There's a valid argument to adding the SILK parallelism extensions to GCC and Clang, then seeing if these could improve Linux kernel performance.

There's a valid argument for using SEL4's theorem idea and writing theorems for core components, like the memory manager, to establish correctness in sections of code small enough and structurally simple enough for this to be doable.

Rust is currently slower (but not by much) than C, but does offer a few gems to improve robustness. Which, of course, you wouldn't need if you had the theorems, but you can't use theorems to robustify non-deterministic code. So allowing Rust is not necessarily bad, it's just not a direction I'd go for any code segment where formalism offers a wider range of advantages with no additional skills being required.

So I'm OK with Rust, it's merely not the first step I, personally, would have taken. There are, after all, a lot more mathematicians capable of writing theorems than there are Rust kernel programmers capable of writing truly safe Rust code. And Rust really only gives memory safety, the theorems would provide functional safety too.

The existence of a lunatic fringe in the movement unique to libertarians. Everyone has philosophical convictions, but almost nobody has been educated in with no engineering background.

People don't choose a political philosophy after an exhaustive and critical examination of the alternatives. They latch onto a movement that sounds emotionally appealing. So you've got to expect major blind spots when it comes to how they expect to be treated and how they treat other people. Every Utopian revolutionary movement promises liberation, probably sincerely, but they end up delivering a new set of opressors with different rationalization for their shortcomings.

there is no known tech that could even remotely get that brain simulation into the same volume

Sure there is. It's called "biology." Nature has created brains / complex nervous systems over and over again, in quite a few different ways. We might end up doing so as well. Genetic understandings are developing and likely have a long way to go before we reach any limits (or implementations, but still, the tech potential is obvious.)

However, it's worth noting that there's no actual requirement for "getting [a brain] into the same volume." There's not even a requirement for having it cohabit the volume where its manipulators and sensors interact with the world as a robotic manifestation. We carry ours around, but current technology has already made that optional for robotics. RF is very handy for remote operations. A nice plus for this approach is if the body is damaged or destroyed, you just replace it and you still have the same entity.

But throughout history, there have been many good languages, especially ones that had one or two clever features absent from others that made a big difference.

Most of these languages (Eiffel, Nim, Ada, SPARK, Tcl/Tk, LISP, Forth, MUMPS, Oberon, Ruby, Occam, Erlang, Haskell, MARS D, PL/I, etc) had some time in the sun, and a few of these are still very popular in niche fields. But they never took the world by storm. Perl, which DID take the world by storm, suffered from some disastrous politics and over-ambitious updates and has all but been replaced by Python and PHP, where PHP is itself withdrawing to more of a background presence.

All but Occam will survive, sure, but as tiny islands that can't survive in the longer term. Occam is functionally extinct, which is a shame as it had by far the best IPC system and multithreading system of any language.

SILK was an ingenious parralel extension to C, but it exists now only in an extension to Intel's compiler. Nobody else has reimplemented it and it's not in the standard. Is Unified Parallel C still a thing? A lot of other parallel extensions have died - the ATLAS library tried a few and found it made the code slower.

But Fortran (which has implicit parallelism) and COBOL are recovering, and C/C++ are still fighting hard. Java nearly died during the dot com era and Oracle has been sabotaging it ever since, but it might endure despite their best efforts.

Rust might endure and even replace one of the Lovecraftian Great Old Ones. It easily could. It's a strong language with a lot of support. But so did other languages whose stars have faded. It cannot and should not be taken for granted that Rust will join the Ancient Ones and become essentially immortal.

(Python shouldn't assume it either, given what happened to Perl and what is happening to PHP.)

Fortelling the future of programming languages is a dangerous game, and as Galadriel, top geek in Lothlorien, once said, for telling is in vain and all paths may run ill.

I literally train AI summarization models. They're *excellent* at summarizing text. It's one of the easiest tasks you can give them, and only takes a lightweight model.

Itâ(TM)s probably less about what are potential attack vectors and more about what is actively maintained? This means for a matching attack vector JS would have more devs on hand to address the issue.

Yes most likely performance will be behind by the time they're released, plus windows will rely more heavily on emulation than macos does (most mac apps have already been ported to native arm code by now, i don't have anything using rosetta on my m1 these days.

If the current draw is low enough relative to the battery capacity, it might not matter. We should be careful not to extrapolate our most recent experience with backlit color LCDs to a device like this. In a transmissive color lcd panel, the backlight sucks the lion's share of power in the display. A reflective display draws only an insignificant amount of current, and still much less than a color panel when backlit. That's how watches run for a decade or so on tiny tiny batteries.

This is much more like a Palm Pilot from 25 years ago than a laptop. The tiny 3 watt hour battery ran the grayscale display of a Palm V for 20 hours of continuous use. Granted this is a much larger device with a higher resolution display than the palm, but we can expect it to have something like a 30 watt hour battery. Most users will probably go several days between needing a charge, which is not quite as long as an e-paper device, but a lot better than the smart watch battery life that consumers seem to tolerate.

The real wild card isn't the tech, it's human behavior. What the founder has done here is create a device that would scratch his personal itch. That's far from the guarantee there's a sustainable market for the device that entrepreneurs who operate that way assume. Will people buy it when it costs a lot more than an iPad and the pitch is that it does *less*? Will this draw pragamatists after they've exhausted the rearly adopters?

I doubt we will see them replaced anytime soon, at least by AI technology. Large-scale 3D-printing might at some point though. However, even current AI can spout random "thoughts" at people so perhaps we could replace Musk - or other CEOs - with one? You'd save a lot of salary replacing your CEO with ChatGPT and not having everything it says be actually true doesn't seem to matter either.

Barring some as yet unforeseen huge breakthrough it is much, much further away than that. All current AI algorithms require training in the specific task that they are supposed to be doing. They cannot take that training and use it to do different tasks like any human or even animal can. Even the most human-sounding ones are just trained to select the next word in a sentence based on what sounds best.

Until we have an algorithm that can understand basic facts and concepts and then, using its trained skills, apply those learned facts and concepts to different situations accurately we will never have anything close to an AGI. That does not mean that "AI" is not going to feature far more in our lives because there are enough basic "single task" jobs that we can train an AI to do now or in the near future. But jobs that require applying learned knowledge to new and different situations, like scientist, engineer, doctor, lawyer, teacher etc are not going to be replaced by AI anytime soon although current/near-future AI could certainly assist those professions.

Occupational Therapy is what they call it when you wank under your desk.

I do not. My family does.

I live inside the exclusion zone of a school.

My brother is a collector, and had his house robbed for his guns. Most of his guns, he never even shoots.

I grew up in a house that had over 100 guns in it. I know how to store, maintain, handle, and use a variety of weapons, but have no impulse to own one, and never understood or shared the allure.

Are you asking because you think I've never touched one in my life or something?

Skin color.

They would greatly care if they play an entirely different movie that just happens to focus on the same themes.

And for those 1-in-100 other disks, which the developer didn't release but you broke into their office to steal, if you think the developers are liable for that and not you, try again.

Honestly... How anybody with half a brain cell still listens to this guy is beyond me. And it's not even a political opinion: this guy talk crap all the time. Even if you're a hard-core republican and you agree with his societal project - and your moral values aren't put off by the whole Stormy Daniels thing - you can't possibly not see that he's talking utter crap.