Building coalitions is slow, deliberative work. Not a skills match for this administration, whatever your assessment of their overall aptitude is.

That hash would be expensive to maintain, and the end result would still be racy since the file could be modified after the hash was read .

In the current POSIX paradigm yes, it would be expensive. But if the hash was defined as the hash of fixed blocks, it wouldn't be expensive. The raciness depends, a lot, on the semantics we would define. (In the context of a build system, it's no different than that the file could get a new mtime after we read the mtime.)

LLMs absolutely let you explore ideas and areas you wouldn't have otherwise...but does your new design actually _work_?

I'm curious whether the "knowledge" you gained was real or hallucinatory. I've been using LLMs this way myself, but I worry I'm contaminating my memory with false information.

I think that you're confusing what you're doing with what I'm doing.

What I'm doing is learning the circuit constructs that I need and then putting them to work in real circuits. There's usually a few breadboard steps in the middle, which you could call reinforcement learning.

To me, the telling thing about your question is the implication that I would spend a week learning how to do something and then not test it out. I know that this reply reads as salty, but I'm really struggling to contain my own "wtf" on this end.

Seriously, people that are so determined to prove that LLMs don't work despite how easy it is to test for yourself and see that they clearly do work are the ones that are hallucinating.

This will always happen as long as people are led by their egos. Also they probably aren't autodidacts and don't understand learning for fun.

At some point this existential doubt about your own work and others seems pretty weird.

Go ahead and figure out ways to interrogate on your work with technical means, that's a critical part of the process with an LLM or not.

Thank you.

You were on the happy path. I just had to get involved for a family member that broke their Apple phone and couldn't get their SIM transferred. Even after adding them as an authorized user under duress, they had to physically go to a T-Mobile store to get their phone on the network.

I believe you, but do you have a citation?

Search for the phrase "Vision Zero"

Will a managed MacBook allow the installation of random native apps, either?

Though let's be realistic, here: $600 is much more than the typical school-assigned Chromebook.

It’s $500 for a kid, a full time student.

Linux VMs are a first party supported feature on Chromebooks. They're far more capable than a tablet.

USB headphones and USB-headphone jack adapters exist. Just leave the adapter connected to your wired headphones.

I have a pair just like that, as an emergency backup

There is no existing safe ABI, so this cannot be an adoption barrier.

Lots of reasons why it is. I'll give you two.

1) It can't be that replacing 20 C/C++ shared objects with 20 Rust shared objects results in 20 copies of the Rust standard library and other dependencies that those Rust libraries pull in. But, today, that is what happens. For some situations, this is too much of a memory usage regression to be tolerable.

2) If you really have 20 libraries calling into one another using C ABI, then you end up with manual memory management and manual buffer offset management everywhere even if you rewrite the innards in Rust. So long as Rust doesn't have a safe ABI, the upside of a Rust rewrite might be too low in terms of safety/security gained to be worth doing

Many Rust core/standard library functions are trivial and inlining them is not really a concern. For those that do involve significant amount of code, C ABI-compatible code could be exported from some .so dynamic object, with only a small safe wrapper being statically linked.

But why is criminality higher in the US?