sxzygz

> This has been litigated endlessly with guns. The ceo of Smith & Wesson is not personally responsible for what people do with their guns.

This is a deflection. A human is responsible for the use of a gun. The individual/corporation ought to be responsible for the actions of their agent. If you purchase an agent from someone else it’s your responsibility according to the terms of your agreement. And, as in many other things in life, there ought to be certain rights certain parties cannot legally be allowed to sign away.

Sorry, but the explanation in your README of the example given here is wrong. This is right associative, not left associative as you claim. Looking at your docs, I think you need a %left PLUS; somewhere in there.

At least I think that's the case. Clarification appreciated.

Oh man am I totally going to determine the 10^10^10th digit of π and cement my name in the annals of history.

Usually Doctorow is tedious in his presentation mainly because of how angry he is at what he's reporting on. It's not that it's unwarranted, it just hard to digest because of it. This article, which eventually arrives at Amazon's absolutely unforgivable corrupt implementation of a second-price auction for advertising placement, is worth the read.

I hate what I’m about to write, but alas, here we are.

I respect the work of this developer. However, I cannot view his demo. Too many compromises have to be made to access it, the least egregious of which is that to view video content on this platform it requires an install of an app associated with the platform.

How profoundly disassociated with reality do you have to be to misunderstand the very wealth that you currently possess was predicated on the free and open access to knowledge and information? That precise knowledge that now powers our present AI age.

Shame on you Mr. Hashimoto. Shame on you sir.

This article is really about the inline assembly syntax developed for the author's programming language Odin (and definitely nothing about TALs, typed assembly languages). There are a lot of interesting ideas here.

One of my criticisms, however, is simply pointing to how similar mainstream general purpose CPU architectures have become; they are all C machines. This radically simplifies the complexity on the compiler front where, it seems, the author is targeting amd64 and aarch64. Extending the compiler to rv64 will probably be straightforward.

I don't know anything about Odin, or its compiler implementation, but I imagine the language adheres to a view of the machine that matches the C machine model. Imagine a more esoteric language, the compiler would probably need an intermediate language matching the C machine model and in which the inline assembly would have to have survive some idempotent lowering to the intermediate representation before being further lowered to the object code. These details are what I am really curious about and probably the most intellectually stimulating.

The most interesting possibility is if the Odin compiler is itself written wholly in Odin. If this were the case, it would really show the power of the inline assembly syntax. As far as I am aware no optimizing compiler has really pushed this angle whilst targeting multiple instruction architectures. If I recall correctly, even the Plan9 C compiler moved some basic optimization to their genericized assembler, and I've not kept up with it as it's evolved into the current Go compiler.

Very interesting work as I have often though about inline assembly syntax in a high-level language. Keep it up gingerbill.

For me, the primary issue is as follows. As the audience on HN has grown the rate of submissions has vastly increased. It used to be possible to follow new submissions which meant you could catch those gems of thoughtful submissions that didn’t gain enough traction to appear on the main list. This is totally impossible now.

I now simply follow the main list and hit “hide” on submissions I believe I don’t have interest in. Of those that remain, I read the submitted link and far more often than not they are not submission worthy so I hit “hide” again. Of those that remain, I hope comments arrive and an interesting discussion ensues.

In the past if felt like there was always something worth sifting through the dregs for. I’m unsure of how much longer I can sustain the effort. The technical implementation of the site could make things easier, where you use techniques from sybil-resistance to counter noise, but then if the compute cost on the backend goes up by an order of magnitude and I’m not sure Y Combinator is interested in financing the upkeep of that.

Difficult choices await me in terms of whether I ought to continue investing time in sifting though. It’d save me a lot of time, but then I’d have to find some way of making interesting friends. And if I knew that, I wouldn’t be here to begin with. :)

In the future, which I guess is now, John-types will have to decide between wrangling agents, or being tool calls for things agents can’t themselves do.

I’m not at all against AI, however very intelligent people are empowering corporate masters with very little empathy for humans not fit for this brave new world.

I only participate on this site, for example, because there are rare gems contributed by wonderful people. I have fomo because of that. It’s getting rarer and rarer and I think I’m approaching the limits of what my fomo will tolerate.