JSX (react flavor) is lazy. <My component> is not rendered/evaluated until it's needed.

You can't just call a react component. It's not a regular function call.

Not that human values are perfectly benevolent. We slaughter billions of animals per day.

If you take a look at the characteristics of LLMs today, I don't think we want to continue further. We're still unable to ensure the goals we want the system to have are there. Hallucinations are a perfect example. We want these systems to relay truthful information, but we've actually trained them to relay information that looks correct at first glance.

Thinking we won't make this mistake with AGI is ignorance.

> Mammals, which are more generally intelligent than reptiles or earthworms, also tend to have more compassion and warmth.

> There’s deep intertwining between intelligence and values

After reading your original comment again, I don't think you're even agreeing with the article? Just with that specific out of context snippet?

Pretty obviously.

He is a weird, socially awkward, maybe autistic guy. And such people tend to be quite pedantic and focused on strange details that "normal" people just jump over.

Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else.

What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.

It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry.

Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured.

But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.

Correct, it's the abuse of the legal system.

> Though legally a sexual assault still occured.

Just because something is true legally doesn't mean it's ok, good, correct, moral or ethical.

We're talking about sex trafficking, which we know did occur and Epstein was convicted of. Twice.

And possibly rape/sexual assault, even though the "perpetrator" did not know about it.

You're getting awfully close to defending Epstein there.

I also can't help but notice that you ignored everything else in my comment?

Coerced/forced by whom? Are you actually stupid or just pretending?

Anyway, I get that you're confused. However, I've lost interest in talking to you.

Usually, I'd understand if you're lazy and can't be bothered and just pull in some dependency to do it for you, but if you're implementing a toolkit, this is the kind of thing that is SHOULD provide.

The first is a fairly generic input -> transform -> output. This is your generic request handler for instance. You receive a payload, run some transform on that (and maybe a DB request) and then produce a response.

In this model, Arc is very fitting for some shared (im)mutable state. Like DB connections, configuration and so on.

The second pattern is something like: state + input -> transform -> new state. Eg. you're mutating your app state based on some input. This fits stuff like games, but also retained UIs, programming language interpreters and so on on.

Using ARCs here muddles the ownership. The gamedev ecosystem has found a way to manage this by employing ECS, and while it can be overkill, the base DOD principles can still be very helpful.

Treat your data as what it is; data. Use indices/keys instead of pointers to represent relations. Keep it simple.

Arenas can definitely be a part of that solution.

Also note that 3 of 4 comparisons in favor of Rust are marked "contentious" for using different algorithms with different limitations - they are not equivalents. The last one is k-nucleotide, which is a very algorithmically heavy problem where nobody has given optimized C and Rust has won at producing a decently optimized thing quickly. Note that the fastest C++ implementation handily beats Rust on that one, also.

Using Clang instead of GCC, the comparison becomes slightly better, at least for microbenchmarks that don't rely too much on libraries.

These benchmarks are still useful from a practical viewpoint - answering the question "what's the expected performance bracket of using language X in real projects today". But it doesn't say anything fundamental about the language design or even the quality of the implementation.

On a similar note, I don't think it's worth talking about C as if the only C being written is highly optimized hand rolled assembly style of C. That's one in a thousand projects.

Now, as for the benchmarks game, you mean 3 of 6 comparisons in favor of Rust. Rust is winning the benchmarks against C there.

I had a look and the top Rust and C entries are using the same pcre2 library in regex-redux. Same for pidigits where both libraries are using GMP.

The only library difference I can see is that the C entries are using OpenMP and both Rust entries are using Rayon. Now, you could claim that using Rayon gives Rust an unfair advantage. But an entirely userland library beating an industry standard with support from compilers is not a good look for C.

fn foo(bar: &Bar) { ... }

bar(&Baz)

* This would be a breaking change, so a non-starter.

Pinta is interesting, but the UI is terrible. Did we really have to remove the resize handles? They're there when adding shapes, but not when manipulating pixels/selection? Half the options I need being hidden in a hamburger menu isn't great either.

Gimp is gimp. I don't need Photoshop. And I don't want a Photoshop level of a learning curve.

Krita is interesting, but it seems to be aimed at drawing. I struggled to copy the color code from an image. By default my eyes are drawn to the massive advanced color selector on the right, but it's a trap. You actually need the tiny color selector in the top bar. It shouldn't be this hard.

I need a subset of image manipulation features in my work and each tool has a different one.

That's why every few months, there's a proposal to redesign it which trades usability for minimalism. Here's one I pulled from a random Google search:

https://gitlab.com/inkscape/ux/-/issues/236

They claim it's one of the cornerstones of their project. Who am I to argue.

Personally, I like how functional Inkscape's UI is AND how minimal Files is, for example..

1. They're either unimplementable or useless (too many false positives and false negatives).

I think this is pretty evident based on the fact that profiles have been proposed for a while and that no real implementation exists. Worse, out of all of the open source projects and for profit companies, noone has been able to implement any sort of static analysis that would even begin to approach the guarantees Rust makes.

2. The language doesn't give you any tools to actually write safe code.

Ok, let's say that someone actually implements safety profiles. And it highlights your usage of a standard library type. What do you do?

Safe C++ didn't require a new standard library just because. The current stdlib is riddled with safety issues that can't really be fixed and would not be fixed because of backwards compatibility.

You're stuck. And so you turn the safety profile off.