"Status:

pgrust is not production-ready yet. It is not performance optimized yet."

The maintainer is not suggesting you use this for anything yourself. So why do you care about spf or (lol) his "discipline in creating the project"?

- The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, once they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully.

- The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it.

- Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes on second-reading (despite the first-reading having defeated it) and it is established in a very PERVERSE way in EU law that to AVOID passing the proposal in second-reading you need ABSOLUTE majority which is incredibly hard to pursue (you would think that we would need an absolute majority to PASS a proposal that was previously defeated on first-reading, not to DENY one that forced on the table).

- Furthermore, absences count as "NO" on the rejection. So of course they scheduled the vote in the summer when notoriously there will be many absences.

By never withdrawing a defeated proposal they can effectively and in practicality pursue any agenda they want (it requires a massive mobilization effort to find absolute majority to defeat any proposal, especially when absences for any reason effectively count against rejection).

EU is not a democracy.

Tuning those can definitely make a model respond better or worse.

So your claim (quoting 100% as written) that "Their performance depends solely on the model training before release and how well you curate the context you feed it" is wrong. Hence the downvotes.

Doesn't matter if LLMs are to be considered intelligent or not for the claim to be wrong.

> But judging from the downvotes, it seems AI folks get upset when someone talks honestly about their precious piles of matrix multiplication.

Ocassionally yes. In this case, it's more like they get upset when someone says something factually wrong, and then defensively changes the goalposts.

The people who face them. The constraints are making the goal harder to reach. The goal is on the other side of the constraints and it takes power of will to refuse to remove them and keep pushing. This forces a creative solution.

> when stuck creatively in music production

So you're not introducing constraints, you're creatively trying out things to fix your problem. They're not a wall preventing you from reaching your goal, they're the bridge. Your constraint is the temporary lack of creativity, and what you introduce is the creative solution.

> Really easy for me to skip these artificial constraints at any time, they still help a lot.

When you remove these you're stuck in a creativity block and failed to achieve your goal. When you remove actual constraints you make the goal easier to reach.

The only way to make the problems comparable is to set a programming goal of "write the most efficient code to do X" but for real work the goal is almost always "do X".

China could just bomb Taiwan into submission if it chooses to. I don't think it is a problem for China to build 20-30k ballistic missile and launch them at Taiwan. Or send a million drones over there just to be sure nothing survives them.

Taiwan is, unfortunately, in a very precarious situation should China decide enough is enough and reunification must happen no matter what.

This is about gender, not sex, and that's not the definition I used for "gender" that you agreed with. You agreed with this definition of "gender": "female gender refers to the social roles and norms associated with being a woman".

> For me the benefit appears obvious (and cynical): power

Together with atheists and muslims, trans people are the most hated group of people in the US. I mean, I do think that the Democrats are mostly craven idiots, but "let's find the most hated people in the US and do a power grab by aligning with them" is so stupid that even they wouldn't do that.

If you genuinely believe that advocating for trans people is a power grab, I think you have a very skewed view of politics.

> some people genuinely believe that males can be born with a female brain/soul, and vice versa.

Your brain creates your perception of your gender. But trans people don't have a "female brain". There isn't a single aspect of your brain that determines your gender; there isn't really a commonly accepted scientific definition of a "male brain" or a "female brain."

However, trans people do have statistically measurable differences in their brains, which tend to make their brains align more with their gender identity than their birth-assigned sex.

Anyway, all of this isn't at all necessary to believe that trans people should be treated kindly and with respect, which is what this is ultimately about.

This post obliterated any chance I had to use or condone Zig commercially. If this is how Zig leadership thinks and acts, plus their stance on AI and GitHub, I'm afraid that the language will stay archived as a neat PL research project in my mind. And maybe it's what Andrew wants.

Well, some of us didn't grow up in perfect households, for one thing. I actively avoided both my parents at that age.