The argument was "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". However some studies suggest there is no significant difference between OSS and closed source when it comes to security.

But not all is lost, there are 2 recent developments that change the game:
* AI is fantastic at finding bugs, as this article points out, we are starting to see an avalanche of patches from AI found vulnerabilities. I expect we will have more robust and safer software in a year or two when the tsunami is behind us.
* New memory safe languages can have a dramatic impact on security, preventing up to 70% of bugs. It is even possible to rewrite large pieces of software like postgres or bun in memory safe languages.

In the old times, nanometer scale measured the length of the gate in a MOSFET transistor.
When we switched away from MOSFET, it became a marketting term. 2nm node means: technology as efficient as a hypothetical 2nm MOSFET. There is nothing in there that is 2nm in size. The transistors are no longer getting smaller, instead they find ways to pack more of them together, such as routing the power from the bottom and building vertical structures (FINFET and GAA)

Basically we use nanometer/angstrom scale to describe chip technology in the same way that we use horse power to describe engines.

What a stupid question.

Record yourself typing and . How long did it take? Did you reach out for the mouse?
Now record yourself typing :laugh: and :check: how long did it take?

Adding emoji to a programming language would just destroy productivity. Even in the "Golden Age of AI" you still need to type a lot of code.

Way before: you open a recipe book and search for chocolate chip cookies.
            Ingredients:
                      1 cup of sugar
                      2 cups of flour ...

Before: you open a browser and Google chocolate chip cookies.
            Ingredients:
                      1 cup of sugar
                      2 cups of flour ...

Now: you open a browser and Google chocolate chip cookies.
            When I was a child, I lived with my mother and 2 siblings...

You have to scroll down page after page of fluff and anecdotal sentimental bullshit before you get to the actual recipe. The whole recipe page is just a massive billboard designed to show you as many ads as they can before giving you what you are looking for. "Recipe writers" are closer to self-biographers now.

If AI can cut through all of that and give me the TL;DR version with just the recipe, then that is a massive time-saver for the rest of us.

GitHub has a feature called “GitHub Actions". You put a workflow in your repository. When the specified event happens, the workflow starts and executes whatever commands you put in there.

People use the workflows for various activities; typical tasks include compiling, testing, scanning, packaging, and deploying code whenever it changes. That way, developers make a change, push it to GitHub, and just wait for GitHub to do those tasks while the developer moves on to something else. The workflows are basically a script, in yaml syntax, that have features related to coding, and can reuse actions from other people that share them.

The workflows need to run on some actual hardware. GitHub does provide VMs for free (up to a certain amount) to run those workflows. Once the workflow is done, the vm moves on to work on other workflows from other people. These are called the GitHub-hosted runners. They have Linux, Windows, and Mac runners, with different limits. After the free quota is reached, GitHub can charge for additional runner time.

Often, people want to go beyond these limits, or they require the workflows to have access to internal resources. One way to do it is to configure their own computers (at home or datacenter) as runners; these are called self-hosted runners. The workflows will run on your own machines, but managed by GitHub. Up until now, you can run as many workflows as you wanted in your self-hosted runners for free. Now they will charge for workflow execution even if they run in your own hardware.

There is no ruling going on here.
There is no rule that makes you use it. You are free to choose competitors or not use any AI tool at all. They offer a service, and it is entirely up to you whether you want to use it, you are not being ruled.

Refrigerators caused many ice factory workers to lose their jobs.
Self-service gas stations caused many workers to lose their jobs.
"Computers" was originally a term for a room full of women doing math. All of them lost their jobs.
Robots have replaced many workers in factories and farms.

Despite all these job losses, unemployment remained roughly the same. The reality is that yes, new technology replaces workers all the time. Society adjusts and those workers move to other sectors that need labor. "Jobs" is not a scarce resource, labor is. There are enough jobs for every single individual who wants one and then some. The reason unemployment exists at all is that we hold out for a better salary (understandable), we are able to get by with unemployment, or live off someone else.

So stop worrying about AI taking jobs; it will happen, but people will move on to something else. Just learn new skills, embrace the change and ride the wave.

Let's say we want to fly. Should we build a machine that flaps its wings like birds? Is flying defined as the act of flapping wings to generate lift?
The HOW is irrelevant. Helicopters, planes, gliders, none of them fly like birds do, but they get the job done. There is no point trying to do what nature does, we simply need to travel quickly from point A to point B, carry payload, entertain, explore, etc...

In the same sense, how AI achieves generating content is irrelevant. Whether there is intelligence, intuition, imagination, thinking, is just a philosophical circle jerk. What matters is that the machine achieves useful results, not how it got there.

Besides, asking: does AI think? is nonsense because there is no objective mathematical definition of what it means to "think". How can we objectively give a yes or no answer if we cannot precisely define what it means and test a model against that definition? All we have is a subjective notion of "think". Every person may have different opinions, all of them valid, hence, not useful. If you really want to answer the question, then start by drawing a clear line in the sand of what is and is not "thinking", something we can actually use to evaluate a machine.

The movie theaters keep about 50% of the money. If the movie makes $700 million, the studio only gets $350 million. In addition, they rarely disclose marketing costs, but are significant.

Hence, the break-even number is much higher than what the movie costs to make.

That said, they also make money on merch, streaming, amusement parks, or any other way they can milk it.

We end up with some wishy washy numbers that don't tell the complete story.

That is enough power for a pacemaker that never needs replacement (15 microjoules J)
That is enough power for a smart ring (a few milliwatts)
That is enough power for a tracking device (like an airtag)
That is enough power for a simple digital watch (2 milliwatts)

Heck, many consumer electronics have no battery at all, like credit card chips, toll tags, pet microchips.

So yeah, a termite that can fart consistently for 5K years would indeed be useful for many consumer electronics.

According to the WHO, everyone with a BMI of 30 or more is obese.
I propose we raise that definition to 40 or more, because I don't want to be obese.

Companies need to do layoffs all the time.

A "go back to the office" mandate is a cheap and effective way to reduce personal without the drama.
When the next recession hits, we will see a lot of companies adopting a go back to the office policy.

To be clear, ARM does not really want to kill Nuvia designs. I would even imagine they are happy their ISA has a foot in the door in the windows PC market.
The threat of killing Nuvia designs is the same as North Korea's threat to use nukes. It is simply a scare tactic to force Qualcomm to pay additional licensing fees.

Linus has been very vocal about his dislike for C++.

But it would be a lot easier for the kernel to adopt safe C++ than rust, and they added support for rust for its safety features.

So your argument is that making programming easier is bad because it increases competition?

By that logic, we should code everything in assembly and COBOL. That will raise salaries through the roof.