I also realized that this can be expressed in terms of a two pairs of sibling:

> Mary and Ann are the same age difference as Jane and Claire. Mary is 24 years old. Mary is twice as old as Jane. Claire is as old as Ann. How old is Ann?

This highlights also why it's so confusing:

> Mary is 24 years old. She [Mary, today] is twice as old as Ann was [Ann, past] when Mary was [Mary, past] as old as Ann is [Ann, today] now. How old is Ann?

In one sentence we're comparing past and present ages.

Mary is 24 years old. When Mary was Ann’s current age, Ann was 12 years old (half Mary’s current age).

This makes it a bit easier to realize that Ann’s age has to be right in the middle of 12 and 24.

- while none of this is exaggerated

- it comes down to a real design choice

- the bloat, the amplified writes, the vacuum babysitting

- every charge traces to a decision, not a defect

- the verdict that spreads from community to community always stops one question early

- watch the damage happen yourself

Here's one way of how to write it in simpler language:

> These are not user mistakes and it's easy to reproduce these issues in a few lines of SQL on the latest version of Postgres. We're going to go through each of these problematic cases one by one to understand what's happening. Next, we're going to look at how other databases are solving it. Turns out there is no silver-bullet here: Postgres just makes a different set of trade-offs than other databases.

EDIT: And you can read for yourself how the LLM rates these two paragraphs compared to each other: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a6a3120-fec4-83eb-9c8b-dbb6294aa5...

    attic

    // Precise matching:
    assert_f64_eq!(a, 0.1, Steps(2))
    // same as: assert!(a == 0.1.next_down().next_down())

    // Number of digits (after period) that are matching:
    assert_f64_eq!(a, 0.1, Digits(5))

    // Relative error:
    assert_f64_eq!(a, 0.1, Rel(0.5))

> A store operation with this memory order performs the release operation: no reads or writes in the current thread can be reordered after this store. All writes in the current thread are visible in other threads that acquire the same atomic variable (see Release-Acquire ordering below) and writes that carry a dependency into the atomic variable become visible in other threads that consume the same atomic (see Release-Consume ordering below).

However, looking at the recent commits it doesn't quite look like the most solid foundation: https://github.com/shuaimu/rusty-cpp/commit/480491121ef9efec...

    fn is_interior_mutability_type(type_name: &str) -> bool {
        type_name.starts_with("rusty::Cell<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("Cell<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("rusty::RefCell<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("RefCell<") ||
        // Also check for std::atomic which has interior mutability
        type_name.starts_with("std::atomic<") ||
        type_name.starts_with("atomic<")
    }

There's also quite a lot of dead code. All of these warnings are around unused variable, functions, structs, fields:

    warning: `rusty-cpp` (bin "rusty-cpp-checker") generated 90 warnings (44 duplicates)

    struct slot {
      uint32_t key;
      uint32_t value;
    }

I would be unhappy with the carpenter, yes. But if the toolmaker was constantly over-promising (lying?), lobbying with governments, pushing their tools into the hands of carpenters, never taking responsibility, then I would also criticize the toolmaker. It’s also a toolmaker’s responsibility to be honest about what the tool should be used for.

I think it’s a bit too simplistic to say «AI is not the problem» with the current state of the industry.

And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers? Clearly there’s more problems in this world than «lazy carpenters»?

Saying «I know that correlation doesn’t imply causation», but then only demonstrating correlation isn’t really bringing this discourse any further.

    def foo
      p 1
      yield
      p 2
    end

    foo { break }

This adds some complexity in the language, but it means that it’s far more expressive. In Ruby you can with nothing but Array#each write idiomatic code which reads very similar to other traditional languages with loops and statements.

Well, this all depends on the definition of «function properly». Convergence ensures that everyone observed the same state, not that it’s a useful state. For instance, The Imploding Hashmap is a very easy CRDT to implement. The rule is that when there’s concurrent changes to the same key, the final value becomes null. This gives Strong Eventual Consistency, but isn’t really a very useful data structure. All the data would just disappear!

So yes, CRDT is a massively useful property which we should strive for, but it’s not going to magically solve all the end-user problems.

Except for Zsh (~/.zshrc), SSH (~/.ssh/config), Vim (~/.vimrc), Curl (~/.curlrc), Git (~/.gitconfig). Apple could have chosen to patch these and move the configuration files into ~/Library if they really wanted.

There's many scientists who have published the "contrary". They were not ostracized from science or from society as a whole. These saw next to none negative impact to their position while they were alive. Other scientists have published rebuttals and later some of the originals articles have been retracted.

J. Philippe Rushton: 250 published articles, 6 books, the most famous university professor in Canada. Retractions of this work came 8 years after his death.

Arthur Jensen: Wrote a controversial paper in 1969. Ended up publishing 400 articles. Remained a professor for his full life.

Hans Eysenck: The most cited living psychologist in peer-reviewed scientific journal literature. It took more than 20 years before any of his papers were retracted.

There's a lot of published articles about the "contrary view" that you can read. You can also read the rebuttals by the current scientific consensus (cited above).

> The analogous claim would therefore be that “although height differences have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in height between families have a genetic basis.” This seems very clearly false to me.

But this is not an analogous claim since you're talking about disparities between families. The analogous claim would be: "although height differences have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in height between groups have a genetic basis".

A very simple example for height[1]: The Japanese grew 10 cm taller from mid-20th century to early 2000s. Originally people thought that the shortness of the Japanese was related to their genetics, but this rapid growth (which also correlates with their improved economy) suggests that the group difference between Japanese and other groups was not related to the genetic component of height variance.

[1]: Secular Changes in Relative Height of Children in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan: Is “Genetics” the Key Determinant? https://biomedgrid.com/pdf/AJBSR.MS.ID.000857.pdf

> Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis[18][19][20][21]. The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups.[22][23][24][25][26][27].