vincent-uden

Not at all. There are way more valid lifetimes than the lifetime system of Rust can express. There are countless scenarios where you could accidentally use the unsound behaviour while not producing a segmentation fault because the lifetimes happens to be arranged such that no invalid memory access actually happened.

A program isn't invalid just because it violates the ownership and borrowing rules of Rust. There are tons of programs in the world with shared, mutable access, devoid of Mutexes, Arcs and Locks that nonetheless are completely valid.

What the hell. This is not the esoteric, crazy, impractical constellation I expected to find with a title like this. The minimal example is so simple and is definitely something you'd easily come across in normal code.

> We are in fact seeing software improvement, but the "we" is very limited. Most people don't adopt new software very often, so it's not surprising that they aren't finding new great software now.

This is just plain wrong. I don't think the people asking for new software are in any way averse to adopting new software. I for one am actively waiting for new software to be released so I can adopt it, the Rad debugger for example. The first Linux beta-builds have been shipped and I can't wait for it to be in a more usable state.

I try new software all the time, not to mention I usually try the same software multiple times before reaching a final verdict. In the text-editor space I've been around Vim, Neovim, Doom Emacs, Spacemacs, Zed, Vs Code, Helix, Kakuone, all of them several times over before settling on Neovim.

I would love for more actual CAD-alternatives, more Photoshop alternatives, more video editors (shoutout to Blick) that all cover some niche. They don't even need to be full replacements!

But no. AI has not helped on this front in the slightest. If anything the bleeding edge (if you wish to call vibe-coded, half-assed clones that) is in its most broken state ever.

I see. In that case you could see social media as a one-way street. You post your articles and you don't have to go back and read or interact with comments on the respective site. You could even use some crossposting solution to post to all the medias at once (I think these exist still).

I suspect growth will be slower if you don't interact at all on these platforms, but by the sounds of it that would be an acceptable trade-off for you.

On my biggest post/article I did not have the time or effort to respond to even 10% of the comments here, and that is/was totally fine. The article and its comment section on HN had a life of their own which I was not required to partake in.

Linking to your blog on your profile here is a starter :)

But seriously, it is kind of difficult and it depends on your definition of social media. Is Hacker News a social media to you for example?

I've had some great success in the past just posting my articles here. As you can see from my post history I'm not exactly "active", posting 6 times in the last year.

There is always the traditional routes of paying for targeted advertising, email campaigns and so on. However this depends on the type of "growth" you want. Does your blog have a comment section? If not you kind of need to post it somewhere for you to get any feedback whatsoever. If you are writing solely for the purpose of advancing your own career I struggle to see why the articles would be interesting to read for others. So I at least suggest having some other motivation than that.

I realise that my answer contains a lot of "ifs" but it is really hard to answer such a vague question without any particulars.

We all know that the gain in "efficiency" produced by this new technology won't be distributed to the masses, as with any technological increase in a capitalist system.

While this particular boulder might not have to be pushed by the same, large amount of people, the same amounts of mouths still need feeding. The Sisyphean task of surviving is still far from (if ever) self-pushing. Absurdism is still as relevant as ever, if not more relevant than ever before.

I'd even go as far as to say that the revolt against the absurd is one of the philosophical ideas that can help one go through this apparent loss of need for boulder-pushers. To revolt against the absurd is to create while perfectly aware that the creation itself is meaningless (which I feel like any pure mathematician should be aware of and have already accepted due to the nature of their work). Of course, this is separate from the question of funding, salary and the realities of life. But I feel like mathematicians and other scientists aren't just freaking out over their financial situation.

> Idiot says idiotic statement

I use obsidian with obsidian sync to keep track of most things. Among these notes I have tiny notes which are basically just a title and a url, possibly linked to some concept or other note.

Easily searchable and navigable too.

If you want help you could start off by listing what you know about the two. Do some of your own research and ask concrete questions about the two frameworks.

There is such a vast difference between most decisions of these two frameworks that it is really difficult to even know where to begin with an answer.

So, what do you know about them?

Interesting! As I said I've only heard complaints from Americans since I have no insight into how the tax filing works. If just general Claude is capable of doing it, then that is just as satisfying of an answer to why there isn't specialized AI tax software.

For starters, the average person doesn't use LLMs in any capacity beyond "ChatGPT" or whatever chatbot interface they happen to have latched on to.

I don't know the financial penalties of a faulty Tax filing in America since this is just done automatically for individuals in Sweden by our IRS-equivalent. But I assume this is something you don't want to mess up. If so, apply an general stochasticity argument for why AI isn't end-to-end responsible for much at all where details and correctness really matters.

Yes they are. Just because the models have been overfit on the entirety of the internet doesn't mean they aren't in principle re-generating parts of their input data for the overwhelming majority of their output. Sure, stochasticity pushes the output into weird states sometimes, these are the states where the output is plain useless nonsense. Hallucinations, if you will.

Our brains are entirely too small to recognize the patterns encoded from the gigantic training data set. But they are there nonetheless.

This is easily seen if you try get *any* neural network to generalize to *any* non-trivial task (in this case, XOR for example I consider to be trivial). There are no non-flickering, stable vision models that can recognize a human/dog/cat/whatever in all the lighting settings we can without false positives. The models are only getting better because they are getting bigger and are provided with more data. This is *not* generalization.