> disassembling the stars to make them live a thousand times longer
Why would they do that when there are insane amounts of start with billions of years of life ahead of them. What purpose would that serve at this point in time?
> So people published code that could be referenced and copied on GitHub. There was no ethical problem, the world, society were happy.
This code has different licenses. You can't just copy code randomly without checking license first.
Copilot serves it stripped of the license to unaware users. Even if copilot user wants only to reuse code licensed in a way that allows it copilot will serve him code from restrictive licenses without him being aware.
GPU driver, most devs are senior. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code in the "slice" my team is interested in.
Team for our component has on it's own has probably over 40 people.
Driver should be even more prone to programming bugs because most of it is about manipulating data in raw "untyped" memory.
I work in probably what is considered one of the least "safe" languages: C++
The issues that Rust is supposed to help with are simply not what we spent time on. All the bugs reported are pretty much exclusively root caused to "business logic".
From recent time I can recall only one that was a programming mistake and not architecture/business logic related. It was a missing break in a switch that already had some fallthroughs so it didn't look incorrect at a glance.
I do understand what Rust is supposed to provide but in practice it's simply an extremely minor source of bugs.
This article is super overcomplicated.
All it had to say was that rust tells you when you keep reference to on stack variable after it goes out of scope. Context provided adds nothing.
I must say - as someone who doesn't use rust - I haven't had this type of issue in years, and when I did it wasn't hard to debug. You get corrupted data, set data breakpoint and in the provided example you will see it being modified by unrelated operations on stack. From there there is only one conclusion. Authors reactions seems to be a bit exaggerated.
To be fair youtube is not really social media in traditional sense. It's more of a content delivery platform. It's not a place where you go to watch pixtures from your friends holiday or political hot takes but more traditional entertainment.
NFTs are completely useless for this. Why would game use blockchain to store ownership of an item? There are exactly 0 benefits to doing that instead just tracking it on their won servers in old normal database. Since anyone can create duplicate NFTs they would have to track which ones are genuine which defeats the whole purpose.
When I was a kid I kept hearing in the media that in 20 years oceans levels will rise by 7meters which would mean the big cities near me would be under water.
20 years have passed and water level is the same.
The problem is there is two issues:
1. Is climate change real - this can be easily verified with observation, and there is solid science proving this.
2. What will happen in the future - here we have tons of research that would not fly in other domains as it is not verifiable experimentally until it actually happens. This are just hypothesis about extremely complex system we do not fully understand. And it should be viewed us such.
Is that what research says? Winters in Poland have been getting warmer not colder.
When I was a kid every winter snow started falling in december and started letting up late february or in march. For the past few years there was almost no snow in the winter. Temperatures are higher too. I barely needed my winter coat past few years.
You just can't tell someone to type code into google docs and expect it to just work and worst off all judge a persons skill on this basis. It takes minimal experience of programming to learn this. Hence all the jokes that people are surprised/suspicious when their code runs after first compile.
If you disagree with this you could have provided any sort of counterargument. Instead you took this weird "women in tech" angle. Wrong is wrong, interview here was wrong, gender did not play a role.
The problem is it won't run. It was written in google docs without IDE. Everyone who programmed in their lives knows this. You cannot write out a whole algorithm like that and not make any even trivial error.
This is like writing code in notepad and creating a PR without building or running it to test once. What is this testing? There is no real world scenario where you are expected to work like this and for a good reason.
That is irrelevant. Asking someone to type non trivial code outside of IDE and then expecting it to compile and run without issues is lunacy. Even junior programmers know this. The interviewer in this story was either an amateur, an idiot or on power trip.
That's an advantage. Since google tuned up their engine to treat authoritative results as better their searches became absolute dogshit.
You search for a very specific thing and all the results are big sites that have said something that contains two of the 6 words you search for in a completely generic article that helps you none.
My favorite is when your query contains a word that is the very essence of what you search for and google chooses to display results without it so you have to do extra click "yes I actually want to search for what I said I want to search for".
Why would they do that when there are insane amounts of start with billions of years of life ahead of them. What purpose would that serve at this point in time?