No. A) It is not "right around the corner", it is a gradual process over decades. And B) this has been going on for a few decades and became obvious in the last one. Stop being stupid.
Wise words. Unfortunately, the authoritarian scum that forms 30% or so of the population cannot abide anybody doing something they cannot see. To them, Fascism is an ideal that they try to establish again.
You know, they probably want to send that message. The US and much of the west is going into totalitarianism and fascism again (probably because it worked so well last time....). Preparing pupils for a society where they have no privacy and any "deviation" will be punished with extreme penalties might be doing pupils a favor.
And when the fascism has reached full force, they can easily round up any genetic group they want to get rid off. No painstaking detective and data work the Nazis had to do, instant identification of all that are the "undesirables" to be blamed for all the things that go downhill in fascism.
All these "great" results today are just preparation and propaganda and as soon as the methods are established, they are going to be used for anything possible.
Utter bullshit. No degree of "border controls" (except "shoot them all, including citizens returning from vacation abroad, from a large distance and incinerate the bodies immediately") will have any effect here. Learn at least the basics of how things work before spouting utter nonsense.
Modifying safety-critical components on equipment used in public should require you to be a licensed expert and have insurance. That said, of course getting that license and getting that insurance should be open to anybody that has the requires skill-level. There are other professions were that works and the balance is there.
Simple: In their eyes, obviously your right to repair your car should be removed as well. And car makers tried that. It just created enough outcry because the dumb masses _finally_ got a clue what is going on and started to say something.
It is true that right-to-repair will cause some accidents and cost some lives. But so is allowing people to ride a bike, for example. Overall, the figures will be small and meaningless and vastly offset by the quality of life gained.
You missed the key-component here: The preregistration. The actual finding here is that most previous studies had flawed results due to a faulty approach.
The difference is between actual research (were you want to find truth) and "research" were the goal is propaganda to promote some popular misconceptions. The idea of "Social Priming" is shallow, basic and stupid, and has the intellectual level of "A causes A", which rarely is true. But a lot of people, including a lot of politicians, think that way and it gives the opportunity to "do something", even if that something is horribly wrong.
What we see here is an example of actual research, done by people with high integrity that made damn sure their result were accurate and not influenced by their own expectations.
I agree. You aren't arguing anything. You're just making baseless claims with no data to back it. Show me a study to support the claim that your mythical perfect programmer will solve all the problems. Show me the evidence which demonstrates that you are correct.
Microsoft has shown you a study which contradicts your claim with real world data. Microsoft is the more credible source here.
And now you are back to your ideology. A pity. Well, it was worth a try.
I am not actually arguing for C. I am arguing that the Rust-crowd vastly overstates what their thing can do and that this is counter-productive. Read https://slashdot.org/comments.... for more details.
Just so you know, I am not a one-language C coder. I have done real work in Eiffel, Python, C, C++, Lua, Perl and a few others and I have tried out and would be competent to use quite a few more.
I do agree about the C coders you describe. Many do vastly overestimate their skills and hence they _are_ a serious problem. But moving them to Rust will not solve that problem, because it ts the coders that are the problem, not the language. They will still vastly overestimate their skills if they were to code in Rust. Rust is only somewhat less dangerous than C and in many regards it is just as dangerous as C. For example, all application logic errors (and a lot of security problems come from that direction these days) are just as easy to make in Rust as they are to make in C. As long as you have a general-purpose language, there is no way to make it safe to use. Pretty much the same as you cannot make a chainsaw or a gun (or a kitchen knife, for that matter) really safe to use. IT hat to be used safely, but the device itself is always unsafe because it can always be used in an unsafe manner.
Well, let me clarify that a bit, since you seem to actually trying now instead of just doing the thing where you are utterly convinced to have the truth and everything else must be squashed. So:
1. Bad coders are a huge danger. They are the root-cause for most problems with security and other bugs, unmaintainable code and most of what is wring with coding today.
2. Languages are a minor issue. They can somewhat reduce problems and cost, but they cannot and will never be able to increase developer quality. There is no replacement for insight and understanding, except more insight and understanding. That said, language evolution is beneficial, but it is not anything that will be a game-changer until have strong AI (i.e. AGI), which will not be anytime soon.
3. This hyping of one language as being so much better is massively counterproductive and has happened numerous times before, with the same faulty reasoning. First, it is not true. Sure, Rust has some nice things, for example the thread-safety approach, but this is all a gradual, minor improvement in the tool. It is not a sane reason to drop everything and move to Rust now. It is not a great breakthrough. It is just some gradual evolution. And second, these claims obscure the real problem and that is that we have far too many coders with no or insufficient clue. And this problem is getting worse, for example because all these incompetents have driven down wages and really competent people rarely go into coding these days. And no, tools will not fix that or even reduce the impact from that. Bad coders are hugely expensive to society and the only thing hyping tools does is that the coders will get even cheaper and even worse because "management" thinks they now hire people with even less of a clue. Now, Rust does not make that problem worse. But the hugely exaggerated claims as to its benefits _do_ make the problem worse and that is what I strongly object to.
And you also do not get it. Tools are nice, but tools cannot fix bad coders. In C that is just more obvious than in Rust. Hence while Rust may offer some benefits, they are nowhere near as good as claimed because its proponents gloss over the fact that bad coders will then just make other mistakes. Now, the thing is that I have seen these claims of "great new tool will solve all problems" (I exaggerate, of course) numerous times and they _never_ pan out. Hence I am not easily impressed anymore.
What I am objecting too here is the constant misidentification of the problem and the constant wrong approaches of fixing it that result.
He does not. The reason I can hold my position is that I am an actual expert, not somebody that can only regurgitate marketing propaganda. Sure, memory errors are a problem, but they are just a symptom and fixing them will just move the problem somewhere else, where it may do even more damage. This can only be fixed by addressing the root cause.
Incidentally, he did start with the Ad Hominem and that is what I called "pathetic".
No. And quite a few people going there will not get them either. But for somebody with the aptitude and the interest it is the most effective known way to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
No. A) It is not "right around the corner", it is a gradual process over decades. And B) this has been going on for a few decades and became obvious in the last one. Stop being stupid.
What makes you think the democrats are not part of this too? This has been going on for some decades and has gotten obvious about 10 years back.
Wise words. Unfortunately, the authoritarian scum that forms 30% or so of the population cannot abide anybody doing something they cannot see. To them, Fascism is an ideal that they try to establish again.
Aha! Found the dangerous deviant! Best lock you up indefinitely at once!
You know, they probably want to send that message. The US and much of the west is going into totalitarianism and fascism again (probably because it worked so well last time....). Preparing pupils for a society where they have no privacy and any "deviation" will be punished with extreme penalties might be doing pupils a favor.
And when the fascism has reached full force, they can easily round up any genetic group they want to get rid off. No painstaking detective and data work the Nazis had to do, instant identification of all that are the "undesirables" to be blamed for all the things that go downhill in fascism.
All these "great" results today are just preparation and propaganda and as soon as the methods are established, they are going to be used for anything possible.
Utter bullshit. No degree of "border controls" (except "shoot them all, including citizens returning from vacation abroad, from a large distance and incinerate the bodies immediately") will have any effect here. Learn at least the basics of how things work before spouting utter nonsense.
Bullshit and you know it. This information and the modifications are in reality a requirement to not actively sabotage repair attempts. Go away shill.
Modifying safety-critical components on equipment used in public should require you to be a licensed expert and have insurance. That said, of course getting that license and getting that insurance should be open to anybody that has the requires skill-level. There are other professions were that works and the balance is there.
Indeed. Right above politicians. They are utterly dumb in addition. Lobbyists tend to be pretty smart, just without morals.
Fully agree on that.
Simple: In their eyes, obviously your right to repair your car should be removed as well. And car makers tried that. It just created enough outcry because the dumb masses _finally_ got a clue what is going on and started to say something.
It is true that right-to-repair will cause some accidents and cost some lives. But so is allowing people to ride a bike, for example. Overall, the figures will be small and meaningless and vastly offset by the quality of life gained.
I mean the guy/gal that constantly is getting on your nerves and tries to get a reaction from you has to be it, right?
You missed the key-component here: The preregistration. The actual finding here is that most previous studies had flawed results due to a faulty approach.
The difference is between actual research (were you want to find truth) and "research" were the goal is propaganda to promote some popular misconceptions. The idea of "Social Priming" is shallow, basic and stupid, and has the intellectual level of "A causes A", which rarely is true. But a lot of people, including a lot of politicians, think that way and it gives the opportunity to "do something", even if that something is horribly wrong.
What we see here is an example of actual research, done by people with high integrity that made damn sure their result were accurate and not influenced by their own expectations.
I am not actually arguing
I agree. You aren't arguing anything. You're just making baseless claims with no data to back it. Show me a study to support the claim that your mythical perfect programmer will solve all the problems. Show me the evidence which demonstrates that you are correct.
Microsoft has shown you a study which contradicts your claim with real world data. Microsoft is the more credible source here.
And now you are back to your ideology. A pity. Well, it was worth a try.
Indeed. Also, "CEO" != "competent to use his own product".
I am not actually arguing for C. I am arguing that the Rust-crowd vastly overstates what their thing can do and that this is counter-productive. Read https://slashdot.org/comments.... for more details.
Just so you know, I am not a one-language C coder. I have done real work in Eiffel, Python, C, C++, Lua, Perl and a few others and I have tried out and would be competent to use quite a few more.
I do agree about the C coders you describe. Many do vastly overestimate their skills and hence they _are_ a serious problem. But moving them to Rust will not solve that problem, because it ts the coders that are the problem, not the language. They will still vastly overestimate their skills if they were to code in Rust. Rust is only somewhat less dangerous than C and in many regards it is just as dangerous as C. For example, all application logic errors (and a lot of security problems come from that direction these days) are just as easy to make in Rust as they are to make in C. As long as you have a general-purpose language, there is no way to make it safe to use. Pretty much the same as you cannot make a chainsaw or a gun (or a kitchen knife, for that matter) really safe to use. IT hat to be used safely, but the device itself is always unsafe because it can always be used in an unsafe manner.
Well, let me clarify that a bit, since you seem to actually trying now instead of just doing the thing where you are utterly convinced to have the truth and everything else must be squashed. So:
1. Bad coders are a huge danger. They are the root-cause for most problems with security and other bugs, unmaintainable code and most of what is wring with coding today.
2. Languages are a minor issue. They can somewhat reduce problems and cost, but they cannot and will never be able to increase developer quality. There is no replacement for insight and understanding, except more insight and understanding. That said, language evolution is beneficial, but it is not anything that will be a game-changer until have strong AI (i.e. AGI), which will not be anytime soon.
3. This hyping of one language as being so much better is massively counterproductive and has happened numerous times before, with the same faulty reasoning. First, it is not true. Sure, Rust has some nice things, for example the thread-safety approach, but this is all a gradual, minor improvement in the tool. It is not a sane reason to drop everything and move to Rust now. It is not a great breakthrough. It is just some gradual evolution. And second, these claims obscure the real problem and that is that we have far too many coders with no or insufficient clue. And this problem is getting worse, for example because all these incompetents have driven down wages and really competent people rarely go into coding these days. And no, tools will not fix that or even reduce the impact from that. Bad coders are hugely expensive to society and the only thing hyping tools does is that the coders will get even cheaper and even worse because "management" thinks they now hire people with even less of a clue. Now, Rust does not make that problem worse. But the hugely exaggerated claims as to its benefits _do_ make the problem worse and that is what I strongly object to.
Look, C is dangerous.
Nope. Bad coders are dangerous and they are so in any language.
And you also do not get it. Tools are nice, but tools cannot fix bad coders. In C that is just more obvious than in Rust. Hence while Rust may offer some benefits, they are nowhere near as good as claimed because its proponents gloss over the fact that bad coders will then just make other mistakes. Now, the thing is that I have seen these claims of "great new tool will solve all problems" (I exaggerate, of course) numerous times and they _never_ pan out. Hence I am not easily impressed anymore.
What I am objecting too here is the constant misidentification of the problem and the constant wrong approaches of fixing it that result.
He does not. The reason I can hold my position is that I am an actual expert, not somebody that can only regurgitate marketing propaganda. Sure, memory errors are a problem, but they are just a symptom and fixing them will just move the problem somewhere else, where it may do even more damage. This can only be fixed by addressing the root cause.
Incidentally, he did start with the Ad Hominem and that is what I called "pathetic".
No. And quite a few people going there will not get them either. But for somebody with the aptitude and the interest it is the most effective known way to do it.
Seriously, what are these people doing?
Not that they would notice.