An important life lesson: Some people are assholes all of the time; All people are assholes some of the time. Is it really such a big deal?
Maybe someone was having a bad day. Maybe this is an argument they had with a peer and it triggered a peeve. Whatever.
Tangential, but if I had to rank toxicity, someone going overboard at being a pedant in the easily censored comments under a blog post ranks far below overreacting and clutching pearls to try to pillorize and rile a torch mob, hoping to put them on blast and make them pay for their transgression. The latter is significantly more toxic, and it is what absolutely destroys communities.
I only use Pro for Google as their models were so far behind, but I tried to give Argon a go, and notably it is only available in the chat interface. One brief conversation, with three exchanges, and my quota was exhausted and it restricted me to Flash-lite for the rest of the day. Rather comical stuff.
And it prompts me to upgrade to Ultra for "5x more usage". In contrast I use my Claude Max plan endlessly, on enormous problems, and my 5x max plan sees me almost never hitting double digits on my quota using Opus 5.5. It doesn't compel me to sign up for Google's higher level plans.
I bought an expensive Windows laptop with touch and I go so long without every touching the screen it's always a complete shock when someone touches it -- you know, the screen touchers -- and it registers. And for a brief moment I remember that I bought a touchscreen convertible, and then forget it again.
It's neat I guess, but he finger is a terrible mouse, obstructs the screen, and it's super awkward. It is a spec sheet checkbox like so many things where people do the "But it doesn't have this {must have} so it sucks" bit of nonsense, and Apple fell for it.
Zig's reimplementation of all of the standard libraries even though it's possible to use the existing ones is both baffling to me and kills usage of the implementation in my eyes.
Redoing critical parts such as crypto and compression is crazy in this day and age, hell they even have issues and merge requests open for issues that'd be headliners if found in any major language
Not just that, but on Windows, they're bypassing the actually guaranteed stable Win32 API in favor of linking directly to the lower-level components. Completely destroying any forward compatibility!
It's the kind of change that makes me read Zig as not trying to be a serious language. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the way Zig positions itself is at odds with the completely bizarre takes they do.
If you spend some time working on cross platform code you will quickly realize that that choice is actually the right one. The NT API is actually very close in abstraction to Unix and allows for much less ad hoc code to handle windows specifics than using Win32 API (which is an abomination).
The zig windows NT implementations are very well done and I actually use them as reference when dealing with windows IO.
But the trust as a service (TaaS) platform could decide tomorrow that you are not trustworthy because, I don't know, it matched a pattern in a piece of ransomware which is actually a pattern you can produce by allocating 3 pages of memory in one call. Should you as a language now put compile time guarantees that 3 pages cannot be allocated?
This is obviously a ridiculous example, but what I'm aiming to say is, if a piece of software is matching something as untrustworthy when it's not, you shouldn't chase it down to force the little guy who's maxing good will software to fix it because the big bully thinks they are evil and deserve to get quarantined
Sure. But the heuristic the TaaS world is using isn't something as absurd as "allocates 3 pages", it's "uses undocumented system APIs". We're also not arguing in the abstract that "they might make a stupid determination in the future", they're making this determination now.
I'm not a fan of the the security industry's practices, but I can't say they're making a malicious/stupid choice here.
The idea/hope is perhaps that the Zig programs will be of better quality than other programs, which will make it hard for the other side (the antivirus) to justify its position in a reasonable way. And in the end the other side will be forced to change its processes.
It's a shame really that Microsoft wont officially bless ntdll because it's a much more sensible API generally speaking.
Like why the hell did they throw away the return value and make everyone do the insane BOOL ret = Win32Function(); if(!ret) { DWORD err=GetLastError(); } dance?
Not every function returnds a boolean. It is probably easier to write HANDLE file = CreateFile(...) than to send in a pointer to HANDLE. Also, this is exactly the same as what libc does with syscalls on Linux etc.
This is a bit of a strawman, as almost all AI-related opinion pieces are on here lately.
"The pitch was that AI would give us our time back. Write less boilerplate, delegate the boring parts, go home earlier."
Who pitched this? Where was this argued?
And for what it's worth, our entire industry was pitched as a way for businesses to do more with less. Our raison d'être is that we would automate and enhance parts of business so you no longer need the rooms of analysts, the constant inventory manpower churn, rooms of typists, mailrooms, and on and on and on.
It's a bit rich for us to clutch pearls now. We exist as an industry to put other people out of work, and many of us have made a lot of money doing just that. There is zero surprise that businesses would like to put us out of work if they could.
And even among our industry, many of us spent much of our time trying to reduce the need for other programmers. Doesn't the website builder maker put web developers out of business? Framework vendors are replacing lots of internal code that could keep big teams employed for decades! Microsoft and other big firms are constantly trying to figure out what the many employers of software dev teams are doing...so they can replace them. I mean, we all do that, trying to automate and simplify the need for other teams to exist.
The "pitch" of AI is that it's a new tool that your competitors are going to be using, so you had better get onboard now too, in a classic adapt or die choice. And...this is largely true! You can't argue it away. You can mythologize a never existed history where software used to be perfect in the pre-AI era. You can't moralize about slop or pretend it's all a mirage. It's all just foolish rhetoric that groups all cluck and upvote to make each other feel good, while the rest of the world moves on.
I mean...who cares? It's actually kind of strange that your comment got others talking about AI naming things.
SQL Slammer didn't actually slam anything, and applied to a single vendor among many SQL providers. Heartbleed didn't make anyone's heart bleed...I mean, at least directly. Shellshock only impacted a single shell environment, again among many. Log4Shell impacted a single logging implementation, among many. Spectre and Meltdown...I mean, who would think that related to CPU cache side channels?
These are just dumb names for people to share in referring to something. Seems silly and like a waste of time to spend effort getting upset about them.
They weren't getting money from nvidia, and really why should they? nvidia provides very expensive hardware on which I can access my own steam library, etc.
The world of IP isn't just about selling someone something, it's about reselling the same person that thing many times over. So now I have my VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, digital streaming, 4K digital streaming, 4K digital streaming HD collectors edition, etc. variants.
And of course if there are multiple cloud gaming providers, they see it as an opportunity to extort each of them.
When GFN first came out it had all of the Civilization games -- and it worked great -- but then as other cloud gaming options appeared 2K pulled the whole catalog, presumably with hand out. When Civ VII came out they suddenly allowed it all again, not only to rekindle interest in the series and presumably because some people were only going to buy the game if they could play it on the platform.
Musk also said production was starting on the Roadster in 2020. It turns out that things Musk says don't mean much.
And it can still be a distraction. The fact that they went through all this effort for a fantastically unreasonable thing just to wow for a company that is off the rails is...pretty telling. Have you never worked with someone who is late for everything, always overpromising and underdelivering, and as it becomes more apparently their promises get more exaggerated and unreasonable? That's Musk. Like "look you can play games on your screen", which absolutely no one asked for in a car, and for which it does much shittier than a $200 pad.
For that matter it's Trump too, and they're both cut from the same cloth -- don't like the dumb arch? Well now it has snipers and drones! And also it will eliminate the debt, deficit, income taxes, and...
So instead of just starting production of a vehicle 8 years behind schedule, look, new distraction! Amazeballs! Don't worry coming real soon now. Just put in those deposits!
I mean, the one part of this story that is unclear and no one seems to be asking hard questions is the compressor status -- there are vague, handwavy (oh we'll build a compressor claims, but I have huge doubts). A 5000 psi to 10000 psi compressor in the real world today is enormous. It's industrial equipment that generates enormous amounts of heat, is hilariously loud, and takes enormous power. While I am 100% certain this dog and pony show had their tanks filled by external massive compressors out of sight, I am pretty skeptical Tesla has any magic innovation in that field.
It can hardly be a "new distraction" when it was evidently planned and announced in 2018.
I also find it unconvincing that the purpose of the stunt is to receive deposits.
This being a prestige project to show off Tesla's advantage in experimental technology, or a personal pet project, would seem a much more likely explanation. Do we really need to bend everything into a malicious scam?
When it's by a repeat scammer, yes. Like, good god.
Hey remember when all of the Tesla factories were being retooled to make robots, and the hilarious robot demo where some remote controlled junk was pitched as next gen? Also SpaceX would be to Mars by 2021, and would have landed a crew there in 2023. Totes!
Musk is Elizabeth Holmes who lucked into buying a growing business. Like, he 100% does exactly what Theranos did, and which she is sitting in jail for, trying to boost the stock on bullshit and lies.
"prestige project to show off Tesla's advantage"
Advantage? The entire engineering world is going "why?", for a wide range of reasons.
Not unlike the CyberJunk nonsense where he needed to boast that it can stop bullets and double as a boat (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/cybertruck-texas-wade-mo...) and is made out of impractical materials. That massive, colossal flop didn't show any "advantage", it showed that a toddler was running the show, and when people just want cars he's off desperately trying to regain his Iron man allure, now that he's just a vile, garbage human being.
They shut down model x and s production to retool those Fremont lines for Optimus robots. They actually are making them btw. They’re using them in their own factories currently just like they used the Tesla semi for like two years for their own freight before selling them to the public.
> They shut down model x and s production to retool those Fremont lines for Optimus robots.
Another narrative that also fits the facts is that demand for their cars is so bad that they had to idle the X and S lines at that factory and they used Optimus as an excuse.
If demand was booming they'd set up a new facility to manufacture Optimus rather than dismantling a car factory
They’ve wanted to shut down the s and x lines since the y and 3 were first being manufactured at scale. His timelines are always wrong but Elon has said this for years.
> Do we really need to bend everything into a malicious scam?
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 10 times, shame on me
Wild people are still falling for Musk's fake products. I guess what they say is true, there is a sucker born every minute despite the evidence of the last twenty years. This will never ship.
"Software rendering went out of the window because the CPU tends to have other things to do besides just multiply 4x4 matrices, which was shifted to the shader cores of GPUs."
Hardware rendering took over because generating a 3D scene is embarrassingly parallel, and the industry quickly learned that you can have thousands of reasonably simple "cores" that can divide and conquer a scene in parallel. There was a no way a general purpose CPU could keep up.
Not so quickly. The shader cores were a breakthrough from early 2000s. First consumer GPUs were built as same as the 1980s GPUs but everything had been integrated in a single chip.
It is the sheer amount of compute and memory bandwidth that mogs a CPU but the parallel processing doesn't help much, at least in realistic 3D: an 8 core AVX-512 march CPU has an order of magnitude more SIMD lanes than something like RSX in PS3 yet it still wouldn't be able to match its performance in rendering textured z-buffered triangles. 3D graphics can really go wide only on wireframe/points, z-buffer forces sequencing between polys so the parallelism there is very limited.
Parallel processing was fully in force in the very first GPUs, like the Voodoo. Not like a modern GPU with thousands of more flexible shader cores, but the first iteration had a pipeline architecture that saw multiple blocks operating on rendering separate parts of the pipeline in parallel. This was revolutionary. Especially given that CPUs at the time had a single core.
I'm not sure what the PS3 comparison is for, or why we're comparing a 2026 AVX-512 CPU with a 2006 gaming console. Okay? A modern GPU can obliterate any CPU in SIMD, presuming you conform with the types it wants. Add that it's weird to bring up as AVX and other SIMD techniques are basically the same sort of architecture, parallelizing a problem.
> 3D graphics can really go wide only on wireframe/points, z-buffer forces sequencing between polys so the parallelism there is very limited.
Rendering a 3D is scene is the very definition of embarrassingly parallel. While optimizers can cull the scene, you know that the entire depth within the frustum (there are a variety of optimizing techniques to minimize the overdraw, but it's a part of rendering a scene) is "rendered" and in amalgamation the Z-buffer values are compared and discarded, blended, or whatever? It is an extraordinarily parallel operation.
We've asked you repeatedly to stop breaking the site guidelines, and you've continued to do it repeatedly. If you keep doing this, we will end up banning you.
I feel like some people confront their internal dissonance on AI by constructing a fantasy past that never, ever existed.
Zero programmers have ever "vouched" for their work. Everything has bugs and faults and rough edges. Everyone is building stuff that in the end is overwhelmingly code that they didn't write and have never looked at (I mean...do you think that Python script you wrote is "your" code? 99.999% of the runtime is in code you have never looked at).
The "literal crime" just puts the hysterics of this to the next level.
People don't charge for this stuff because in the supply/demand equation, there is basically infinite supply to create fun little things in just a few prompts. Infinite supply means that the ability to charge disappears. This isn't super hard to understand.
And FWIW, infinite supply applies to more and more of the market. I mean, I'm sure people have seen the guy who cloned Photoshop via vibe coding. Again the dissonance there is amazing where people need to believe it's terrible, but as someone who used Photoshop for decades...it's astonishingly good given everything, and iterating rapidly. Similarly, charging to build websites and the like...well, a lot of the market has seen the pricing floor disappear.
Maybe someone was having a bad day. Maybe this is an argument they had with a peer and it triggered a peeve. Whatever.
Tangential, but if I had to rank toxicity, someone going overboard at being a pedant in the easily censored comments under a blog post ranks far below overreacting and clutching pearls to try to pillorize and rile a torch mob, hoping to put them on blast and make them pay for their transgression. The latter is significantly more toxic, and it is what absolutely destroys communities.
reply