Avi-D-coder

Laws should be loser for autonomous vehicles with good safety records. No one is protected by preventing waymos from making rolling stops, and driving like a human Uber driver.

Yep, came here to say this. It's the only thing that makes macos useable.

The quality is much worse for me with uncommon words. I also plan to add a thin llm rewrite layer on top so I can write by just speaking but that will be later.

Usually when I go and read the github and zulip threads the reason for paused work comes down to the fact that no one has come up with a design that maintains every existing promise the compiler has made. The most common ones I see are the feature conflicts with safety, semver/encapsulation, interacts weirdly with object safety, causes post post-monomorphization errors, breaks perfect type class coherence (see haskells unsound specialization).

Too many promises have been made.

Rust needs more unsafe opt outs. Ironically simd has this so it does not bother me.

When I read these sorta of articles I ask if I would invest today if given the opportunity. Currently the answer is still yes.

They have barely even monetized users. I think it's possible the bubble pops and openai still continues to win.

So much of this article is copium pretending the world is not radically changing. Even if progress stops today massive numbers of jobs will be and are being replaced. I wish it wasn't true but what I wish has no bearing on reality.

At some point self driving cars will need their own loser driving laws.

Perhaps allowing them to drive around school buses is not a good idea, although personally I have felt far safer biking or walking in front of a Waymo than a human. But rules few humans follow, like rolling stops, and allowing them to go 5 over seems like a no-brainer. We have a real opportunity here to br more sensible with road rules; let’s not mess it up by limiting robots to our human laws.

From what I have heard it's not the RISCy ISA per se, it's largely arm's weaker memory model.

I'd be happy to be corrected, but the empirical core counts seem to agree.

That's our job now, adding reliability. It's just pair programming.

The solution is strong compile time and runtime guarantees about code behavior.

The author is right there's no way an individual can audit all that code. Currently all that code can run arbitrary build code at compile time on the devs machine, it can also run arbitrary unsafe code at runtime, make system calls, etc..

Software is not getting simpler, the abundance of high quality libraries is great for Rust, but there are bound to be supply chain attacks.

AI and cooperative auditing can help, but ultimately the compiler must provide more guarantees. A future addition of Rust should come with an inescapable effect system. Work on effects in Rust has already started, I am not sure if security is a goal, but it needs to be.

Yes, two things helped. Less powerful glasses for closer work and high index lenses.

Those documents would need to be cryptographically signed machine readable data, json, a pdf (difficult).

Getting governments, banks, and other trusted third parties to sign documents is very difficult, but is happening in some cases.

Yes, it could replace all government ids, while allowing you to prove arbitrary statements about said signed government documents without revealing them (not saying it will happen).

Think of zk proofs as an extension of asymmetric cryptography to arbitrary logic.

A zkVM makes encoding the arbitrary logic as easy as writing a normal Rust program. A proof is a probabilistic statement that a specific program run with some public inputs and maybe some private inputs was executed correctly.

For crypto zk proofs are mostly for their succinctness property, not for privacy.

Outside of crypto privacy is the more important property, let's say a government issues a signed document, I could prove any arbitrary statement about that document without revealing the document. We could use zk proofs for anything we use canonical documents for today and we would gain privacy. Will we do this, probably not, but it would be an improvement.