(I'm sure if I pick any specific quotes, you'll start arguing the semantics of what is "zealous", how whatever number of comments I pick are outliers, or not proof enough, etc. So, here's one query, of many, that you can pick through.)
In the end, I really could not care less if you agree with the characterization or not. But your enthusiastic defense is fun. If you keep going, you'll be coming close to being an example yourself!
It's supposed to be available in plaintext to the end customer (government), at their secured archive, but not available in plaintext to TeleMessage.
>TeleMessage lies about this in their marketing material, claiming that TM SGNL supports "End-to-End encryption from the mobile phone through to the corporate archive."
Surely someone of your expertise and renown recognizes this difference.
>My point, where is the proof of that "religious element" beyond memes? Is it in the article? Is it in the links? Where can we see this religious fervor in action?
You can argue with fossuser about the validity of what they said.
I'll offer my opinion, which is not some proof from god or anything that you seem to be seeking, which is that I find significantly more annoying comments from Rust users, about how something should be rewritten in Rust to fix everything, than any other language. But, again, this is not proof from god. I'm just a guy making an observation based on my lived experience. You have a different lived experience. Glad we could clear that up.
>Ok. Where is the proselytizing taking place in the article?
It's not? It's like you're picking random words out of my comment to quote without bothering to read what I'm writing. Nothing of what I said is about the article. It's about your misinterpretation of what fossuser meant when they said "religious element".
I can't explain the same thing for a third (fourth, I guess? since I just tried again) time, I'm running out of different ways to say it. So I'll just leave it there.
Your meta-commentary on memes is neat and all, but again, somehow, completely misses the point I was making.
I think I'm on (relatively) the same page as you regarding inappropriately anthropomorphizing LLMs, but aren't both "confabulation" and "hallucination" typically/historically cognitive science terms dealing with humans? So, they both would be anthropomorphizing? And if so, why is one better than the other?
"Confabulation was originally defined as "the emergence of memories of events and experiences which never took place" - From the year 1900
>Ok, but between me, GP and the article, who said that? Where are the Rabid RIIR fans?
The person you replied to said: "The religious element of rust programmers seems more extreme than other languages."
You interpreted that in a way that ended up with you asking "What is religious about rewriting tools in Rust".
I clarified that the typical way "religious element of rust programmers" is interpreted is not the act of rewriting tools, but the proselytizing about rust on message boards. I then gave an example of what that proselytizing typically looks like (which was not a claim that you said something like that).
That is the "religious element" being referred to. The proselytizing is the religious element, not the act of rewriting tools in Rust.
(The meme "Rust Evangelists" didn't manifest out of thin air because people hate memory safety or whatever -- it's because people are really, really passionate about Rust, and are vocal about that passion)
"Religious" isn't being used to refer to people rewriting tools in Rust.
It's used to refer to people zealously commenting on message boards that every single tool ever built should be rewritten in Rust, and if you aren't rewriting your tool in Rust, you're an idiot.
>I'm still searching for successful vibe coding examples.
I'm wondering what this means.
Kind of by definition, you wouldn't be able to tell "successful vibe coding" from "successful coding", right? Unless someone announces it. And a quick look at the comments here, or any other thread with about AI & coding, would immediately tell you is a bad idea to announce.
There's a few things you just don't say on HN, because you'll be piled-on immediately: don't criticize Kagi, don't hint at being pro-cryptocurrency, don't announce you "vibe coded" something even if it's extremely successful, etc.
(The immediate downvotes on this is actually hilarious, and proves the point)
Minimum wage is barely (in many cases not even barely) enough to live on. Raising minimum wage is a herculean task that rarely succeeds. Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in 16 years. But we'll have not only a livable UBI in 20 years, but one that's enough to "retire to a life of leisure"?
I'm not really familiar with audio stuff, but holy do I ever appreciate the write-ups you've done. This is absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm eager to keep reading. The video from Mick Gordon was awesome, too.
>i think i’ve written enough to show that’s that last thing im trying to do.
I mean, that may be your intent, but so far you've brought up Brazil and Obama in a conversation about Trump ignoring the courts orders and said nothing about Trump ignoring the orders.
It's childish to view fines as a percent of revenue rather than an absolute number...? That's certainly an odd take.
Fines are meant to be a deterrent. If you fine Microsoft $50,000 they will literally not notice. If you fine my locally owned convenience store $50,000 they will probably be forced to close. It's absurd to ignore that.
>I understand people want businesses they don't like to simply not exist anymore
I did not say this, or anything close to it.
My entire point was that looking at a number in a vacuum and saying "that's massive" or "that's not that big" is silly. What's "massive" to some companies is a tiny blip on the radar of other companies.
I cannot understand anyone who thinks looking at fines in context is "childish".
Not looking at fines in context is something only the largest and richest of companies would be a proponent for, because it would make the fines absolutely meaningless for them while being effective against anyone smaller.
>what kind of powers do you envision the judiciary having to rectify these wrongs?
Isn't that supposed to be figured out already? What is "checks and balances" if they can just be ignored? Impeachment for ignoring supreme court orders would be one example.
Have fun.
(I'm sure if I pick any specific quotes, you'll start arguing the semantics of what is "zealous", how whatever number of comments I pick are outliers, or not proof enough, etc. So, here's one query, of many, that you can pick through.)
In the end, I really could not care less if you agree with the characterization or not. But your enthusiastic defense is fun. If you keep going, you'll be coming close to being an example yourself!