Worst catastrophes? Pick any industrial accident with more than like 10 people killed and you've got nuclear beat. A single plane falls from the sky and you've outdone nuclear.
Large swaths of land? You mean a tiny part of Ukraine?
Keep breathing in the radioactive coal fumes in the air, those are good for you, actually.
It's a good thing there's nothing of the sort in TFA then?
Quoting:
"He moved fast and tried a lot of different stuff, jumping head first into problems that he was not yet equipped to solve, leading to mediocre outcomes in terms of engineering, but learning a whole heck of a lot in the process. I see it as quite a healthy attitude, particularly for young people and students. This is the best way to level up and learn new things."
I don't know, maybe you just don't understand what he's saying here? Or rather, are applying some sort of a negative spin to what is a factual analysis of a valid approach to doing something?
Those statements are all consistent with the publicly observable facts like this whole thing going from "I'm experimenting with this" to "this is merged into main now, yolo" within a week or so. The complaints from Jarred on the amount of bugs they've been having is too.
You underestimate the difficulty of designing a language by at least an order of magnitude.
You've basically arbitrarily focused on a particular flawed design decision of a language while ignoring a thousand others that they may well have gotten right.
It's not possible to just sit down and get everything 100% right up front. The language design space has too much both depth and breadth to it.
The talk of double glazing is funny to me, this was becoming a standard like 20 years ago where I live. Nowadays new construction does triple, with some special insulating gas between the panes. Single pane windows do not exist anymore.
No wonder you feel you need AC if you build single pane window, carboard wall homes.
Those are all less safe than nuclear. It's a simple fact, look it up.
All the places that can use hydro already do. Oh, and it's pretty damaging to the environment, it turns out.
Wind and solar are pretty cool, but also unreliable, so it's not so clear that they're really cheaper after you account for overprovisioning and storage costs.
If only there was a safe and reliable source of energy we could use to complement them...
Apparently the hypothetical future humanoids, somehow ignorant of all prior history, who will, ignoring all warning signs, start eating as much of the waste as fast as possible, then ignoring the obvious connection between eating that stuff and getting sick...
I wish I was kidding, but the argument does seem to be "what if 100_000 years from now somebody digs this stuff up and a few people get sick or die".
> Many of the videos I captured amazing moments, and sometimes it's kind of hard to watch the full videos to get those moments.
Yep. I had the same problem.
> Then, run the frame analysis pipeline [...] I have a face recognition plugin using my custom faces data, object detection, on-screen text, shot type, and scene description [...] we will have three vector DB collections that have all the information about our videos, like video location metadata, camera name, faces recognized, objects detected, on-screen text, transcription, description of each scene, and many more [...] we can get better indexed data if you use the advanced mode indexing to use the Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct model to understand and describe your video much better, but at a slower indexing speed
Yeah, uhm... ok :)
If anyone else has a similar problem, the real solution is as follows:
1. When recording, if you witness an interesting moment worth saving later, press the power button — this will mark the current moment in the video as a chapter.
2. Find the chapters later when editing and cut them into clips.
3. You're done :)
This has two main benefits over the insanity above:
1. It's trivially simple instead of insanely complex and inefficient.
2. It will reliably catch all the stuff you find interesting, since you're the one doing the marking.
The downsides:
1. Doesn't work retroactively.
2. It may miss interesting stuff if you miss it at the time as well.
3. Only works for this use case.
4. Nerds won't salivate over your usage of cutting edge tech.
What, you wouldn't want a condescending lecture on which exact, unpopular even at the time, languages from the 80's, which had 10% of features of Zig and ran 20x slower, also had fast compilation times? For the 1000th time? Shame on you.
"Therefore, to implement this feature without an avalanche of bugs and inconsistencies, we need to make language changes."
"Put more simply, we are going to make these enhancements, but hacking them in for a flashy headline isn’t a good outcome for our users. Instead we’re approaching the problem with the care it deserves, so that when we ultimately ship it, we don’t cause regressions."
"So instead of wasting time writing a more robust implementation of this LLVM module splitting logic for a relatively minor improvement, we have instead put that effort towards features like self-hosted backends and incremental compilation, which can improve compilation speed by orders of magnitude.
[...]
There’s the 4x speedup claimed by the Bun team, already available on Zig 0.16.0!"
Then you haven't been paying attention to the space. At all.
Every single new post-Go language, like Rust & Zig, ships with an opinionated autoformatter and a single go-to command to manage builds, packaging, etc.
And how many new languages do you see include inheritance and exceptions?
Older languages have started adapting what they can too:
- Python with `uv` and `black`
- Java with goroutine-like fibers and modern configuration-free gcs and the go-gc-like low pause times zgc
- Many languages now ship a production-ready http server, just like Go
> Zig, Rust, and the likes are only viable in niches where C is viable
Pretty much correct, yes.
> Zig will become THE C replacement and that will let me iterate at the speed of JS or Python with performance of C or Rust.
Fundamentally impossible. C/Zig/Rust have 100% performance as a top goal, which has to be traded off with something else and that's always realistically going to be programmer work/effort/time.
You can't have a house built 100% fast but also 100% cheap and with 100% quality. At best you could cleverly abuse the law of diminishing returns and aim for ~80% in all three areas. That's basically what Go's trying to do.
> once this linker and incremental compilation on other targets land,
In any case, why would a better linker and faster compile times of all things achieve this supposed goal?
Beyond being low level, Zig is still pretty memory unsafe and has you make choices about each allocation, making it unappealing as an applications language. Zig and Python are completely different worlds.
Worst catastrophes? Pick any industrial accident with more than like 10 people killed and you've got nuclear beat. A single plane falls from the sky and you've outdone nuclear.
Large swaths of land? You mean a tiny part of Ukraine?
Keep breathing in the radioactive coal fumes in the air, those are good for you, actually.