QuantumNoodle's comments

What's the realistic outcome here? The gov cannot label them as a supply-chain risk but still free to cancel contracts with Anthropic? Or do gov agencies has autonomy to use whoever they want?

Internally, we've created such good debugging tools that can aggregate a lot from a lot of sources. We've yet to address the quality of vibecoded critical applications so they aren't merged, but one off tools for incall,alert debugging and internal workflows has skyrocketed.

Excellent source! Thank you.

Looks like more flights in 2025 than previous years and less accidents. 2025 does have more fatalities, which are more memorable than emergency landings where everything was alright. So that is likely what skewed my view.

This is purely anecdotal. Some search queries about incidents I remember

- Jan 2025 mid air collision with helicopter near Reagan National, Washington, D.C.

- April 2025 China Eastern Airlines Flight runway overrun at Chongqing Jiangbei

- June 2025 Air India crashed after departure from Ahmedabad

- August 2025 incident at London Stansted where a DHL A330 landed long and struck the runway end

- September 2025 Tokyo Haneda: Inflight engine fire

There was one where the plane ended up on side or back. But I don't remember enough details to find the event

Either the number of big airline incidents around the world grew in the last 24 months or reporting on it became more popular. I wonder how much people get hurt relative to number that fly now.

I'm just lurking in the comments with popcorn, but if what you said is true and the maintainers of X decided it was a lost cause and unfixable, well that is the most informed opinion of them all. Nobody knows better then the maintainers. Sure, the replacement might have feature gaps initially but that is a transient issue.

I studied signal processing in university and my career evolved to not use what I studied. Decades ago, giving an algorithm a sound file and isolating tracks was difficult.

How does your implementation accomplish this? Were you involved or did you use something off the shelf?

Edit: ah, using neural nets, demucs. I wonder if there is pure math approach that can compete?

Input: poop

Output: Optimizing internal output to drive personal growth and streamline biological efficiency. #WellnessJourney #Efficiency #BioHacking

Still no idea how a polymarket is legal with all the insider trading opportunities.

I ran a TrueNAS server that was based on BSD, loved jails. Then TrueNAS started using debian so more application can run on it. Selfishly I like getting more utility from my server so this was a welcomed change. What industry is BSD used in now a days?

Software eng has always been automating repetitive decision making and processes. Code is just a series of steps computers/systems follow deterministically. Now we are automating the automation.

I don't necessarily disagree with your advice, but goodness, I don't look forward to using any of the low quality software in the next decade. I hope the shareholders remain happy.

The output the agent creates falls into one of these categories:

1. Correct, maintainable changes 2. Correct, not maintable changes 3. Correct diff, maintains expected system interaction 4. Correct diff, breaks system interaction.

In no way are they consistent or deterministic but _always_ convincing they are correct.

> you need to embed your best practices in your agent and keep and eye on it and refine it over time.

Sincere question, how do beginners to the field (interns, juniors) do this when they don't have any best practices yet?

"kids" these days don't know what a file is. Seriously, ask anyone you know that is a college professor (in the states).

Cloudflare has been trying to mediate publishers & AI companies. If publishers are behind Cloudflare and Cloudflare's bot detection stops scrapers at the request of publishers, the publishers can allow their data to be scraped (via this end point) for a price. It creates market scarcity. I don't believe the target audience is you and me. Unless you own a very popular blog that AI companies would pay you for.

Sorry I don't understand. The result we all want is at compile-time ensuring some behavior cannot happen during runtime. OP argues we need for features built into the language, I am trying to understand what behavior we cannot achieve with the current primatives. So far the only compelling argument is embedded applications have different requirements (that I personally cannot speak to) that separate their use case from, say, deploying to a server for your SaaS company. No doubt there are more, I am trying to discover them.

I am biased to think more features negatively impact how humans can reason about code, leading to more business logic errors. I want to understand, can we make the compiler understand our code differently without additional features, by weidling mastery of the existing primatives? I very well may be wrong in my bias. But human enginuity and creativity is not to be understated. But neither should lazyness. Users will default to "out of box" solutions over building with language primatives. Adding more and more features will dilute our mastery of the fundamentals.

Ah, the embedded application. Very valid point. I'm guilty of forgetting about that discipline.

I do wonder if it is possible to bin certain features to certain, uh, distributions(?), of rust? I'm having trouble articulating what I mean but in essence so users do not get tempted to use all these bells and whistles when they are aimed at a certain domain or application? Or are such language features beneficial for all applications?

For example, sim cards are mini computers that actually implement the JVM and you can write java and run it on sim cards (!). But there is a subset of java that is allowed and not all features are available. In this case it is due to compute/resource restrictions, but something to a similar tune for rust, is that possible?

I have no argument against using the right tool for a job. Decorating a function with a keyword to have more compile-time guarantees does sound great, but I bet it comes with strings attached that affect how it can be used which will lead to strange business logic. Anecdotally, I have not (perhaps yet) run into a situation where I needed more language features, I felt rust had enough primatives that I could adapt the current feature set to my needs. Yes, at times I had to scrap what I was working on to rewrite it another way so I can have compile-time guarantees. Yes, here language features offer speed in implementing.

Could you share a situation where the behavior is necessary? I am curious if I could work around it with the current feature set.

Perhaps I take issue with peers that throw bleeding edge features in situations that don't warrant them. Last old-man anecdote: as a hobbyist woodworker it pains me to see people buying expensive tools to accomplish something. They almost lack creativity to use their current tools they have. "If I had xyz tool I would build something so magnificent" they say. This amounts to having many, low-quality single-purpose built tools where a single high-quality table saw could fit the need. FYI, a table-saw could suit 90% of your cutting/shaping needs with a right jig. I don't want this to happen in rust.

I write production Rust code that becomes critical infra for our customers. I got tired of nil checks in Go and became a squeaky wheel in incident retros, where I finally got the chance to rewrite parts of our system in Rust during a refactor.

I admit the skill issue on my part, but I genuinely struggled to follow the concepts in this article. Working alongside peers who push Rust's bleeding edge, I dread reviewing their code and especially inheriting "legacy" implementations. It's like having a conversation with someone who expresses simple thoughts with ornate vocabulary. Reasoning about code written this way makes me experience profound fatigue and possess an overwhelming desire to return to my domicile; Or simply put, I get tired and want to go home.

Rust's safety guardrails are valuable until the language becomes so complex that reading and reasoning about _business_ logic gets harder, not easier. It reminds me of the kid in "A Christmas Story" bundled so heavily in winter gear he cant put his arms down[0]. At some point, over-engineered safety becomes its own kind of risk even though it is technically safer in some regards. Sometimes you need to just implement a dang state machine and stop throwing complexity at poorly thought-through solutions. End old-man rant.

[0]: https://youtu.be/PKxsOlzuH0k?si=-88dxtyegTxIvOYI

> ... but is not like the companies asked for it.

This doesn't justify them double dipping. Raising prices on consumers to cover tarrif costs and then getting refunded for tarrif costs isn't ethical no matter who caused the tariffs.

Consumers didn't ask for this either, so are we going to see year-long sales from companies?