deleted by creator

Why do people buy organic fruits and vegetables?

I care about where the code comes from. I like the community to come together on a good solution rather than have one spat out of unknown quality. I want to both test and have that community working together towards a common goal. Fundamentally, I think that sharing our answers and cataloguing them as developers is a good strategy. Way better than AI.

If AI is ultimately borrowing its answers from open source, wouldn’t it be better to just go use open source? At least then there’s some hope that if people find issues and edge cases that I might get those fixes in the future. Why limit your upside to zero? Like, I can put my entire program in one source file maintained by just me but it doesn’t mean I should. Is this an argument against why libraries are a good idea?

Hey! This was my first real job. Is Matlab code written by physicists who just recently learned programming.

It’s detectors all the way down.

But of course, as a tortoise, you would know that.

I have a brilliant friend who works there. However, only projects that integrate AI are really getting approved.

Not if I use AI to hide my use of AI first!

Enforcing that ban is going to be difficult.

All great ideas! I use Steam already so I think I’ll configure it with KDE to open it in big picture mode.

Yup. I’m not a fan of it, but the laptop was otherwise a good deal and the oddity of having an AI button wasn’t enough to spoil the bunch. Still weird and kind of creepy though.

Mine behaves mostly as it normally would on Windows. KDE Plasma has it open the launcher, and there are shortcuts using it that mostly match Windows. It’ll be highly DE-dependent I imagine.

Now, what to do with the copilot button?

I aspire to one day be as knowledgeable and well-rounded in computing as he.

Unfortunately, the server.

Please reach out if you have any questions.

I think this is an interesting case study in how it’s difficult to anticipate the needs of the future and not over-engineer a protocol at the same time.

There’s also this part of the standard that throws a wrench into this hypothesis:

§5.1.2.3/4: (Program execution, Observable behavior):

Accesses to volatile objects and calls to library I/O functions are observable behavior. The implementation may perform any transformation of a program, provided that the resulting program’s observable behavior is not changed.

So it seems that running forever isn’t an observable property that must be preserved when code is transformed.

Still, I think compilers try to not surprise the developer too badly and would recognize a trivial loop most of the time.

The lovely part about UB is it’s non-causal. The compiler can go back in time and steal Halloween candy from you when you were five and still comply with the specification.

The compiler (in C) is allowed to assume that infinite loops eventually terminate. This can lead to these kinds of loops not actually running forever when built with an optimizing compiler.

ISO/IEC 9899:2017 §6.8.5 “Iteration statements”, paragraph 6:

“An iteration statement may be assumed by the implementation to terminate if its controlling expression is not a constant expression, and none of the following operations are performed in its body, controlling expression or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3: – input/output operations – accessing a volatile object – synchronization or atomic operations."

It can, for example, simply optimize it away, assuming non-productive infinite loops are stupid and not reflective of what the code will actually do.