I appreciate that this appears to be an incremental improvement on Fuschia's tree_lock, with the sharp edges sanded off. Good work! I hope I won't have to use it :p

I really appreciate how this finds a common thread through all of my current engineering anxieties.

I agree, but I think the same logic could have been applied to the structure of the article. It could have all been 2 paragraphs.

Try enjoying reading for purposes other than spending as few brain tokens as possible to acquire maximum info. It takes time to understand another persons perspective. Sophie’s Choice wouldn’t be as good a movie if you watched the 30-second TL;DR.

I found it compelling throughout

To each their own, I found it tedious and annoying. I quit reading maybe 1/4 of the way in. By then already I had loud alarms going off that I need to read the comments because I'm sure many of the points are easy for a real expert to debunk - too much feels off.

Well I found the text to be obviously inflated with AI, becoming much more verbose than necessary, even if syntactically, grammatically and structurally it was correct.

This one definitely does not feel like AI to me. I could be wrong. But it has too much warmth.

I would write that prose. It’s very powerful to use small sentences with small words to drive a point home. Like when you are in some drawn out argument about th future with your spouse and your child comes in the room. She says quietly, “please stop fighting I’m hungry”. How do you argue with that? You can’t, it’s just true.

Am I AI slop?

How many times would you use that structure in a single article?

> Am I AI slop?

This is the internet, you could be a dog for all anybody cares. If you write like AI though...

This was incredible, even as it rapidly outpaced my PL and mathematics knowledge.

Like I said to a friend, I know just enough category theory to know that I do not understand. Perhaps upon Nth reading.

I think I'll just point to this post the next time some asks me what getting nerdsniped means.

Please explain how this law (or the CA one for that matter) require government IDs. It is worded specifically to _not_ require ID.

"Framework" means "strategy". This bill is more likely than not a tactic in a much longer insidious campaign to erase anonymity to gain power and profit to normalize taking other rights away a little at a time. We've seen this before with the Clipper chip initiative. I feel sad and bad for anyone on the side of token Karen parents / useful idiots, limousine politicians, lobbyists, billionaires, and people okay with surrendering their and other people's rights. I don't want to live in a society with Flock everywhere, dragnet cell phone tracking, social credit, own nothing, an internet license, de-E2EE, transparent walls dwelling, zero privacy, and absolute proof of birth parents and citizenship every time, long lines, in-person only voting.

If you read TFA, you'll find that the author agrees with you - at least on your first point.

While I agree "AI is bad", well-written posts like this one can provide real insight into the process of using them, and reveal more about _why_ AI is bad.

I think you'll find the luddites to be a more informative historical analogy. A new tool arrives in an industry staffed by craftsmen, providing capital a lever to raise profits at the expense of quality. Is it surprising that worker co-ops would choose not to pull that lever?

Why do you believe the quality will go down?

The mistake here with both the Luddites and this is to mistake the tool for the actual problem (depending on where you sit), which is mechanization and automation and ultimately capitalism itself.

Opposing the machine does/did nothing.

Political organizing around unions, state regulations of the labour market, agitational political parties did (and can again).

Political organizing around unions, state regulations of the labour market, and agitational political parties did nothing to prevent the severe decline of clothing quality that was the Luddites were advocating against. But of course, propaganda has very successfully reduced their entire platform to "worker's pay" alone, which is an even easier line to feed to people that over the decades have become accustomed to literal slop as apparel. And I mean that very literally - clothes that straight-up lose their structural integrity after a handful of laundry cycles.

Of course, there's definitely absolutely nothing about the state of the garment industry that's applicable to the current discussions about AI re: software quality and worker compensation. It's not as if this industry has not already seen its fair share of quality going to the dogs with only a small handful of people still knowing and caring enough to call it out while most others cheer for the Productivity™.

So because there is no requirement for the age to be accurate, it would be pretty easy to say "all student accounts are the age of the youngest allowed school entrant for that school year", right? That resolves the age issue and also prevents both PII leakage as well as possible school bullying opportunities.

Here's an annotated version of this post (TW Ed Zitron) that I found more informative than reading the original: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1p1n0y1ip48ianok9dvbp/Annotat...

Good news, there's a line in the "Coming from Rust"[1] page that says

> You never annotate a function signature unless you want to for documentation purposes.

so it sounds like function annotation is still an option for the purposes of communication, just no longer required in all cases.

[1] https://loonlang.com/concepts/from-rust

Aha, here's the syntax in case you're curious (using an example lifted from the playground)

  [type Shape
    [Circle f64]
    [Rect f64 f64]
    Point
  ]

  [sig test_sig : Shape -> Float]
  [fn test_sig [shape]
    [match shape
      [Circle r] [* 3.14159 [* r r]]
      [Rect w h] [* w h]
      Point 0.0
    ]
  ]

Unfortunately it seems like this doesn't currently work as expected when I use it in the playground, so I'm going to go file an issue

thank you <3 I will fix asap

Neat! I think the website could use a bit more information about how the "global" Effect handlers work, and whether it's possible to opt-in to that functionality yourself when writing Effects.

That being said I took a look at the roadmap and the next major release is the one that focuses on Effects, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun a tad. Maybe I'll whip this out for AoC this year!