The C++ takedown video was amazing, this video seems like it was made by a person who couldn’t gather their thoughts and just goes off on tangents. Is there a problem with the rust memory model? Is borrowing theoretically incorrect? What actually is the purported problem? I guess we won’t know until they make a new structured video.

Unencrypted iot. They will never learn. Or maybe it’s on purpose.

The bigger question isv will you be able to tell whether it’s an AI contribution or not.

Many discussions are about recognising slop, but the world isn’t black and white. There are worlds between pure AI garbage submitted by somebody who has no idea about software development, AI assisted coding with an expert, handwritten garbage, and artisanal “expert” code. I doubt anybody writing good code before the slopocalypse will be filtered out by any anti-AI policy. Their code may be written by AI or not and I bet you won’t be able to tell.

Sure, are a lot people who have no idea about programming and software development who will submit stuff, but the people who know what they are doing and using AI won’t be easy to find. I say it will actually be impossible unless they openly say it or leave traces like AGENTS.MD or comments inserted by the AI.

Also, who actually knows he drive by contributor well? It’s just the same as a lecture hall: unknowns.

Yes, insult the other person because you disagree, that’ll be a nice interaction.

The reaction to KDE4 was overblown. Some cavedwellers with access to internet and too much free time shit on it constantly, just like the anti-systemd crowd, but I used KDE4 throughout its lifetime and still use KDE (6 now).

Studies have shown that professors can’t tell apart AI from student submissions of writing. People like to believe they can recognise AI written or AI assisted code, but they are terrible at it.

I found element quite alright compared to teams, honestly. I wish the EU actually invested money in matrix to make it better instead of just using the base and building a bunch of stuff on top of it.

Voice calls aren’t the issue. Teams isn’t just for calling

Which project is it?

If they were gaming at work, maybe teamspeak would make sense.

Bloody hell, can this guy just shut up? Fucking edgelord.

Those are 2 years worth of vulns - from 2024 until now. Why is this news ?

The article is 90% about brackets and Polish notation is nearly a footnote. How is the reasoning that “it’s mostly familiarity” sound? When I call doSomething(param, arg, whatever) moving over the left bracket a word isn’t going to confuse people because of “familiarity”.

Where’s the code?

Drink you can of coke to certify.

Might be worth modifying an existing one or creating one.

So much so that I use nix

Same as you can say something seemingly obvious but still wrong 🤷

“If you don’t paint a picture with this specific paint, it’s not a painting”. So if someone were to format the code differently, say put each right bracket on a new line, the compiler would fail?

Haskell and Lisp are languages that by nature pull CS and math wizards

They pull them because he learning material is written for them. If the learning material were written for non-wizards, it would attract non-wizards.

“Learn you a Haskell” is not a good book, IMO. It teaches exactly in the style mentioned. Just look at the part on applicative functors.

fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b It says: give me a function that takes an a and returns a b and a box with an a (or several of them) inside it and I’ll give you a box with a b (or several of them) inside it. It kind of applies the function to the element inside the box.

He has to describe what the function does because the function declaration doesn’t use clear variables or type names. He says the word “box” but writes “f”. Why not just write “box”?

The entire CS and maths field is filled with people who suck terribly at explaining anything to anybody who doesn’t think like them. Monads aren’t terribly complicated, but the way they are explained is. Every book trying to explain them makes the mistake of going deep first and then zooming out. They explain in excruciatingly minute detail how monads are built, what other complicated concept they are like, and use single letter names for everything in that explanation.

 class (Functor f) => Applicative f where  

     pure :: a -> f a  

     (<\*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Same here. Then the examples use Just which doesn’t help with readability either. It would read much better if the code were actually literal instead of using shorthands for everything. More mental energy has to go into keeping a mapping table for every letter in the alphabet instead of it being written explicitly, right there.

It’s why I hate reading Haskell declarations and old code. Programmers back then just used 1-4 characters for everything. char, bool, m_lnr, T, R, I, f, g, h,… As if they were constantly on the run from the last person who had to read and maintain their code.

You might be a Haskell teacher, but that doesn’t say anything about the quality of your teaching. I play basketball and could even coach a team, but there’s nothing that will say whether I’m a good coach. If I get a team of people who already play well together, speak my lingo, and jive with me, they might think I’m a good coach. But if I get a team of beginners who have never heard my vernacular, can’t understand my mannerisms, and think “tough love” and the cold shoulder make me a dick, they’ll think I suck.