You've described three different features with three different sets of semantics. Which set of semantics is honored? Unknown!
This is not software engineering. This is an appeal to faith. Software engineering requires precise semantics, not whatever the compiler feels like doing. You can't even declare that this feature has no semantics, because it actually introduces a vector for UB. This is the sort of "feature" that should not be in any language selling itself as an improved C. It would be far better to reduce the scope to the point where the feature can have precise semantics.
Typically it's configurable. For example C++ 26 seems to be intending you'll pick a compiler flag to say if you want its do-nothing semantics, or its "tell me about the problem and press on" semantics or just exit immediately and report that. They're not intending (in the standard at least) to have the assume semantic because that is, as you'd expect, controversial. Likewise more fine-grained configuration they're hoping will be taken up as a vendor extension.
My understanding is that C3 will likely offer the coarse configuration as part of their ordinary fast versus safe settings. Do I think that's a good idea? No, but that's definitely not "Unknown".
Any idea how the situation is handled where third party code was written to expect a certain semantic? Is this just one more rough edge to watch out for when integrating something?
I mostly agree with your sentiment, but saying "math is not art" is the same as saying "writing is not art". Calculation isn't art. But math isn't calculation. Math is a social activity shared between humans. Like writing, much of it is purely utilitarian. But there's always an aesthetic component, and some works explore that without regard to utility. It's a funny kind of art, accessible to few and beautiful to even fewer. But there is an art there.
Incorrect. Art is practice. It's literally what the word means historically. Put in "Etymology of the word 'art'" in your favorite search engine or LLM.
If someone is entering a prompt to generate an image in a model I have access to, I don't really need to pay them to do it, and definitely don't need to pay them as much to do it as I would an actual artist, so it is deceptive for them to represent themselves as someone who could actually draw or paint that. If the product is what counts then truth in advertising is required so the market can work.
I would die of embarrassment if I had bad code in a project for me. I am at my limit for tolerating bad code in projects for others, where the economics don't support taking the time that would be required to fix the deep problems. Code for me is going to be good. I won't accept anything less. I need a countervailing force, reminding me of the beauty of clear expression of complex ideas.
Basically irrelevant to taxpayers. Their salaries or triple their salaries will add up to a difference of a couple dollars on the average tax bill. Doge didn't actually cut any of the big expenses. It was only intended to cut the effective things.
Handling negative feedback on a PR is a necessary skill for a developer. A manager should only get involved if it becomes hostile. Negative is very far from hostile.
Handling negative feedback doesn't involve going to anybody - neither the manager, nor the person who gave the PR. Someone giving negative feedback is not supposed to be a conflict in need of resolution. We are talking about a situation where there is a conflict that needs to be resolved, ie that it has already become hostile.
If they are going to their manager, and then the manager, rather than convincing them that they are over-reacting, is instead going to you and telling you that there's something wrong with the feedback you gave, you should handle that negative feedback.
It doesn't matter what I consider a conflict. The fact is someone went to their boss with a conflict because it rose above their threshold of what a conflict is. If one of the parties involved feels there is a conflict in need of mediation, then there is a conflict in need of mediation. Very likely the issue is that the second party didn't realize what they said would cause conflict, which is exactly why the boss should be talking to them.
No one is saying that the boss should be looking for and trying to mediate "conflicts" no one wants them to resolve.
I’m pretty sure the top comment thread was edited because I can’t figure out what we’re debating.
I think the original comment said something to the effect of “employees shouldn’t ever resolve their own conflict, their boss should do it for them”.
I was only trying to illustrate that there are some people out there who are incredibly sensitive and will make a conflict out of the color shoes you’re wearing. Sometimes it’s good to empower an employee to speak their mind about their coworkers hideous color shoes, no need to force boss man to relay the message.
It's more a viewpoint thing. Any construct cryptographers find that runs in constant time is something that could be optimized to run faster for non-cryptographic code. Constant-time constructs essentially are optimizer bug reports. There is always the danger that by popularizing a technique you are drawing the attention of a compiler contributor who wants to speed up a benchmark of that same construct in non-cryptographic code. So maybe it's not intended as sabotage, but it can sure feel that way when everything you do is explicitly targeted to be changed after you do it.
Given that neither the police nor jails are relevant to corporate violations of the law, do you have a point other than that you don't understand either of those?
It's appropriate to think this way with LLM output because LLMs are still terrible some significant portion of the time. If you don't actually know what you're doing, you have no way to distinguish between their output being correct or their output being able to pass the tests you can think of.
As a software developer, your job is to understand code and business constraints so you can solve problems the way most appropriate for the situation. If you aren't actually keeping up with those constraints as they change through time, you're not doing your job. And yeah, that's a kind of fraud. Maybe it's more on yourself than your employer most of the time, but... It's your job. If you don't want to do it, maybe it's more respectful of your own time, energy, and humanity to move on.
"Ourselves" meaning people who have invested in Treasury Bills and other US bonds. Writing it off would mean eliminating massive amounts of wealth. That isn't really politically tenable for anyone.
That doent make any sense. There's no way we *sold* $1T of bonds and t-bills in 1 year.
That's what I'm asking who the debt actually belongs to. If it's "us", then how was it generated, who accepted the debt risk, and why's it going up faster?
Again, I make an analogy to $10000 tylenol pills, $16000 bandaids, and other obviously absurd medical fake number pricing. This $1T per year feels just as absurd and fake. And well, it's also a great wedge in Congress to bemoan and attack/shut down congress over that made up number.
Yes, we sold $1T of Bonds and t-bills. About half were sold to banks and foreign countries. The other half was sold to the social security retirement fund (in exchange for SS tax revenue)
The same reason you think it is absurd and fake is why others are panicking about the debt.
13% of federal taxes go to paying interest on the debt. That is 13 cents of every tax dollar paid. It is on track to hit 20% in the next 10 years, and that is assuming the US economy and tax revenue keeps growing.
Japan, UK, China, and the Cayman Islands are the largest private holders of US federal debt. [1]
What part of this seems incredible to you? It is indeed a lot of debt spending.
Why does $1T seem unreasonable? You can check the auction results, and from my quick look at a couple recent auctions, combined with knowledge that the auctions are routine and regularly scheduled, the number seems plausible.
It's not really $1T sold though, $1T would be the net sales, as many bonds and bills would have matured in the same period. Gross sales is much more than $1T, but I'm not going to dig through to find those numbers.
You could maybe discount some of the issuance as internal borrowing/lending/savings, but if you want to treat programs as independent, then the interactions between programs and the general budget are real enough.
This is not software engineering. This is an appeal to faith. Software engineering requires precise semantics, not whatever the compiler feels like doing. You can't even declare that this feature has no semantics, because it actually introduces a vector for UB. This is the sort of "feature" that should not be in any language selling itself as an improved C. It would be far better to reduce the scope to the point where the feature can have precise semantics.
reply