Comments by "justanothercomment" (@justanothercomment416) on "ThePrimeTime" channel.

  1. Who knew the actual name for Recall is Big Brother?
    227
  2. I'm a very senior developer. If a company asks me to do these types of tests I will assume they are incompetent.
    66
  3. AKA, only fools trust AI. It always requiers deep human oversight.
    60
  4. That's entirely beside the point. They have positioned themselves such that they want their censored horse OpenaI to be king of the hill for most of the world. It's a power play to push their loaded package. The alternative dethrowns their efforts.
    42
  5. You can bet the core cause of the problem was one or two levels above his immediate management team. As usual, the source of the problems were not fired.
    35
  6. The rust guy is out to lunch. Prime misunderstands the "talking past each other" part. The C guy is saying they are developing to work on improving the kernel and improving Rust isn't a priority. The kernel dev's priority is improving the kernel, not another language. The Rust guy says the kernel dev's priority should be supporting Rust so the Rust guys can mirror what the kernel devs are doing. The Rust dev seems completely out of touch with the unreasonableness of his position. The kernel dev's response is we don't even know if Rust actually solves our problems and as such asks are extremely unreasonable. Thus he says let's see where we're at after things mature a bit. Where the Rust guy then says we can mature only after you make us your priority and you're unreasonable if you refuse our demands and burdens. Shesh. The disconnection here is very much with the Rust devs. No reasonable developer is going to accept that their responsibility is to support other developers outside of their core responsibility such that its a detriment to the speed and flexibility of their core responsibilities. The religion comment guy is spot on. The Rust guys want to convert everyone for the sake of the one true langauge, regardless of the impact or implications. It is zealotry. The kernel guys want to develop technology and improve the kernel. They are inherently in conflict. And it doesn't help that the Rust presentation starts off with baseless assertions of quality improvements. They have no numbers to back their "improvements" as it reflects upon the kernel space. Numbers backed by low tier application developers does not necessarily say anything about higher tier developers within an entirely different problem domain. Far too much religion and handwaving on the part of the Rust devs. The kernel devs are understandably annoyed by the circus and the implicit burdens and demands put upon them.
    24
  7. Core the problem is they loaded unsigned code. This has nothing to do with C and everything to do with exceptionally poor security practices and trusting unsigned code. Anyone blaming C is excusing incompetency or potentially malice.
    23
  8. Faith in Rust is more important to you than facts?
    21
  9. Happening all across tech. Comply or no work. All Markkissstt.
    18
  10. In general, every editor has been trailing emacs for decades. They all want to be emacs without telling people they want to be emacs.
    16
  11. The core group and values is highly problematic to put it nicely.
    16
  12. He's saying tail call optimization isn't possible because of the scope level deferred memory managment. Meaning for that specific use tail call optimization isn't possible for Rust. Whereas for Mojo, given they are not deferring scope cleanup at the end of each call (end of scope), it easily facilitates tail call optimization. In other words Mojo will provide tail call optimization for generalized use whereas Rust only provides it in subsets where scope does not require memory allocation clean up until scope destruction. This is also why the "drop" didn't fix the issue because it's not changing the deferred scope destruction. In Rust, "drop" flags the allocation for scope destruction. Effectively changing nothing.
    16
  13. I didn't hear a single compelling argument to justify his position in the first place. As far as I can see, it created his own hurt locker and is angry everyone else didn't buy into it. Chasing a closed, moving target, using an unofficial platform with an unofficial language, is simply asking for never ending pain. He created this situation and somehow it's everyone else's fault. His response and choice of platforms also screams there is core political ideologies at play here which is seems to dodge or deny. Any leader now policing the code for which they are responsible is no leader at all. Yet he claims the exact opposite. Magically this fact means everyone else is overtly political and must be mobbed. Unethical and manipulative. And, it appears we largely only have his side of things. I'd be reality is far different that what he's offering.
    14
  14. Backroom deals are almost always behind these moves.
    13
  15.  @fr5229  Only when it works against the powers that be.
    13
  16.  @IronicHavoc  Which makes it meaningless. No group in history has willingly surrendered their political power to another group. Yet we're told this is now a requirement in all European countries. Any who side with morality are called "raayyycccciiist."
    12
  17. The defacto position is always that the burden squarely lay upon the new technology. As you point out, Rust is entirely unproven it will help address any issues the kernel devs really have. The Rust guys are extremely unreasonable here.
    11
  18. Insurance should not be allowed from your employer. Insurance should not be pre-paid medical. That's not even insurance. It's a scam.
    11
  19. It's nice to see someone has their hat on correctly. You are correct. The burden isn't on the kernel devs. They are trying to put the burden on the kernel devs.
    11
  20. Turns out there was never any real basis for an AI bubble in the first place. As usual, people are easily fooled by technobabble and tech press.
    11
  21. Not entirely clear, but for that mutex, it should be an async mutex. If using the standard mutex described bug is expected.
    10
  22. Why are all ryces allowed homlands except whytes?
    10
  23. @splicedbread You are completely correct. And this is entirely contrary to the origins and ethos of the projects in which they assert themselves.
    10
  24. Advocating premature optimization is the root of all evil. Your position that evil is good is inherently a major red flag on your engineering skills. Make it work, means prototype it to make sure you understand the problem domain. A functionally correct implementation is frequently contrary to performance requirements. Yet understanding the problem domain significantly reduces bugs. Your next step is to move it from a functional implementation, which may be ugly, into something pretty and maintainable. This allows for a "pretty" implementation which facilitates adoption and maintenance. Here you stop unless you KNOW performance requires improvement. You require empirical datum to move to the optimization step. Given that you have confirmed you have mastered the problem domain you are now in a position to create a better, faster, stronger, implementation which may be contrary to easy comprehension and maintainability in exchange for the performance requirements. Optimization is frequently contrary to readability and maintainability. Essentially creating a fragile surface. Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Anyone preaching otherwise is flagging themselves as a potential issue for the project and team. As well as raising basic questions of their general competency.
    9
  25.  @nexovec  It's a way to imply it's something less than what it is. It's an attempt to justify racism against the people who legitimately have claim to society. This type of language use is textbook Marrkkkism.
    9
  26.  @susiebaka3388  Yep. So is the agenda.
    9
  27. The current gen of devs have become zealots. They believe everything they've been told about the language which isn't their preference.
    9
  28. Ya, the binding and interface aspect with the language has greatly bothered me. It appears the effort is to shoehorn Rust into the kernel such that Rust ultimately becomes a requirement. Once interfaces are converted to Rust, what interoperability remains for C? Are there ready implementations of Result, Any, and so on, and all the related Rust specific interfaces and methods and traits which allow for continued development and support with C? What exactly is their intended path here? Everything I've seen (maybe I'm wrong) strongly implies caution is not only advised, but required. Else we find ourselves trapped to a language which may turn out to be the wrong tool in the first place. What burden does that then create for paths to correctness should this road sour? As for the behavior, IMO, there is behind the scenes discussions which have already fueled the starting positions. Which is why they were already jumping in from the front. Meaning they wanted to have discussions of meat and merit and pass on the sales jobs they had prepared. But maybe I'm misreading that.
    9
  29.  @thekwoka4707  Which screams his take is ruled by a subversive political ideology. Not good.
    9
  30. I would go so far as to say, many people are back room paid to insert themselves into projects like Linux. Not saying that specifically about this guy. But this is common and how it works.
    8
  31. This is why objects which are likely to require this type of control should use getters/setters but most should not. If your base class requires this type of control, use them. If it does not, don't. Then if needed, create special cases in the derived. Which will likely only be used in the special case derived, likely implying it should be private anyways. Which means the special case may well be hidden within the specialized derived implementation. Which brings us full circle that for the vast majority of cases, getter/setters should be avoided unless it's a requirement of the base. Contrary to one of the of gallery comments, composition does not avoid some of these complexity or issues in any way. It simply changes the surface area where it does. I'm honestly shocked so many people lack such a fundamental background on OOP yet are willing to rally against it.
    8
  32.  @vkpfp0kx1flmwmyg  Exactly. The burden is on the Rust developers and it's unethical and unreasonable to demand others accept their burdens. Especially considering there is not data (AFAIK) which substantiates their claims of correctness and fewer bugs. As it relates to file systems, asynchronous considerations are frequent. And Rust's lifecycle burdens alone, IMOHO, is something which is unproven (as it relates to kernel/module dev). For whatever reason everyone is pretending like Rust is a proven solution here. But AFAIK, it's little more than a research test in hopes down the road it will prove to be a silver bullet. And maybe it will. But we have no information which even implies it's a bullet, let alone silver.
    8
  33. Knowing a technology and knowing what to do with it are two very different animals. Academia isn't well known for solving real world problems.
    8
  34.  @neruneri  Not true in the least. Everything about the kernel is political as much as technical. The Rust guys have simply failed to build their case or inertia. The burden remains in the proper place, which is squarely upon the Rust developers. The kernel devs are happy to move to something better. But there is currently no evidence it's better and right now the only postion provided by the Rust guys is the demands of higher burden in hopes that it's better downt he road while also creating language lockin for Rust. It's zealotry not politcs or technical prowess.
    8
  35.  @WillScrillz  You mean it's funny that people speculate doing to him what they've already confirmed that do to others? Perhaps silence should be of significant consideration for you.
    8
  36. The purpose of agile is to force higher skilled devs to drag the lowest tiered out sourced devs. It has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with forcing economics outside of the industrialized countries.
    8
  37. It's just plain old Markism.
    7
  38.  @BloodyxScy  I have. I've also done kernel dev. I'm currently learning rust.
    7
  39. The expression solely exists to justify racism and animosity against Whyte people. It literally exists for no other reason. When you hear someone use the phrase, you immediately know everything you need to know about the nature of that person.
    7
  40.  @nicholas_cloud  It's called in group preference. It's why you and your family is alive today. Kommies tell you they are virtuous by claiming you're a bad person for loving your family and those of your kind. While at the same time telling everyone who isn't whyte that it's good to do the exact opposite of what they tell whytes. It's almost as if the kommie agenda is real.
    7
  41. Yep. And async mutex explicitly exist to avoid this dead lock. For whatever reason they didn't use it. Looks like an application bug and not a rust bug.
    7
  42.  @mmstick  Yes, believing they might do what they are literally paid to do is unhinged conspiracy. I see you fell off today's turnip truck. lol.
    7
  43.  @blarghblargh  You mean quoting where is literally applies to almost every aspect of the current agenda should be shunned?
    7
  44. There's not even a hit AI is capable of "general intelligence." Combing through everything everyone else has said or done and providing the mid answer is nothing close to intelligence. It's math.
    7
  45.  @snippletrap  Correct. This is why, for example, you don't see say, mechanics hanging around with researchers. Or construction workers hanging around with doctors. This doesn't mean each group hates the others (which is what the current day agenda requires everyone believe). Rather, it means people with shared histories, associations, cultures, and so on, hugely benefit by assocation and facilitating the rise of that group. Why is every ryce allowed homelands except for whytes? Why is simply pointing this out considered raayyyycistss? Name a single group in history which has willingly surrendered their political power. Yet this is a requirement of the agenda. If it's not willingly, what is it? Do you understand the power of shaming? And why it's not allowed for those who actually should be? And why it's used on those who should not be? Specifically here, the word, "slooot." You know what I mean.
    7
  46.  @aodhai  It's called the manifesto. Perhaps you should educate yourself. I have no idea why you're laughing at your ignorance of topic. Strange. For additional reading, start with Rules For Radicals. It in detail pushes the current tactics. As I said, this is all textbook. Your feigned ignorance of it doesn't change the facts.
    6
  47.  @RustIsWinning  lol. Your cult hat is a tad tight.
    6
  48.  @AM-yk5yd  Please try again. Perhaps you didn't understand the question. No one claims it can't be improved upon. None of this requires Rust. Other languages are on the horizon too. What evidence exists that Linux needs Rust? You thumping the sales brochure a second time is doubly unconvincing.
    6
  49.  @nexovec  There absolutely are. Yatub is one of the most heavily syn soured platforms. Tons of comments remmed because of such words. They strongly dislike the education of people on history and facts surrounding the agenda.
    6
  50. This heavily feeds into chaos theory. The more you particpate in a system the more you destabilize the normalization of the patterns within the chaos system. During the 1980s or 1990s there was a massive financial fund which was driven by computer AI. It eventually became such a huge portion of the market that it created it's own disruption in its analysis of the market. The more it tried to correct for itself the more rapidly it spiraled out of control. Eventually the entire fund was taken over by the feds because it was poised to crash the markets. This is the future of anything directed by AI. It will spiral out of control once its own output becomes part of its own inputs.
    6