I think the issue is that there are SO many piled up little features everywhere that SOMEone is using that keeping everything working while making any changes at all is very difficult.

I am a fan of more wood behind fewer swings. Don't add something like spaces unless you think you've got something so good that you are confident that it will be the common path.

Re: not my money, true. It's just frustrating even to me to see people do stuff like this, and I'm not struggling to get by. My frustration mostly derives from feeling like I'll get lumped in with techies who have more money than sense. I already deal with enough tech hate in my life.

When people buy a super fancy car they don't (usually) blog about it, and instagram wealth influencers are also frustrating, yes.

I… guess the bet is that what they learn is worth $100k? Seems rather questionable. Or that having this on the resume is a great shock tactic that will open doors in the future?

On iOS messages attachments are decoded in a separate, heavily restricted and sandboxed process, and the decoded sanitized results are sent back to the UI process. It just isn't perfect.

I've done some work in this sort of area before, though not literally on a malloc. Yes you very much want to be careful, but ultimately it's the tests that give you confidence. Pound the heck out of it in multithreaded contexts and test for consistency.

Please give specifics. Otherwise this is just grouchiness.

Why? Seems like basically the same paradigm to me, I can just do it without going anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...

Coal, with any available technology, is more polluting than any renewable energy source. Full life cycle including plant installation included.

dyld has one principal author, who would 100% quit and go to the press if he was told (by who?) to insert a back door. The whole org is composed of the same basic people as would be working on Linux or something. Are you imagining a mass of people in suits who learned how to do systems programming at the institute for evil?

Additionally, do you work in tech? You don’t think bugs appear organically? You don’t think creative exploitation of bugs is a thing?

If you think nutritional science is too unreliable, I can see that perspective. The conclusion then should be “I don’t know” not “trust the people who argue with psychological techniques instead of science”.

But also worth noting that whenever you make an abstraction you run the risk that it's NOT going to turn out increase clarity and precision, either due to human limitation or due to changes in the problem. The author's caution is warranted because in practice this happens really a lot. I would rather work with code that has insufficient abstraction than inappropriate abstraction.

> "But I need to debug!"

> Do you debug JVM bytecode? V8's internals? No. You debug at your abstraction layer. If that layer is natural language, debugging becomes: "Hey Claude, the login is failing for users with + in their email."

Folks can get away without reading assembly only when the compiler is reliable. English -> code compilation by llms is not reliable. It will become more reliable, but (a) isn’t now so I guess this is a project to “provoke thought” (b) you’re going to need several nines of reliability, which I would bet against in any sane timeframe (b) English isn’t well specified enough to have “correct” compilation, so unclear if “several nines of reliability” is even theoretically possible.

They’ve clearly bought too much into AI hype if they thought telling the agent to “do good” would work. The result was obviously pissing the hell out of rob pike. They should stop it.

I basically only swipe back. This aligns web pages with iOS nav stacks.