It isn't supposed to take it over, you think it is because your brain is entirely made of brown matter. These languages are not even trying to do the same thing. C# is not a systems language, by design. C++ is, by design. C# is garbage collected, C++ is not. C# needs a very large runtime just to do anything at all, C++ does not. Games written in C# will inevitably require more RAM and will be subject to GC pausing. Lower performance games can tolerate that, but games that push the hardware to its limit will be noticeably impacted by it.

This is like that stupid argument you keep trying to make about DRAM being closer to the CPU makes it faster. The only reason you think that is because not only do you think with your brown matter, you also have no idea how DRAM works, so you have no concept as to why that distance is a moot point.

Your domain of expertise is feces, not computers, and it shows.

Talk about a "whoops", your brain is 100% brown matter if you think C# was ever intended to replace C++. Those two serve a very different purpose. C# is much more closely related to java and tries to serve the same niche. You're obviously not even aware of what the CLR is for.

I didn't start using C# until dotnet core, and I started using java soon after. C# feels like somebody put some actual thought into it. Java feels like an early alpha release of C#. Neither language is my daily driver -- that would be Rust. When I have to write something in C#, I think "well that sucks, but at least it's not java."

Unlike you, I have actual experience with all of these languages. I've been writing production code with all of them (except C++) for the last 6 years.

I don't really care for MS, but they've contributed a great deal to open source. Unlike you, I believe in giving credit where it's due, even if I don't care for the person or people behind it. Art and artist are not the same. That's why only you would get pleasure from nueralink failing its patients. Fortunately for them, it seems to be working well.

In any case, stay in your lane. If the topic is feces, then I'll defer to your decades of expertise in that.

Hmm...Have you looked at the ohno crate? That, and a bunch of other crates in oxidizer look really useful, and none of them are specific to windows. There are a few obviously designed for MS products like azure, but most that I've looked at aren't.

They mostly seem geared at making rust even more ergonomic.

/facepalm

By this reasoning, Microsoft should have taken over C++ a long, long time ago. Hell, C# should be even more proprietary right now, instead it has become open, whereas the language it was built to compete with, namely Java, went from being open to being an excuse for Oracle to sue anybody who uses it. Actually come to think of it, Microsoft is funding eclipse adoptium.

Just because your favorite drink is the same color as rust doesn't mean you understand it, let alone any other programming language.

The cynic in me can't help but notice how both of the companies doomsaying here also happen to be the ones with the most to lose:

1) Openai has about a trillion dollars into it, and every product it has produced at this point is either outclassed by competitors (chatgippity) or just plain dogshit/pointless (everything else it has produced, including the donut)
2) Anthropic has a very good product that is also not worth anywhere near what it actually costs to deliver

These are literally the only two major players here that don't already have another profit generating business to fall back to.

Facebook is the only one without an actual business strategy in the AI space while pretending to be a major player. But that's a topic for a CEO from another metaverse.

Famous last words. "Proven because it is old" is a much weaker argument than "Proven because the compiler validates every individual unit." Period. Not to mention, we keep seeing this argument fall apart, especially when the "old code" egos prevail even when they obviously shouldn't have.

https://openprinting.github.io...

Common sense should tell you that old code is not proven simply because nobody has exploited it. But here you are, making that argument. You have implementations confused with specifications. Specifications tend to age better than implementations do.

Anecdotally, I've had pretty solid results with gemini and grok not hallucinating when it comes to the law. Unlike these lawyers, I ask the LLMs to provide direct links to the legal code and/or case briefs, and they're usually pretty spot on, usually only disagreeing with one another in subtle ways that, in my non-lawyer mind, seem to be the kind of thing that could go either way. After all, the reason you end up in court to begin with is to have the court interpret exactly these kinds of disagreements that two parties might have on the precise meaning of the law.

ChatGPT, on the other hand, is just...bad. Just as with two years ago when it was all the rage, it still likes to speak in absolute terms (projecting high confidence) and link to shit that doesn't fucking exist. They've come up with many new model revisions, but it still has the same basic problems it has always had.

Either way, they can face stiff fines or an import ban because their product doesn't comply with their laws, which require them to be able to perform microagression audits.

Unlike e.g. grapheneos, apple can always issue device specific updates to instruct the firmware to hand over the keys, so yeah, they have the technical capability to assist.

Grapheneos also isn't within their jurisdiction, though theoretically the UK could do like France once did and kidnap and then imprison one or more developers until they cooperate. I.e. the wrench attack. On the other hand, the users would have ample warning to distrust the signing keys a long, long time before any device specific update anti-feature gets added.

Given the UKs history, they're probably doing all of this so they can pillory and jail somebody for making a joke on YouTube that they took offense to.

Though that's one of I think 5 different companies he's associated with, twitter being another one that was an acquisition.

So your argument amounts to "he's not a one-man shop"? I don't believe anybody had any different impression.

While I agree with the comment about Jobs, I don't think either of them necessarily claimed credit. Some people give them credit, but I don't think they necessarily claimed it. Though Jobs did steal money from Wozniak.

That's the thing: They're not. Try reading more.

There's already a more concise word for what you're asking for. Benito Mussolini was a die-hard socialist who hated capitalism, but at some point realized socialism doesn't actually work, yet he still hated capitalism. People today who want this "blend" but can't stomach calling themselves fascist generally refer to it as "the third position" but it's the same thing. This is the most precise way to describe China's economy. You may or may not notice that the political compass most people use in academia puts Hitler and Mussolini almost dead-center on that left-right scale, and in that case, left and right only refer to left being economic authoritarianism, right being economic libertarianism. This is one among many reasons why I eschew that scale and you'll rarely see me use the terms "left" or "right in a political context.

On this topic: Ever notice every bad ideology resulting in the deaths of tens of millions (and likely more) started in Europe? Not to mention all four world wars were started by Europeans -- though I kind of doubt you can name all of them. Shit, you're probably only aware of two, and only because it's in the common name of those two.

Just as in the case of North Korea, Maoist China, the USSR and Cuba, they ceremonially call(ed) themselves communist, but aren't really. Those three are/were socialist. Today's China is fascist. That is not a command economy because people are free to own the means of production on their own terms, but it can behave that way in that the state can either take over or nationalize their business, or install its own board of directors and/or management, exerting control without nationalizing it.

I don't know what you're talking about with this in particular, (if it's biodiversity, then this is a poor way to state it, nor would they be anywhere near the first let alone only) but there's a lot of myth around them pushed by anti-GMO propagandists, usually in an effort to connect the two as if they're one in the same as part of a broader effort to bring down both. Though to be fair to Europeans, a lot of the propaganda today sticks around because of Greenpeace, even though it started in Europe.

It's bunk. Very few Europeans realize this, but crops that humans actually cultivate have been selectively bred over the millennia that they barely resemble their wild counterparts. Nearly all of them can't even survive on their own without constant care. Some of them can't even germinate on their own. We've already been doing this for 30 years now and not one of these doom scenarios have ever shown even a hint at happening in any meaningful capacity. You might have isolated cross-pollination here and there, but they never last beyond a generation or two, and in every case it's been pollinated into an adjacent farm and not into the wild, and again, where somebody has been actively taking care of them. Including one case in Canada where a farmer selectively bred the Monsanto seed from the cross-pollinated crop to remove the non-GM variant, and he was later sued for patent infringement. That is the basis you guys use when you say "Monsanto is suing everybody!" when he's literally the only one who ever got sued over that, and what he did was quite deliberate. That patent, by the way, has long since expired, and the very day that it did so, that seed saw very rapid, widespread adoption.

Nope, you're actually in a very distant 4th place. Aside from Germany who is a distant third, the rest of Europe is on-par with mostly very poor countries.

https://www.nature.com/nature-...

Anyway, as I already mentioned: Proteomics. Nevermind that you guys are way behind on damn near everything else too. Basically the only thing you have going for you in this regard is CERN, which is now questionable as many (including European) physicists are saying that, at this point, you're not going to gain anything meaningful with a bigger collider. Not to mention that a plurality of the scientists who work there are Americans working for American research institutions, despite that we have half of the population. In terms of astrophysics, James Webb is making a lot of headway, but your rockets were so unreliable that Ariane caused three six-month delays in getting the thing into space. Unfortunately, it was designed, by Americans, around that sad little rocket of yours, and it was too late to change it at that point.

This is exactly why I make fun of you guys so much on this topic: You're basically arguing for young earth creationism. That's really how dumb this argument is. The reason is quite simple: (NB: When I say we, I mean everybody but Europeans, and "you" plural, as in Europeans)

When we make gene edits, they're very specific and targeted, we know exactly what amino groups they encode for, and we well understand what the resulting proteins do well before they ever end up in a seed. When plants reproduce naturally however, there are all sorts of mutations and recombinations, by the millions, and we only have a vague idea what they do. But those are somehow "tested variants" to you, because it takes a European to think all things natural are always better.

I already know food is your religion -- this isn't news to me at all. That's why you guys are so anti-science when it comes to this topic. So many European researchers have had papers retracted over this because of everything from just plain incompetence to outright scientific misconduct, in a vain effort to "prove" GMO is bad. All because you guys reach the conclusion before you even do any research. This is the most basic fallacy in any scientific effort any person can make, the broader name for it is confirmation bias, and it's all you guys really know here.

As far as Europeans know, every crop you cultivate and harvest has always been the way you see them now, created that way by your holy deity. Selective-selection to get them the way they are now is just a myth created by those Americans.

It's interesting when you guys say things like this, because McDonald's biggest, most profitable restaurant in the world is in France. The same France that you just said food is so culturally very important to. The irony, by the way, that the father of modern science was himself skeptical of big governments, in stark contrast to today's Europeans, is not lost on me.a

rip

Elon is the sole founder of SpaceX, also authored several whitepapers that are fundamental to Falcon and the Merlin engines that power it. He hired all of the original staff (including engineers) himself They were neither cofounders nor part of some mythical acquisition that you seem to believe happened.

That has nothing to do with it. Capitalism is about free markets. A free market is one you can enter or leave at will, and make your own decisions about supply, pricing, and distribution. That is as opposed to socialism where a central governing entity has absolute control over all markets and competing with it is forbidden. Or fascism, where you can only enter or leave any given market at the discretion of the central governing entity, said entity can take over (nationalize) your business any time it wants without any form of compensation, install new management at will even without a takeover, etc.

SpaceX never received any grants, tax breaks, or subsidies from the US government. Not a single one. In fact its first successful flight wasn't even paid for by the US government at all, and the first three flights (all failures) were mostly investor funded with a small payment from the air force academy for some cadet (student) science projects. SpaceX hasn't even done even a single cost plus contract, which is where defense companies make their money.

For the US government, SpaceX has actually been negative cost, and in the tens of billions, saving a lot of taxpayer money.