When I decided to take a break from being terminally online, I didn’t turn off the phone feature but leave Wi-Fi on so I could still check my socials on the office Wi-Fi; that wouldn’t have actually done much. I forced my phone off the bulk of the internet by turning off Wi-Fi and disabling cellular data for everything but a few core apps like Messages and Maps.

But it was 90s era C++, so probably that was all just a polite agreement and the reality was that circumventing the message passing to directly call methods on objects that belong to other threads was common, and just as likely to happen by accident as on purpose.

https://youtu.be/eg7gNhmtwTA

There are some who would call that micro-management.

Which is self-defeating. If you don't make a good faith effort to understand what he said then you're leaving yourself in a poor position to credibly argue against it.

What about an example where religious belief fundamentally excludes someone from doing the actual job? Suppose a Muslim wants a job as a bartender, but refuses to actually serve people drinks because they consider it a violation on the rule against alcohol. Should the bar grant them a religious exemption and just accept that they won't be serving alcoholic beverages when that person's the bartender on duty?

Or what if two different religious beliefs come into direct conflict? Suppose a Jehovah's Witness whose manager is also a JW decides to leave the religion. Jehovah's Witnesses consider shunning apostates to be a religious commandment, so their manager might feel obligated to fire them. Is that OK?

Depending on how we resolve those conflicts, perhaps people can at least agree that there should be limits to religious exemptions, even if they don't agree on the specifics. But perhaps that's at least a starting point for a conversation. And perhaps from there we can extend out to Durham's position.

I realize that's embedded within a larger page on the Sorites paradox instead of being given its own page, but I'm not super interested in being that preoccupied with Wikipedia's editorial decisions.

So let's look at that preceding sentence so that we can get a better sense of what kind of labor he was talking about:

> The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person.

"thinking through situations", "my ethics", "the way I handle other people", "develop myself as a moral person". This doesn't read to me like he's taking a Butlerian Jihad-type position that humans have a moral responsibility to do their own arithmetic. We're clearly talking about higher-level, more abstract thinking and decision-making that might carry real moral weight.

And that brings us to a difference that I think he might be seeing but that you seemed to be claiming does not exist when you said, "My main issue with these people is that they think AI/LLMs are different than everything that came before them." GPT-style decoder LLMs are the first time we've ever really seen people trying to rely on computers to make abstract and open-ended decisions such as drawing up business plans, drafting memoranda, or doing deep research-type tasks on any sort of scale.

I think that you're probably aware that there is a a noticeable difference between how people are thinking about LLMs now versus how they did back when GPT 2.0 was the latest and greatest. The fact that we can construct a hypothetical continuum of possible models between GPT 2.0 and GPT 3.5 Turbo and suggest that, in this counterfactual scenario, it might not be possible to draw a hard line that cleanly separates the tech itself into two discrete categories, is fundamentally missing the point. His concern was never stated to be about the technology itself; it was about how he was being asked to use it.

A continuum is not isomorphic to a single point.

Hypothetically the code is consolidating sites where allocation happens. Zig’s design seems to really push you toward this by making anything else a PITA. So then that allocator reference is being used frequently and already sitting in a register anyway.

The few extra instructions for explicitly passing it might be small compared to the cost of having objects carry their own references. That would grow each instance by ~8 bytes. It would mean that the pointer to the allocator needs to be pulled from a unique memory location for each instance, which is maybe an order of magnitude slower than already having it in a register. Larger data structures would also mean more cache misses, which are another order of magnitude slower.

And this is all chicken feed compared to actually taking a walk of shame out to the DRAM to fetch more memory. So the language ergonomics encouraging you to consolidate your allocation might trump all other considerations in practice.

Zig seems to be laser focused on systems programming domains where there is value in keeping unusually tight control over everything the program does. Aside from tinkering with Arduino, never been me. If it were, though, then I would probably not want to use a library that wants to be able to arbitrarily grow ArrayLists. I would probably want to structure my program so that it acquires pages of memory (actual memory, not just overcommit) in as few places as possible - ideally one - and from a location very close to the entry point. And a library that doesn’t play nice with that wouldn’t be much more palatable than a library that wants to bring its own memory management runtime along for the ride.

I don’t think that’s totally unreasonable? It’s more restrictive than what most of us are used to, sure. But it’s also quite a bit less restrictive than completely banning dynamic heap allocation as is common in aerospace applications.

It won't be floating anymore, but it will at least be somewhat physically intact, at least relative to the state it was already in. It was pretty well stripped bare back in the 80s, and further gutted after that asbestos abatement project a while back. And it will be available for people who can SCUBA dive to visit.

The worrying thing about using LLMs to do the "thinking" about what to say and how to say it is that you replace a plurality of human biases with the opinions of the small number of people who get to decide how these models are trained. Which will only seem unbiased if the bias baked into the LLM happens to align with your own.

It seems like agentic coding is removing the last few places where work really did force us to slow down and spend some time learning. I'm not convinced that's a good thing. I've seen too many situations where the rich mental map someone built up during learning time later saved the team multiple person-months' worth of effort by letting someone see a non-obvious solution that was much simpler than the original plan.