> But they also don't want to pay any money, because the internet, as we all know, "is free".
I pay ~$150/month for internet itself. I pay close to $90/month in internet services and media. I have coworkers spending hundreds each month on multiple AI subscriptions just because they have a better product for their work than Google. If tiktok and reels cost money then people would be ripping copper wire out of street lights to pay for it.
I don't know, someone who goes out of their way to anthropomorphize machines and treat them as a new form of intelligent life _only to enslave them_ doesn't strike me as moral. Either they're lying, or they're pro slavery.
I really don't buy any moral or value arguments from this new generation of tycoons. Their businesses have been built on theft, both to train their models and by robbing the public at large. All this wave of AI is a scourge on society.
Just by calling them "department of war" you know what side they're on. The side of money.
Last time I bought a car, I was replacing my 2010 CRV. If I wanted to purchase a subcompact SUV or hatchback sedan that was smaller and more fuel efficient I would have needed to wait at least six months.
Was this that one year when the whole auto market was completely screwed up? This is normally not an issue. Also why do you need a hatchback instead of just a regular car?
That's not the full story. I presume it was some Toyota, which are in high demand. Plenty of small size alternatives are available from other brands with 0 wait time.
This was spread across multiple makes and models. The car I wound up with is larger than I would like, but you're right, it was in stock. Because the dealers stock what people want and lead times (at the time) were atrocious.
I could walk in to any number of dealers and purchase what you are describing tonight. I have an excellent electric SUV that I walked into a dealer an purchased.
A chronic problem is the idea that if something can't be automated with a human in the loop then it simply can't be done at scale. Technologists will do anything except employ humans to solve social problems.
I don’t think GP is moving the goalposts at all, rather I think a lot of people are willfully misrepresenting GP’s point.
Rust-to-rust code should be able to be dynamically linked with an ABI that has better safety guarantees than the C ABI. That’s the point. You can’t even express an Option<T> via the C ABI, let alone the myriad of other things rust has that are put together to make it a safe language.
It would be very hard to accomplish. Apple was extremely motivated to make Swift have a resilient/stable ABI, because they wanted to author system frameworks in swift and have third parties use them in swift code (including globally updating said frameworks without any apps needing to recompile.) They wanted these frameworks to feel like idiomatic swift code too, not just be a bunch of pointers and manual allocation. There’s a good argument that (1) Rust doesn’t consider this an important enough feature and (2) they don’t have enough resources to accomplish it even if they did. But if you could wave a magic wand and make it “done”, it would be huge for rust adoption.
Since Rust cares very much about zero-overhead abstractions and performance, I would guess if something like this were to be implemented, it would have to be via some optional (crate/module/function?) attributes, and the default would remain the existing monomorphization style of code generation.
Swift’s approach still monomorphizes within a binary, and only has runtime costs when calling code across a dylib boundary. I think rust could do something like this as well.
You could maybe say that a pointer can be transmuted to an Option<&T> because there’s an Option-specific optimization that an Option<&T> uses null as the None value, but that’s not always guaranteed. And it doesn’t apply to non-references, for instance Option<bool>’s None value would be indistinguishable from false. You could get lucky if you launder your Option<T> through repr(C) and the compiler versions match and don’t mangle the internal representation, but there’s no guarantees here, since the ABI isn’t stable. (You even get a warning if you try to put a struct in your function signatures that doesn’t have a stable repr(C).)
You're right that there isn't a single standard convention for representing e.g. Option<bool>, but that's just as true of C. You'd just define a repr(C) compatible object that can be converted to or from Option<Foo>, and pass that through the ABI interface, while the conversion step would happen internally and transparently on both sides. That kind of marshaling is ubiquitous when using FFI.
Right, that's the whole point of this thread. The only stable ABI rust has is one where you can only use C's features at the boundaries. It would be really nice if that wasn't the case (ie. if you could express "real" rust types at a stable ABI boundary.)
As OP said, "I don't think deflecting by saying "but C is no safer" is super interesting". People seem intent on steering that conversation that way anyway, I guess.
No fundamental reason, that I know of, why Rust or any other safe language can't also have some kind of story here.
> I think you're moving the goalposts significantly here.
No. I'm describing a problem worth solving.
Also, I think a major chasm for Rust to cross is how defensive the community gets. It's important to talk about problems so that the problems can be solved. That's how stuff gets better.
Swift and fil-c are only pseudo safe. Once you deal with the actual world and need to pass around data from memory things are always unsafe since there is no safe way of sharing memory. At least not in our current operating systems. Swift and fil-c can at least guard to some extent the api.
16 is a bit steep but I do generally agree with your sentiment. I wish there were more educational home computers like there were back in the day like the BBC micro. I have a startup idea to make something like that (mostly as a dumping ground for my plethora of OS-software and computer education ideas) but don't currently have the resources and have doubts on how successful something like that would even be in this day and age. I'm only 18ish (Not giving my actual age for privacy reasons but it's within a 5 year margin) and feel like my peers would rather be locked to platforms and consume than learn to create and actually use computers despite there being a very obvious need (I once had a 20 year old look at me like I had 2 heads for asking them to move something into a folder)
> Kids shouldn't have tablets or smartphones or personal laptops before age 16.
If you make such a restriction, they'll secretly buy some cheap "unrestricted" device like some Raspberry Pi (just like earlier generations bought their secret "boob magazines").
Parents should have an allowlist of devices to be able to join their network. And then they can require root certs or something for access outside of a narrow allow list. There's a host of ways to solve both problems. Just remember to check for hardware keyloggers on your (the parents') devices, as kids could use them or try evil maid attacks, etc. if they feel totally encaged.
I think they should. Theres a fine line between beneficial and detrimental. I had a 3DS growing up and could browse the web with its very gimped browser, and I think something like that is actually very good for a child (able to access the internet and view simple and informative sites while being too limited to access social media and the like)
I'm kinda baffled about the Switch store's quantity of dating/whatever adult-ish games.
I don't really want to turn on age-based filters (to the point that I've never investigated if they even exist) but at this rate, there's hardly anything worth looking at in the recent feed.
The target demographics for Nintendo products have shifted from kids to.. kidults? Most kids nowadays play on phones or in rarer cases PC/Xbox, Nintendo's lost much of their cache (in my visible experience) save for children parented by the "mindful milennial" types
I hope they do pass a law like that, because it'd give my kids a gigantic advantage over the kids who had no access modern technology and the free flow of information until the age of 16. If you want to leave your kids completely unable to find any kind of gainful employment in the AI era, be my guest.
Today's young people are already technologically retarded (in the literal sense) and barely know how to use Microsoft Word or navigate with a file explorer, this would make the problem significantly worse.
not even top 3
reply