I think you should spend more time reading what people who oppose AI think about what AI is capable of doing. Many people still don't understand that it can search the web.
Have more than 10px touch targets for voting. Don't make the ability to see downvoted comments dependent on user's eyesight and monitor. Order elements reasonably for screen readers (e.g. thread title first, actions after it). Add an ability to collapse subthread without having to return to the root comment (for its [-]).
I think HN is peak design. Everything is condensed, there's no wasted space, it's like a good old website from a bygone era. It's just a bit annoying on mobile, but that's it.
One reason IRV is popular is that it has extensive use in other countries (Australia, Ireland). It's not revolutionary but it's an improvement and nothing terrible has happened.
STAR has been used approximately nowhere. STAR is also one of the few seriously advocated-for voting methods in which it's possible for the first choice of a majority to lose, although that isn't likely to happen in practice.
IRV is not used in Ireland except for president, a role so procedurally minor that there is an alternative used when the president is unavailable (it seems to have evolved into what could be called an artistic role). Almost all elections are multimember (3-5 member districts); the voting is done the same way but most of the issues with IRV don't apply to the multimember version or are much less severe. In Ireland, the proprotionally elected body decides the single person roles, including things like auditor or mayor.
I don't want syntax conveniences, I want fewer footguns. C has so many ways to trip you up that aren't inherent to its domain. Are any of these new languages better in that regard?
Somewhat, in terms of macro munging vs actual templates and other conveniences yes, however its still very possible to have unsafe memory operations and to accidentally create unexpected behavior. They have their own footguns in some ways, for example Jai's use of arenas can be tricky in more complex programs (e.g. you stored a value with a reference or array, the arena expired). Great for games, bad for most normal code.
Hence why I say, if you are doing complex / multi-threaded code, good luck to you.
This is why the GC and memory safe languages have mostly taken over. They have even more ergonomic syntax, and none of the footguns. You can still do all the normal pointer casting / abuse type stuff in most of these languages too.
it is true you dont want to trip you up by the language you use, but look what people actually use the languages, not by theory.
almost nobody writes the high performant code directly, usually they just call some libraries that do the job instead. if you are the library writers, then sure, that's a different matter (but people have been doing it forever using c/c++), but for people who use the libraries to write the code, they don't care about any of that.
many people rather pick python, lua, ruby to write applications, even games, despite the low performance of the scripting language, but they don't care. and if it is only the scripting aspect of the whole framework (implemented in C++) then the speed lost is even less.
heck, even for rust, the core libraries always need unsafe blocks, despite they do not recommend user code to use them. it is the same story everywhere. the hard part will be write by more experienced people (and with more effort), the typical users just write domain logic instead.
so, for most people, they indeed need simpler languages with lot of syntactic sugars for better developing experiences.
So what? Even if most people don't need to write low-ish level code, the fact remains that there are also many people who do (notably for this discussion, game devs). Should a language not exist to make their lives better just because it's not relevant to people doing a web service?
It's probably possible to prompt an LLM into writing well, but most LLM writing that I've seen is poorly structured (e.g., the paragraphs in this post feel like strings of punchy marketing phrases), and the LLMs are too good at sounding like they're saying a lot while saying very little.
Plus, if a human puts the effort into writing something, that signals to me that it's worth something, because human time is much more scarce than LLM time.
Sadly these memories are accessed thru a constant in the load/store instructions, and Goose would need this to be dynamic (since you can have code that processes pointers coming from multiple different stacks).
What is the value of revealing anything at this time point, when no patch is out? What use is it for the public?
Just last Black hat there was a "glimpse disclosure" that was later followed with proper fixes and details. I gave my AI agent the details that were supposed to be "useless", before the patch was out, and it found the vulnerability in less than an hour.
We shouldn't even enter this game. And with the track record of this specific group, I didn't exactly get the impression that their incentive is to help fix things, but rather to promote their brand while others be damned.
It can be an ethical stance based on facts, rather than religious-like. AI has no shortage of ethical issues that could stop someone from using it.
Comparing these people to religious or MAGA types - who believe in things that are false or at least unprovable - is farcical.
reply