I think it’s Apple motto since 2011: „Never care about quality again”. I still can't believe Rosetta was delivered and works like that.

Maybe it’s time for Anthropic to move to some other place? Every news about next blockade for the company (including threats from gov in the near past) is just making US look… bad?

Even if this is ad only - are we really ready for a rug pull from Anthropic? Maybe I’m completely unaware in this tools space, but I feel like it’s last tool that’s worth (and not pricey)…

For SVG and html/css generation?

When they paywall hard, I’ll use a local model on my laptop processor instead,

or phone,

and wait a few hours as needed.

Im so happy seeing this. We are approaching „great language” level and for me this is the first one.

I would be thankful for pointing at any other language that reliably and safely adds great features and is already convenient to use. I jumped from mastering Go to learning advanced C#, because Go stopped with adding great things :(

I don’t know if it satisfies “already convenient to use”, but IMO ocaml fits “adds great features reliably and safely”. They merged their multicore compiler ~4 years ago, which was a pretty huge change that added parallelism through domains. Notably, they had a working version ~10 years ago, but refused to merge it until they sorted out some performance issues that would have affected existing single-threaded code.

I only say it’s not “already convenient to use” because I heard tons of complaints about the dev environment - mostly that there’s no debugger, no official package manager, etc. But they are working on ‘dune’, and just like the language itself, I got the impression that the dune developers were being conscious to “add great features reliably and safely”. So overall I thought it was a great language/ecosystem, ymmv though.

IMO OCaml is mind-bending (e.g. go figure out the 'in' keyword, I still don't understand it), F# is much easier/simpler.

`let <var> = <expr> in <expr>` is an expression. Top-level bindings are just `let <var> = <expr>`. That’s pretty much all there is to it.

    let fac =
      let rec fac' acc = function
        | 0 -> acc
        | n -> fac' (n * acc) (n - 1)
      in
      fac' 1

    let seven =
      let four = 4 and three = 3 in
      four + three

https://ideone.com/HpTrI4

Never used OCaml but it seems like a way to chain together expressions using the same variable name? Seems odd but I could see myself using it

Ocaml is just an ML in the traditional sense. It keep scope without curlies. There is really not much else to it.

The 'in' keyword is purely syntax, like semicolons/newlines or braces in your language of choice.

Yeah and it's fucking ugly and unreadable, it shouldn't be allowed.

That was my reaction at first, but I got used to it pretty quickly. Some of the other bizarre syntax bothered me for much longer, like using semicolons for list separators, eg [1;2;3] instead of [1,2,3].

I briefly tried to use Reason since it “fixed” a lot of my biggest issues with the syntax, but it wasn’t worth it overall so I went back to plain ocaml pretty quickly.

I didn’t look very closely at F# at the time, but I remember thinking it looked like “ocaml with more normal syntax”.

If I understand correctly that you think Elixir is not yet "convenient to use", I suggest you still give it a shot if you haven't. I'm generally a huge hater of dynamically typed languages, and I still love using Elixir.

I am a fan of Go, and have been interested in c#; would be interested in hearing about your experience

"in the US" :(

We also still are waiting, for 10+ years for Siri in european languages. We have a lot of users e.g. in Poland, we can dictate in polish, but Siri still can't call a contact, because she doesn't understand names...

Tip: you can add a 'Phonetic' name to a contact, and Siri will try to use it.

So you can do stuff like:

Mieczysława -> Mee-etchiss-wahva Krzysztof -> Kzhyshtof Świętopełk -> Shvee-entoh-pehwk

It's still a bit hit and miss, but works quite well with diminutives:

Mieczysława -> Mietka -> Mee-etka Krzysztof -> Krzysz -> Kzhysh Świętopełk -> Świętuś -> Shvientush

'So what are we gonna do with those thousands of people, who changed the UI and could be fired? Let's make them roll whole controls idea back'

Companies hiring more people to build AI based, self-healing and self-developing systems faster? „We don’t need those old programmers, we need new people who know how to build harnesses around AI”. Hiring those „old” programmers, but from other companies.

So the quote is right somewhat, right? If you are writing to non technical people and you use such high wording.

No, it's not right. When put in context, the quote claims that that manner of speaking is used because the speaker has an unwarranted belief that they've done something absolutely incredible and unprecedented. In actuality, the manner of speaking is being used because the intended audience of the article is likely to have little-to-no knowledge of the technical details of what the speaker is talking about.

For example, if the article was aimed at folks who were familiar with the underlying techniques, the last two paragraphs of the "Enforcing Determinism" section would be compressed into [0]

  Each FCM is time-synced and runs a realtime OS. Failures to meet processing deadlines (or excessive clock drift) reset the FCM. Each FCM uses triply-redundant RAM and NICs. *All* components use ECC RAM. Any failures of these components reset the FCM or other affected component.

But you can't assume that a fairly nontechnical audience will understand all that, so your explanation grows long because of all of the basic information it contains. People looking for an excuse to sneer at something will often misinterpret this as the speaker failing to recognize that the basic information they're providing is about things that are basic.

[0] I'm assuming that the time being wildly out of sync will indicate FCM failure and trigger a reset. [1] I'm also assuming that a sufficiently-large failure of a network switch results in the reset of that network switch. If the article was intended for a more technical audience, that level of detail might have been included, but it wasn't, so it isn't.

[1] If it didn't, why even bother syncing the time? I find it a little hard to believe that the FCMs care about anything other than elapsed time, so all you care about is if they're all ticking at the same rate. I expect the way you detect this is by checking for time sync across the FCMs, correcting minor drift, and resetting FCMs with major drift.