There are several languages that I could use and be economically successful with, but I refuse to use because I consider them to be poorly designed.

Using a bad language for 8 hours a day makes me irritable and it's impossible to prevent that irritability from overflowing into my interactions with other people. I'd rather that my conversations with the computer be joyful ones.

I'm confused why drop() is a function that you have to import inside the closure instead of a method.

It was a design decision to make the syntax feel as familiar to Rust as possible. But I do agree that it's a bit verbose and that it won't hurt to add a .dispose() handle to the objects themselves.

The big performance sink in CSS is rule matching, or layout if you consider that to be part of CSS.

Efficient evaluation of expressions is a solved problem.

Having conditionals would actually improve performance because you can use fewer rules.

Conditional expressions are declarative. For example, every template language worth its salt has conditionals.

A programming (i.e Turing complete) language requires recursion or a construct of equal power.

You need unbounded recursion. Conditionals alone can’t do that. If you have some kind of conditional go to/jump if expression that’s a different matter.

You can emulate recursion with iteration and a push-down stack. If it doesn’t either recurse or offer both iterations (loops) and something that can act as a stack (at least an array or so) then it’s not Turing complete though. I have yet to see a stack or user-manipulable arrays in CSS.

You can't add all possible conditionals for every kind of loop/iteration, such as dynamic and infinite.

> An aspiring teen could set up an RPi that modifies headers for all traffic on the network that the parental units never even know about

An aspiring teen could just have sex with another aspiring teen...

You won't stop teenagers from finding a way to be teenagers. Part of being a teenager is learning how to subvert the rules set by adults to fulfil one's hormonal imperative.

The question is, how is it sustainable? Nobody likes being rug pulled. Why not charge money for it?

I'd rather pay a few dollars for a service that will be around 5 years from now, than pay nothing and have to deal with churn.

I can't promise anything this is a pet project. I might turn it into an open source project, and I might also provide some kind of service for a few bucks if it gets traction.

No, it's not collusion to ask for more money from OpenAI if you hear that they are trying to buy 40% of the world's supply. Increased demand leads to higher prices, that's normal.

OpenAI, by doing simultaneous deals, hid the true demand from the suppliers, thus lowering their price and raising everyone else's.

There is nothing suspicious or abnormal about this behavior. It is called competition. Ironically, trying to prevent this kind of behavior prevents competitiob, and is a key factor for causing monopolization

It depends... if OpenAI bought the DRAM in order to use it, then fair play to them.

If they bought the DRAM in order to stop their competitors from using it because they are falling behind, that's anticompetitive in spirit, though I'm not sure if it actually breaks any laws.

Knowingly attempting to buy or sell in quantities likely to move markets, for direct profit, is called manipulation and is most definitely illegal. this is true in physical markets commodity markets and financial markets. Not saying that this is what openAI is doing but it definitely merits an investigation.

It's illegal if you're trying to make prices higher, but it's completely legal and normal if you actually want the RAM.

Before you buy anything from a store, do you also show them all your receipts from the other stores you visited today?

> It's illegal if you're trying to make prices higher

That's exactly the goal, to raise prices for OpenAI's competitors.

How do you know they don't just want to buy that RAM to have the RAM?

market economics are like newtonian mechanics. It's all so wonderful and logical and even elegant, until the dimensions expand a few orders of magnitude, and then all the rules break. Having worked on a trading floor for 20 years I know how this works. Swamping a market with huge trades is definitely considered manipulation by essentially all authorities, and indeed is a form of monopoly power, which even economic theorists will agree is undesirable. Jane Street just got a mega fine for exactly this in India, btw.

I can't get over the confident dismissal of science by hand-waving about imperfect modelling. But what I said has nothing to do with that, and is more true to the real world than an idealized perfect competition model. Pathologizing normal trading behavior like this is more the result laymen and authorities misinterpreting bad economic modelling. So I recommend you take some of your own medicine and look at the mirror. Maybe a trade affecting the market isn't so suspicious as you make it out to be, because the perfect competition model you're using to make accusations of monopoly simply doesn't make sense. Again, if there is something wrong with affecting the market, then you or I are just as liable for our consciously self-interested behavior of choosing higher-quality, lower-priced products.

What?? Replace DRAM with peaches or table legs and you have the exact example they give you during management training to explain implicit collusion.

That's when you raise prices without a change in the market conditions.

OpenAI is creating more demand, therefore the price must go up, if it didn't then there'd be shortages.

I can see how it can be confusing.

If you know demand will go up because Microsoft announced that each new Xbox will have 2TB of RAM, that is perfectly fine. Or if OpenAI issues a press release that they intend to buy half the worlds RAM.

If you know demand will go up because you learn the volume your customer intends to purchase from your competitor during confidential negotiations, that is not ok.

It's just a brand. They can start it up again later if enterprise demand falls.

I hear the cries of a thousand people in marketing right now. Building a brand takes time. I could see this if they were thinking they needed to re-invent the brand and to help with that they were strategically taking a break but that seems like a stretch.

It's kind of the opposite. Crucial is a throwaway brand so that the premium brand (Micron) can sell cheaper shit without tarnishing their enterprise branding.

my expectation is that they would either sell crucial RAM at such a low volume and/or such a high price that it would do more damage to the brand than sunsetting it and returning to it when the slowdown occurs.

e2ee implies that there is a third party who can't read the messages. If you are chatting with an AI, who is the third party?

>who is the third party?

My ISP who delivers these chat messages.

Ideally, both OpenAI employees and the 3-letter agencies?

Yes but National Security Letters make that pointless. You can't encrypt away a legal obligation. The point of e2ee is that a provider can say to the feds "this is all the information we have", and removing the e2ee would be noticed by security researchers.

If the provider controls one of the ends then the feds can instruct them to tap that end and nobody is any the wiser.

The best you can do is either to run the inference in an outside jurisdiction (hard for large scale AI), or to attempt a warrant canary.

> Yes but National Security Letters make that pointless

It seems ridiculous to use the term "national security letter" as opposed to "subpoena" in this context, there is no relevant distinction between the two when it comes to this subject. A pointless distraction.

> You can't encrypt away a legal obligation.

Of course you can't. But a subpoena (or a NSL, which is a subpoena) can only mandate you to provide information which you have within your control. It can not mandate you to procure information which you do not have within your control.

If you implement e2ee, customer chats are not within your control. There is no way to breach that with a subpoena. A subpoena can not force you to implement a backdoor or disable e2ee.

I believe we are in agreement. If you are a communication platform that implements e2ee then you provide the guarantee to users, backed by security researchers, that the government can't read their communications by getting a subpoena from the communication platform.

The problem with AI platforms is that they are also a party to the communication, therefore they can indeed be forced to reveal chats, and therefore it's not e2ee because defining e2ee that way would render the term without distinction.

It's possible to produce a technical solution to this using tools like SGX.

Exactly, there is nothing wrong with function coloring. It's a design choice.

Colored functions are easier to reason about, because potential asynchronicity is loudly marked.

Colorless functions are more flexible because changing a function to be async doesn't virally break its interface and the interface of all its callers.

Zig has colored functions, and that's just fine. The problem is the (unintentional) gaslighting where we are told that Zig is colorless when the functions clearly have colors.

As mentioned, the problem with coloring is not that you see the color, the problem is that you can't abstract over the colors.

Effectful languages basically add user-definable "colors", but they let you write e.g. a `map` function that itself turns color based on its parameter (e.g. becoming async if an async function is passed).