There are other communities where movement in the language came from outside tooling that built extensions on top of the language, such as Sass or TypeScript.
The fact that Bun is the face of Zig owes to (1) its popularity in the relatively enormous web ecosystem and (2) that there aren't many winners in Zig. This means Bun leaving and rewriting to Rust, no matter how its phrased by any of the major parties, was always going to be alternatively reframed as one of the few major proponents of Zig leaving for Rust.
That's why this is a PR moment for Zig.
It's not because Jarred was a bad manager, one who overworks his team, a poor communicator, one who doesn't develop intimacy with the internal core team at Zig, an amateur coder, or a liar about whether or not they've been fuzzing.
While organizing his thoughts publicly, Andrew says that the Bun team at large engages in outright fabrication. What do we think about that? Does Jarred and his team lie about professional matters to fellow peers in the field?
I don't understand, why isn't your attention focused on the claim that Jarred lies in professional settings and in public? Jarred himself shows up to post receipts with barely any commentary, showing where the focus is.
Anyways, what do you think about Jarred? Do you think he lies about Andrew in public? What was the term Andrew used? Outright fabrication?
That's true, claims of professional dishonesty is a kind of professional criticism. Shall we begin discussing whether Jarred is the kind of person who makes up fake conversations about Andrew?
As fellow professionals in this field, shall we engage in this very professional debate about Jarred's honesty as a moral human being?
Yes, perhaps Jarred is professionally dishonest, making up fake conversations about Zig. That is the most salient point in the whole article, and Jarred shows up to simply post receipts with kind words and minimal commentary.
Would you like to discuss that point as a fellow professional in the field?
Bun donates $60,000 per year [month] and Jarred acts with graciousness and soft tones when talking to outside parties. Why do you think it's Jarred's obligation to continue after being insulted for professional dishonesty?
Isn't it Andrew's obligation to show that he was worth that much kindness to begin with?
It's worth noting that even though you say people could just go online and start reading, college may be the last time most people ever read a textbook ever again. There's something tough about knowing that you want to do something but then somehow your daily instincts fight you.
It's also why you can't just throw kids in front of Khan Academy.
There are questions where it's time to shine with your skills and experience and then there are questions that are kind of snore because they invite everyone to give perfect answers.
A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job. There's nothing to "see through" here which is precisely why it's a no-op.
You're assuming that this guy was actually being prosecuted for crimes or that this guy lacked loyalty to Xi Jinping. A tremendous number of top generals and leadership has been wiped out in a short time and not necessarily refilled, and it's not because China has a huge disloyalty problem.
Anthropic being a big company means they could trivially hire an iOS team. The failure to make a good native app is a business decision. Claude or not, leadership could've snapped their fingers, allocated the budget, and fixed the frontend UX by now if it were important enough.
For database I think principle of medium fit is better than principle of least power. Flexibility for common circumstances is more important than making sure you made the most petite choice possible.
Hmm, my mailbox situation is getting out of control and it's not a nice place to be, esp. in a world where every other payment or ordering kiosk asks for email or phone number. When you go through email you are fighting for breathing room against so much other junk.
My intuition is that a bible app is something that's intimate and focused enough that people would be willing to visit a separate website or download a separate app for, and that being in separate places creates a good psychological boundary.
Is your point that the name people actually remember is ChatGPT? Okay, let's say the actually popular name that threatens to become the Kleenex of LLMs. ChatGPT.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. The popular narrative is not exactly on Anthropic, as the general public is far more aware of OpenAI than Anthropic. The narrative is on AI and whether everything we know about society is going to change.
Also, as far as priorities and worries go, for most people cybersecurity is way down the list.
Technologists don't control technology, and many technologists foolishly think that staying out of politics is some kind of virtue, just like how people scientists should only science. Then we find that scientists don't control science anymore.
There are other communities where movement in the language came from outside tooling that built extensions on top of the language, such as Sass or TypeScript.