile countries towards neurodivergent people.

I think since LLMs make code generation cheaper, we are left with more complicated, often more socially demanding tasks. Programming is becoming even less "leave me alone and let me write code" (on average). This can lead to burnout for many people, but this exploitative capitalism doesn't care.

Yes, that was my point. Amputations are quite uncommon, they usually lead to death (blood loss / infection, starvation, vulnerability to predators, etc) For relatively intelligent species they are even more avoidable. Regeneration would add very little benefit from natural selection point of view. Most body parts are durable enough for survival and reproduction.

Exactly, limbs are quite large portion of the body, that's why many think salamanders would have no problems with regenerating all other smaller body parts. And that's not the case.

Regeneration is unlikely to warrant eternal life. In the wild, most animals die before even showing serious signs of aging. Even if regeneration increased lifespan, poorly adapted individuals would still die.

Most of the body doesn't regenerate because there was not enough evolutionary pressure. Even with regeneration you could still easily die from some severe injury, blood loss or disease. While salamander regeneration is impressive, it has its limitations. For example, no known adult salamander can regenerate an entirely removed eye. Also if you chop a salamander, it will not regenerate like a Planarian worm, it will just die. And a fun fact, Axolotls can regrow a limb yet cannot regenerate an adult eye lens.

Also, although the article is mostly true, there are some inaccuracies:

>> Neurons and cardiac muscle cells don't reproduce after childhood

There is some evidence showing a slow cell turnover in cardiac muscle, estimated around ~1% per year in young adults, falling toward ~0.5% in older people. Most neurons don't regenerate, but there an evidence that some parts of the adult brain (such as hippocampus) still produce new neurons, although the number is very low.

Liver regeneration is not perfect either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOv7Sr3X-eo .

In theory yes, but it requires enough discipline and knowledge. A language that makes it harder to write bad code still has an advantage over a language that doesn't care about bad code.

>> Will this really make coreutils more secure?

In the long run yes. Sure, many logic bugs happen in Rust programs as well, but memory safety bugs are another level of hell. At least many classes of exploits will mostly be impossible. Also, Rust program failures tend to be more predictable. For example, in C/C++, if you do out of bound writes in an array or writes in a freed memory block, the behavior is undefined. The program might crash, the memory might be silently corrupted, or nothing might happen at all. In a normal (non unsafe) Rust code these kinds of issues are either prevented by static checks or become explicit runtime panics.

While the migration could be done more gradually, 26.10 is not an LTS release and is not considered stabe enough. The next LTS is 28.04, so I hope there is 1.5+ years for things to stabilize.

Well, chess is a sport where humans are supposed to compete. But math, programming, science are mostly not, and AI might affect economy, careers, etc.

Yeah, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory for desktop Linux if it conquers the desktop. You can't even use it normally without Google account.

Yes, this is what I'm saying. It's unlikely to be a replacement for the majority of average users but can be popular among people like us.

But I agree, it's impressive. My blog uses a lot of modern CSS features (such as nested selectors), and this latest version rendered almost perfectly. Much better than Servo. Still, this small gap is often the difference between a normal browser and a browser that is a pain. Safari has much, much better compatibility, but even then this browser is hated for it's quirks, because even much smaller compatibility gaps are quite noticeable.

The browser might reach 95-97% compatibility eventually. But the last 3-5% gaps are the most stubborn. Many of these 3-5% are not trivial API calls. They might be some subtle legacy quirks, timing/rendering things, etc. There is a lot of poorly written historical code that might be illegal by web standards but browsers are forced to support. Established browsers have decades of patches and regression testing.

The web standards are enormously complex compared to that time. Not sure if today's tooling can compensate this.

I am watching this project with interest.

It's impressive that they're doing such titanic work. However, I'm highly skeptical that they can create a real rival to established browsers. I'm sorry for telling this, but Web standards are simply too complex and huge. Ladybird to Chrome / Firefox is almost like Wine / ReactOS to Windows, that last 3-5% of gap actually differentiates a normal browser from a browser that is a pain for web developers. And it's the most stubborn part to be fixed. Also, keep in mind that it hasn't much market, at least IE had a significant market that forced the developers to support it (with all the hate).

https://waspdev.com/articles/2025-04-07/will-there-be-a-new-...

Yeah, and also not every idiomatic C/C++ code is portable. Hardcoded structure sizes, assumptions about the byte order in integers or assumptions about alignments in certain data structures might cause headaches with porting the code to another CPU. Truly high level languages hide these details.

Me too. The 4K basic was quite limited in other functionalities (in order to fit into the memory). But that floating point module made it very competitive, although also made the execution slower. IMO Monte Davidoff is underappreciated.

I wonder were most of the comments added later? I guess they used pen and paper to write the ASM code and then enter it as machine code.

And the PDF is about 100MB.

The html lists in the articles were not ok, the top bar search input as well. Chrome and FF were rendering fine.