Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Calavar's commentslogin

I don't think any oil execs are interested in this, just like they weren't interested in investing in Venezuela after Maduro's ouster (at least if you believe the Financial Times).

Rather these invasions appear to be the pet projects of neo-imperialist advisors in the government who see national growth as a zero sum game, a Starcraft-esque race for a finite set of resources where powerful countries can generate wealth only by using their power to steal from others. In Steven Miller's own words: "[The world] is governed by force, [is] governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time."


I think it's even simpler than that. Trump wants accolades next to his name - one of the few presidents to have won the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the few presidents that added land to the US.

Instead he will soon be remembered as the worst US president ever - even after his first term he was already third-worst in most rankings and his second term is orders of magnitude worse.

He will be remembered as the president that destroyed the constitution, destroyed America's formidable power projection, the president that destroyed 60 year long alliances, the president that was unimaginably corrupt. I just hope that American school books will also contain the verdict.


> Lax is completely open source and uses the MIT license.

I see that there is an MIT license file in the repo, but the readme in the repo still says there is no license and redistribution in source or binary form is explicitly forbidden. This is a discrepancy that should probably be addressed


The problem with README.md was caused by our moderator, we have already fixed README.md

Danluu has a great piece on why Ballmer was better than people gave him credit for: https://danluu.com/ballmer/

The linked reddit post appears to be about Australia

There are multiple Python 3 interpreters written in JavaScript that were very likely included in the training data. For example [1] [2] [3]

I once gave Claude (Opus 3.5) a problem that I thought was for sure too difficult for an LLM, and much to my surprise it spat out a very convincing solution. The surprising part was I was already familiar with the solution - because it was almost a direct copy/paste (uncredited) from a blog post that I read only a few hours earlier. If I hadn't read that blog post, I would have been none the wiser that copy/pasting Claude's output would be potential IP theft. I would have to imagine that LLMs solve a lot of in-training-set problems this way and people never realize they are dealing with a copyright/licensing minefield.

A more interesting and convincing task would be to write a Python 3 interpeter in JavaScript that uses register based bytecode instead of stack based, supports optimizing the bytecode by inlining procedures and constant folding, and never allocates memory (all work is done in a single user provided preallocated buffer). This would require integrating multiple disparate coding concepts and not regurgitating prior art from the training data

[1] https://github.com/skulpt/skulpt

[2] https://github.com/brython-dev/brython

[3] https://github.com/yzyzsun/PyJS


> If a valid alternative is to halt normal operations and present an alert box to the user saying "internal error 573 occurred. please restart the app", then that is much preferred IMO.

You can do this in your panic or terminate handler. It's functionally the same error handling strategy, just with a different veneer painted over the top.


Paul Graham said the same thing about Python 20 years ago [1], and back then it was true. But once a programming langauge hits mainstream, this ceases to be a good filter.

[1] https://paulgraham.com/pypar.html


This is important. The benefit here isn't the language itself. It's the fact that you're pulling from an esoteric language. People should not overfit and feel that whichever language is achieving that effect today is special in this regard.


That was bullshit then and it's bullshit now but it sells very well to people who know a few programming languages (a lot of the people on this site)


He was right. Python programmers are still the most likely to prioritize getting things done quickly.


This is a pretty broad generalization!

The fastest iterating people engineers I’ve worked with often have a deep user focus rather than a language affiliation.


Eh.

I think the cultural context has changed.

In "python paradox", 'knows python' is an indication that the developer is interested in something technically interesting but otherwise impractical. Hence, it's a 'paradox' that you end up practically better off by selecting for something impractical.

These days, Python is surely a practical choice, so doesn't really resemble the "interested in something technically interesting but impractical".


You're not the only one who feels that way, but IMHO it's not a valid complaint.

The C++ standard says implementation defined because the weeds get very thick very quickly:

- Are paths formed with forward slash or backslash?

- Case sensitive?

- NT style drive letter or Posix style mounts?

- For relative paths, what is it relative to? When there are multiple matches, what is the algorithm to determine priority?

- What about symlinks and hard links?

- Are http and ftp URIs supported (e.g. an online IDE like godbolt). If so, which versions of those protocols? TLS 1.3+ only? Are you going to accept SHA-1?

- Should the file read be transactional?

People already complain that the C++ standard is overly complicated. So instead of adding even more complexity by redefining the OS semantics of your build platform in a language spec, they use "implementation defined" as a shorthand for "your compiler will call fopen" plus some implementation wiggle room like command line options for specifying search paths and the strategy for long paths on Windows

What if #embed steals my credit card data is a pointless strawman. If a malicious compiler dev wanted to steal your credit card data, they'd just inject the malicious code; not act like a genie, searching the C++ spec with a fine comb for a place where they could execute malicious code while still *technically* being standards conformant. You know that, I know that, we all know that. So why are we wasting words discussing it?


The real reason why this stuff in underspecified in the spec is that some mainframe operating systems don't have file systems in the common modern sense, but support C++. Those vendors push back a lot against narroed definitions as far as I know.


Including files also opens up some potential security issues that the standards committee just didn't want to prescribe solutions to. Compiler explorer hides easter eggs around the virtual filesystem, for example:

https://godbolt.org/z/KcqTM5bTr


"inline" was always just a hint


Quite to the contrary, I'd say this update is evidence of the inner loop being hyperoptimized!

MSVC's support for musttail is hot off the press:

> The [[msvc::musttail]] attribute, introduced in MSVC Build Tools version 14.50, is an experimental x64-only Microsoft-specific attribute that enforces tail-call optimization. [1]

MSVC Build Tools version 14.50 was released last month, and it only took a few weeks for the CPython crew to turn that around into a performance improvement.

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/attributes?view=ms...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: