IDK just yesterday I got a complete slide / powerpoint-lite editor in Qt Quick that is sufficient for the use case I have in two prompts, roughly 7 minutes. How long would it take you to write, on your best day, using your favourite programming language ?

> I really don't know how to fill the minutes that AI takes to write code.

Think of it like being a project manager in a team. There's a lot you can do to help the project moving forward without touching one line of code

I would’ve become a project manager if I enjoyed that, right?

no one's preventing you to write the code yourself

I'm really wondering about what is that ASIO4ALL uninstaller doing in there

I am not following, isn't this just a graph that shows that how fast operations happen is largely dependent on the odds that it is in cache at various levels (CPU/Ram/Disk)?

The memory operation itself is O(1), around 100 ns, where at a certain point we are doing full ram fetches each time because the odds of it being in CPU cache are low?

Typically O notation is an upper bound, and it holds well there.

That said, due to cache hits, the lower bound is much lower than that.

You see similar performance degradation if you iterate in a double sided array the in the wrong index first.

O notation is technically meaningless for systems with bounded resources. That said, yes the performance is depending on the probability of cache hits, notably also the TLB. For large amounts of memory used and random access patterns, assuming logarithmic costs for memory access tends to model reality better.

The author of that post effectively re-defines "memory"/"RAM" as "data", and uses that to say "accessing data in the limit scales to N x sqrt(N) as N increases". Which, like, yeah? Duh, I can't fit 200PB of data into the physical RAM of my computer and the more data I have to access the slower it'll be to access any part of it without working harder at other abstraction layers to bring the time taken down. That's true. It's also unrelated to what people are talking about when they say "memory access is O(1)". When people say "memory access is O(1)" they are talking about cases where their data fits in memory (RAM).

Their experimental results would in fact be a flat line IF they could disable all the CPU caches, even though performance would be slow.

Memory access performance depends on the _maximum size of memory you need to address_. You can clearly see it in the graph of that article where L1, L2, L3 and RAM are no longer enough to fit the linked list. However while the working set fits in them the performance scales much better. So as long as you give priority to the working set, you can fill the rest of the biggest memory with whatever you want without affecting performance.

RAM is always storing something, it’s just sometimes zeros or garbage. Nothing in how DRAM timings work is sensitive to what bits are encoded in each cell.

> Every byte used makes the whole thing slower.

This is an incorrect conclusion to make from the link you posted in the context of this discussion. That post is a very long-winded way of saying that the average speed of addressing N elements depends on N and the size of the caches, which isn't news to anyone. Key word: addressing.

Huh? There is nothing called "empty memory". There is always something being stored in the memory, the important thing is whether you care about that specific bits or not.

And no, the articles you linked is about caching, not RAM access. Hardware-wise, it doesn't matter what you have in the cells, access latency is the same. There is gonna be some degradation with #read/write cycles, but that is besides the point.

why is it not O(1)? It has to service within a deadline time, so it is still constant.

> IMO this is 100% correct and I'm glad someone finally said it. I run AI agents that control my entire dev workflow through shell commands and they are shockingly good at it.

That's a very developer-centric view. So many things in the world don't have a CLI API at all and will never have one, like the huge majority of desktop GUI programs.

Isn't the issue with shift registers related to endianness at the bit level, while the discourse above is about endianness at the byte level? Both are pretty much entirely separate problems

how would you write something like

    #include <print>
    #include <map>
    #include <string>

    int main(int argc, char** argv) 
    {
      using namespace std::literals;

      std::string foo = "foo:";
      foo += argv[0];

      std::map<std::string, int> m{
        {foo, 123}
      , {"count: "s + std::to_string(argc), 456}
      };

      std::println("{}", m);
    }

in C

Even better example,

    import std;

    int main(int argc, char** argv)
    {
        using namespace std::literals;

        auto foo = "foo:"s;
        foo += argv[0];

        std::map<std::string, int> m{
          {foo, 123}
        , {"count: "s + std::to_string(argc), 456}
        };

        std::println("{}", m);
    }

Sure, there are nice parts of C++. And there are also brain-dead parts that add needless complexity such as:

* rvalue references

* the difference between auto, decltype, typeof

* unreadable template monstrosities

* various different flavors of "smart" pointer

* the continued existence of footguns relating to UB, dangling pointers, unexpected temporary lifetimes, etc

* total absence of a build system or package management

* legacy APIs that still take raw pointers

* concepts, a half-assed attempt at generic constraints

No worries, you get some of those in C23, and C2y.

Where is C's build system and package management?

Yeah, because using _Generic alongside typeof and preprocessor macros isn't half-assed attempt at generics.

You misunderstood. Perpetuating C's weaknesses, and then adding additional complexity, is not a defense.

It kind of is, when the goal was to be TypeScript for C, before this was even a concept.

Now ideally we would all be using Modula-2, Ada, Delphi, VB, C#,.... and co, but given that even C compilers are nowadays written in C++, we make do with what we have, while avoiding C flaws as much as possible.

I just don't understand how you get from the text you pasted to "required". Nowhere does it say that anything is effectively required. Words have meaning.

> the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

In this case, the full implication is that your email might be undeliverable. "Should" indicates that the consequences for this fall on the entity that is deviating from the thing they "should" be doing.

But the RFC language clearly anticipates there are situations and good reasons leading to a message that does not include a message-id. Google therefore would be rejecting RFC-compliant emails, and they are the ones who have to justify themselves.

Theoretically, anyway, I expect in practice they'll just ignore the issue or have their own good reason. But they should accept emails with no message-id; there it does strain the imagination to see why lacking an ID would make a message unreadable or undeliverable.

There are indeed such situations. Two situations AFAICR, and neither of them apply to when you connect to someone else's MX.

Gmail rejects the vast majority of compliant messages, I think they've stated in public that they reject >99.9% of messages, and hearsay has it that the percentage for with minor errors like this is even higher.

There are good reasons why a message might be unreadable. For example, message-id is often used by the threading algorithms in MUAs and IMAP servers, and many don't test whether their threading code handles ID-less messages. I use one that deduplicates by ID, what do you think it does when the ID is empty or missing? I don't know, I haven't tested and I'm not going to.

if you apply that logic every recommendation becomes mandatory no?

if the alternative to [not doing a recommended thing] is [failure] then what's the difference between "should" and "must"?

"we recommend you leave the keys in the ignition while putting your car in park"

"or what?"

"or your car may blow up, killing everyone inside. just a recommendation though!"

It makes more sense when you read all of the definitions together https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119:

- `MUST: This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.`

- `SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.`

- `MAY: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional.`

In practical terms:

- MUST: It's always a failure to do this. E.g. you MUST have some form of stored energy in your car for it to propel itself down the highway.

- SHOULD: If you don't do this, it's likely to cause failures unless you really know the situation is one of great exception and have thought about what else this change may affect. E.g. you SHOULD maintain a large distance between yourself and then next vehicle on the highway (an example of an exceptional case might be a standstill backup on the highway).

- MAY: This is something which is actually optional and has negligible impacts to successful operation if you do/don't. E.g. you MAY activate cruise control instead of always manually operating the accelerator.

For your car example as-is it'd probably best be MUST unless there is expectation one might reasonably consider their car exploding a valid scenario. In the real world where the car doesn't actually blow, it'd probably be that you MAY leave your keys in the ignition rather than SHOULD/MUST.

Is that what the spec says? Or is this something that Google decided, by making an optional feature a requirement when interoperating with their systems?

It is something Google decided. SHOULD means the other party should anticipate may not. The party examining a SHOULD and deciding not to do something is obviously not required to consider incompetence of other RFC readers as a reason to global replace SHOULD with SHALL before examining requirements.

You should wear sunscreen to the beach. Its recommended as a good way to prevent sunburn. However, the beach police aren't going to come get you for not wearing it. You just might get a sunburn if you don't plan accordingly with other sun countermeasures.

So if I send an email that lacks a feature that MUST be there, will the email police come get me? At a certain point, looking for an analogy stops making sense I think.

I mean, kind of, yeah? If you're sending traffic that fails to meet the MUST requirements, you're probably going to be marked as malicious traffic and eventually wind up on spam/bot lists. If you fail to do the SHOULD things, you might find yourself in some odd edge cases of your peers and experience behavior you didn't expect.

It sounds like Google won't deliver your mails. Presumably they read the spec and are aware of the consequences.

I'm amazed to discover that there are people on earth that believe that some ads aren't scam. It should be forbidden by law to advertise, it is a scourge on humanity.

Most people consider that an extreme take, but I agree completely. They're an active drain on the environments they're placed in - both physical and digital. They're a drain on the mental energy of the people who are forced to see or hear them. They make the entire world feel artificial and fake - a place not made for humans.

I agree.

I clicked on the daring fireball link and immediately saw an intrusive ad.

They are just everywhere, the web was never like this in the beginning.

A complete scourge.

> They are just everywhere, the web was never like this in the beginning.

Maybe briefly. I've been on the web since the late 90s and horrible banner ads (and for a while, shudder, flash ads) have been a thing for as long as I can remember. At least now we have good content blockers!

Personally I ignore most ads but I have also bought some really good products based on ads and there are companies I wish would advertise more, for example relvant conferences that I only find out about because someone posted about their experiences being there.

bro i just want to apt install gimp :(