Exactly. It's just an arrogant and dumb statement that ignores reality.

This has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've read in some time. Every programmer, including you, writes bugs. It's the height of arrogance to pretend this is not true or that you can blame programmers because bugs are a fact in every piece of code ever written. The sane response would be to acknowledge that and the benefit of using a language not actively assisting in causing bugs.

Secondly, no Rust is not going to stop programmers making all bugs. But it will stop a whole raft of bugs caused by using C (and C++) that are easy to find in the CVE database. And nobody uses "unsafe" everywhere. But even if they did Rust's unsafe mode is still safer than C. The unsafe keyword unlocks some mutation and pointer functions but the compiler is still doing lifetime and borrowing checks. In fact, the only reason someone would use "unsafe" is interact with C, the OS or metal. There is literally no reason to use it when Rust is talking to Rust. It's a pain in the ass to use and very conspicuous which is the whole point.

Monopolist wants the competition to slow down while they speed up in secret.

OOOooo I so miss actual ice cream with real chocolate on it.
What would you do...?

AI books are crawling out of the dark cracks, and the "feeling" is the same. It takes a few chapters but the hollowness comes through. It lacks direction and intent.

And meanwhile, you keep presenting nothing more than absurd pedantic deflection from the means that LLMs actually use to achieve tasks, trying to mislead people into thinking that they're just disguised probability tables, ignoring the actual consequences of your derailment of the conversation from actual mechanisms to an exponentially-exploding model of the consequences of said actual mechanism, and even in your pedantism, failing to understand the difference between a Markovian state (the physical hardware state) and a Nth-order autoregressive process (the linguistic processing).

First of all, congratulations on constructing the most blatant false dichotomy Slashdot has seen this year. You genuinely seem to believe the only two options that exist in human parenting are:

1) Striking a defenseless human being who weighs a third of your body weight.
2) Being their "buddy," never setting boundaries, and letting them run feral.

If the only tool in your parenting arsenal to enforce a boundary is physical force, that isn't "discipline", it's an intellectual and emotional failure on the part you, the adult. Hitting a child is the lazy shortcut for an adult who threw an emotional tantrum because they ran out of words and patience.

And as for your demand for "logical and factual" explanations? Modern society didn't "fail to justify" why we stopped hitting kids. You just chose to plug your ears and ignore five decades of research. For example, the Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor meta-analysis, looking at 50 years of data from 160,000 children across dozens of peer-reviewed studies, found NO evidence that physical punishment improves compliance or long-term behavior. None. Whatsoever. What it did find, consistently and across every demographic, was a direct correlation with increased aggression, antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, and impaired cognitive development.

It teaches the exact opposite of accountability: striking a child doesn't teach them why an action was wrong; it teaches them fear of getting caught, resentment toward authority, and the core lesson that might makes right - that when you’re bigger and angry, you use violence to impose your will.

Take crime trends, and examine your thesis: if removing physical punishment created "unaccountable grown-ass children wreaking havoc" then violent crime in the west should have skyrocketed as corporal punishment collapsed over the last forty years. In reality, violent crime has fallen dramatically since its peak in the early 1990s.

there is a fundamental difference between a spanking and a beating.

Try that defense anywhere else in civilization. If you hit your spouse to "correct" them, it's domestic battery. If you hit an employee because they rambled or disobeyed you, it's assault. If you hit a dog with a board for chewing a shoe, it's animal cruelty.

The only context where people like you defend physical violence is when the victim is a small child who can neither defend themselves nor escape. You rebrand assault as "tough love" solely because the victim is powerless.

the single motherhood rate went from 20% to 70% in the last half-century.

I mean, why not add some completely fabricated statistics to top it off, sure! (21% of children in the United States live in single-mother households, not 70%). But why let basic demographic facts get in the way of a misogynistic rant designed to distract from the fact that you think hitting children makes you a tough guy?

The only lesson you're teaching is "be violent".

Busybox, Toybox and others. The vast majority of docker images running in the wild probably aren't even using coreutils because their aim is small containers with minimalist userland with some even going distroless. They don't even use glibc, using something like musl instead.

I think for a general purpose Linux dist you'd definitely need coreutils or a drop-in replacement. I think coreutils has a lot of very esoteric features, which uutils have copied so even so, there is merit in examining these and deprecating or entirely removing which no longer serve a purpose.

I think Ubuntu (and other's desire) to remove coreutils is precisely because coreutils is old, brittle and written in an unsafe language. So they've chosen to modernize the code base, attract new developers while still maintaining strict compatibility. And since uutils is MIT instead of GPLv3, and far more portable between operating systems it may encourage adoption elsewhere, e.g. Microsoft already have build for example.

That said, rewriting code always carries risk and uutils has its own set of bugs which have been uncovered and need fixing. There is a "if it isn't broke don't fix it" mantra but I suppose it depends on the definition of broke - if development is moribund then that could be considered an issue too.

It's worth noting that coreutils have derived benefit from the exercise too. The extensive test suite for uutils has uncovered bugs in coreutils and improved the overall code coverage. So even if people don't want to switch (even though they're functionally interchangeable), the existing package has derived benefit too.

You are not in the industry. Mutual funds have strict rules about what they can do with the money.

Basically, the manager has to comply with a TON of regulations which control what they can and cannot do with the money. Even things that they can invest in require a lot of reporting. If you ever look at the financials of a mutual fund they tell you things like Net Asset Value, Yield, % large cap vs medium cap, vs small cap vs bonds, etc

https://www.sec.gov/rules-regu...

Because what it's doing is clearly not the same thing,

Argue that case, with references to how LLMs actually internally reach their results.

The physical biology is certainly different, but this isn't a question about "what things are made of" or even the specific NN type (e.g. smooth vs. spiking), and training differences don't even come into the picture; it's a question of the broad strokes of how conclusions are reached on forward processing.

We think AI is intelligent because it appears to communicate. Bees communicate.

AI is about as dumb (not smart) as bees. They can communicate but they do not understand what they are saying. They have a massive hive to repeatedly do dumb tasks till they give you what you asked for. But you asking is what triggered the action. Your question is the only intelligence involved, what they did was the dumb busy bee work.

LLM are not intelligent, they are artificially stupid.

Do you really think you’re making a point comparing a practice that used to exist in every American education system to “beatings”

Because what you're talking about literally is beatings?

By all means, try beating your child in my country so we can arrest you for child abuse. Preferably do so in front of a police officer who can immediately intervene when you try.

And your sole argument for it is "people used to do it". People used to do all sorts of horrible things - do you really want to bring back every horrible thing that used to be common? Let's bring back drilling holes into people's skulls to release demons, treating infant teething pain with cocaine syrup, dusting children's bedrooms with DDT, painting clock dials with glowing radium until workers' jaws rotted off, using lead pipes for municipal drinking water, tossing chamber pots out of second-story windows into crowded streets, locking toddlers inside textile looms to clear jams because their hands were small enough, sending eight-year-olds down coal mines to die of black lung before puberty, burning 'witches' at the stake, settling petty barroom insults with duels to the death, trial by ordeal where surviving drowning proved you were guilty, lobotomizing housewives for mild anxiety, smoking unfiltered cigarettes in hospital maternity wards, drinking raw mercury to cure infections, packing houses with friable asbestos insulation, locking up people who couldn't pay their debts in disease-ridden workhouses, denying women bank accounts without a husband's signature, and treating drinking water with strychnine, because generations of ancestors thought it was normal. Brilliant argument there, no notes.

I mean, isn't this obviously the solution?

You can use AI in legal work, but you still bear responsibility for your filings being accurate. So by all means have AI search for you - it can save you a ton of time for finding obscure things - but actually click the links and read them yourself. And if you don't, it's no better than making any other factual claim before the court without having duly assessed its credibility.

Amazing new tech does amazing things
All of the headlines and discussion are about "stealing" work