The market is perfectly efficient, value is well attributed, lobbying is a social good, being rich means you’re smart and should have special privileges, optimizing for returns on investment is equivalent to optimizing for a better society
There are benchmarks in there, and comparisons with all the other watchers out there I could find at the time I made it (see "Comparison with Similar Projects" at the very bottom of the readme).
It's a pretty long list. Tons of watchers out there with different design philosophies and shapes of problems they solve.
There are a lot of caveats to the filesystem monitoring APIs provided by kernels. Some projects (like facebook's watchman) take that as a kind of antagonism, and decide to fight back with layers and layers of fallbacks and distrust and rescans. That projects basically only makes sense as a daemon.
Other programs and libraries try to take that complexity and tame it by being super-focused on one platform or providing a lot of configuration options.
Some provide debouncing logic. This particular feature comes up from time to time, I believe, both for practical reasons and because over-reported events from the kernel subsystems, especially for some arcane events like moving a file across mount points can trigger a flurry of hard-to-associate events for the same path.
If you want to avoid dealing with under-documented filesystem event subsystems, you can also just make your own with ebpf. Especially for security-oriented systems, you'll find that the only (nearly) perfectly accurate filesystem event subsystem you can make, is the one you make from the ground up.
This is cool stuff, but a nitpick: It’s not undefined behavior in the language sense in C to do socket ops on a bad file descriptor. It’s just an error from the kernel’s point of view, and the kernel will throw -errno at you.
Think the world would be a better place if 70-80% uptime were more tolerated. We really don’t need everything available all the time. More time to talk to each other, to think, more “slow time”.
Some of these I’ve been told are taboos in the opposite way. For example, the one about serving or taking food from the opposite end of the chopsticks, I was told, is polite. But here they say it is taboo. Maybe they meant it’s taboo not to do that?
Edit: Nevermind, Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that even the non-broken-down PFAS are totally unsafe, evil things which we knew were dangerous since the 70s and did nothing about until recently
The issue this paper is grappling with (to what extent humans have a place in the middlespace between them asking an ai to do something, and the ai doing it) is interesting (although I disagree with how the paper tries to solve it).
I’m empathetic to a non-native English speaker using ai to help communicate. I mean, seriously, I would do the same thing if the lingua franca was Japanese.
The author is here saying, well yeah, there’s this weird thing that happens when I use ai by which the ideas that come out the other end are a bit different from what the author intended.
I think the sentiment “well you shouldn’t have used ai” is incomplete.
The paper is not great, but it’s an interesting question.
I have more of a problem with poor governance than strong automation. The economy should provide us all food and shelter, beyond that, do what you love.