Yes I have traveled to places where I don’t speak the language, need to get an Uber at a specific place, and need to read the signs. You can get surprisingly far if you know a few words in the local language, and in your hypothetical future, even if you and the driver have an agent, what are you going to do if you need to communicate with someone in person that’s not that driver? Ask your agent to? I don’t see how that’s a feasible idea.
What’s your point? Okay, the hotline is a bandage, but that’s entirely the point, you use it when you’re feeling suicidal and you need to talk to someone. You don’t use it to fix structural issues in your life that lead to you feeling like that.
Existence, where you're just thrown out there to sink or swim and that's thats. If you're lucky you have parents and/or friends who can help you. If you're not, well... good luck!
I didn't think that in Netherlands, Germany or France you can live like a normal person if you are, say, depressed or addicted to drugs and don't want to or can't work.
How would the requester get notified if it doesn’t know which request succeeded? Is it listening for events?
And at the sake of repeating the above commenter, you solve the multiple server by serializing somewhere, because you ultimately need a lock on something. You can also perform the operation in both places and then reconcile the state later but that’s a lot more complex.
The requester doesn't want to know which request succeeded, because they are duplicates and one is a retry!
When you are using TCP, and you send the same data twice because of a delayed ack, you likewise don't care if the ACK is for the first time or the second time you sent the data. You just know the other side got the data, and that's all you care about.
That seems totally reasonable but I wonder if there was some head butting in non-public channels given Bun is one of the biggest players in Zig and planned to push through a change like that on their own.
And also great reasons for Bun to port themselves elsewhere. If they aren’t allowed to contribute to Zig, there’s very little reason to select Zig moving forward.
Zig is a moving target that has breaking changes in every release (which is fine as they are sub-1.0). But that means that AI tools have been trained on outdated syntax/etc. Zig isn't that common, so there is even less training data to begin with.
Rust on the other hand is pretty established by now and has less breaking changes. It also has more compile-time safety-guarantees that makes vibe-coding a bit more confident.
In top of that, Zig has rejected their upstream contributions. So they'd have to maintain their own compiler in the long run, which is probably just technical debt to maintain.
Most of my vibe coding is in zig, and it has been my experience that Claude and Codex both keep up with zig changes just fine. Every now and then I catch them writing outdated code that they burn some tokens on, but my experience says your local codebases’s idioms will influence what gets generated enough to stop this from being a problem.
Probably an experiment due to Bun's PRs to Zig being rejected (Zig does not allow AI use). If Rust works well enough, and the alternative is maintaining a fork of Zig, I'd guess they'd go with Rust.
The anti-AI policy had nothing to do with Bun's PRs being rejected. This post[0] by a core zig maintainer explains why the PRs were low quality and subsequently rejected.
Was there even a PR? The post from Bun [1] says they have no plan to upstream it, and that ziggit post says the changes are undesirable. It sounds like there never was anything to reject.
I can't find any evidence that the creators of Zig hold the views GP seems to suggest, but I think your assertion is wrong.
Normal, emotionally stable people do sometimes make decisions about what businesses to patronize based on the political leanings of the business owners. Same thing happens with art appreciation, movie/TV watching, and plenty of other things. Zig might not be a business, but the same rules apply.
You may think that's foolish, and not make your decisions that way, but it's a perfectly valid way to make decisions.
> Normal, emotionally stable people do sometimes make decisions about what businesses to patronize based on the political leanings of the business owners.
Maybe with issues like abortion or racial discrimination, but not tariffs.
This is the same as the EFF blog[1] that's been posted here a few times recently.
I agree that the way that a lot of the internet generally works in the US generally depends on Section 230, because it essentially allows websites big and small to avoid needing to really moderate their content, because they're not responsible for it, the user is. If this law changed it would fundamentally change the way that these services operate.
However, I feel like this misses a big point: these big services can simply do more moderation, and it is possible to make a more nuanced law than what currently exists. It is entirely possible to design a law where smaller communities need less strict moderation (e.g. nothing illegal like CSAM), while bigger ones need more. The thing that bigger companies want you to believe is that it's impossible at their scale, but it's not that it's impossible, it's that is fairly costly and would eat severely into profits, and so they really, really do not want to lose Section 230 protection.
Not the original commenter, but the math is (making some implicit, but arguably reasonable assumptions):
Probability that someone in the population has schizophrenia = (1870/500000) = 0.00374
Probability that someone does NOT have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)
Then if we assume that blind people have the same rate of schizophrenia as the population,
Probability that 66 blind people ALL don't have schizophrenia = (1 - 0.00374)^66 = 0.78
The sad thing is that IF — by chance — one of those 66 had schizophrenia, the headline would undoubtedly read “Blind children are FOUR TIMES more likely to develop Schizophrenia!”
1870/500000*66 = 0.24684. However, it's "nearly half a million", so let's call it 30000 as a conservative estimate: that's still 0.4114 children in expectance, which isn't very many.
reply