beltsazar

> That does not make sense to me.

You said that because you assumed Go is memory-safe in all conditions.

> Go is memory-safe

Yes, but only if there's no data race.

Go is not like Java. Java doesn't guarantee no data race, but when it happens, it's still memory-safe.

Is this a new rule? I've seen some popular blog posts reposted here several times and still highly upvoted.

> To me the severity has nothing to do with how popular is a code path, but whether that code path is accessible to an attacker.

That's true for targeted attacks. For untargeted attacks, attackers have little incentive to do the exploit.

> I’ve run 3.6-27B and 3.6-35B on 32GB locally for a lot of bulk non-code tasks.

Do you mind sharing your use cases?

The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Suppose that, against all odds, you survive the worst plane crash in history. Then you ask NTSB what caused the crash and why you survived. They answer:

"Nonsense! You wouldn’t have asked the questions if you hadn't survived."

Questions stand alone, regardless of whether someone or something exists to ask them.

This is a such common logical fallacy that we should have name for it.

> No matter how low the odds are, the counts of those potential interactions bring this outcome to a certainty.

"No matter how low", really? Are you suggesting that your multiplication result is infinite? Otherwise, no matter how big the result is—even if it's Graham's number or TREE(3)—but as long as it's finite, there are odds so low that bring the outcome extremely unlikely.

The thing is we don't know even a ballpark estimate of the odds, but you were saying like we have a lower bound of the odds. The universe is unfathomably huge, true, but we also don't know if abiogenesis is less unfathomably unlikely.

You're asking as if the other candidate is a no-brainer choice. If the other candidate were Kennedy, then sure—but they were not. In this case, many would be undecided and would vote not the best candidate, but the least bad one.

Oct 7 happened and you're suggesting a different approach than a war, i.e. diplomatic solutions? That's too naive—not even the most pacifist country would do that.

And let's not pretend that no diplomatic solutions have been proposed, all of which were rejected. They will only accept it if they own every inch of the land and Israel is obliterated (their own word).

But if they hide amongst civilians and Israel is too weak, what do you suggest Israel should do instead?

Yes, cosmological principle is probably the most fundamental assumption in astronomy.

Most people don't realize that science—and even everything in life—has to start from some axioms/assumptions, just like math. I first realized this fact when I was reading the Relativity book written by Einstein himself, who challenges the assumptions in classical physics.

As time goes, some of the assumptions could be proved to be unnecessary or even wrong. There must be still some assumptions left, though—because without them, we can't talk about science, or anything, really.

> There's a good argument for immutability by default, but many programmers dislike all the extra declarations required.

That's one little reason why Rust is loved by many: immutability by default. Meanwhile, it's not even possible in Go to declare immutable variables!

> there are so many pitfalls when designing this

Agree. When people hear the adage "don't roll your own crypto", they often think it refers to crypto primitives only. In reality, it's also hard to design a secure crypto protocol, even if the underlying crypto primitives are secure.