Sounds like a classic case of early onset yak-shaving. But given that I too get bitten by this bug from time to time, I approve.

One case where I find it useful, tho it operates in a more limited way, is code in block blocks within code comments in Rust, which are also printed out in the generated documentation. They essentially get ran as part of your unit tests. This is great for making sure that, eg, your examples left in code comments actually work, especially if they’re written in a way that functions like a unit test.

This seems like a real knee jerk moment here. You aren’t wrong that there are predatory sellers that do exactly that, but it also seems to assume that people do not have the ability to do their own research, which tbf in a society where attention is apparently a rare commodity and heavily capitalized on, it’s not necessarily an unfair assumption. It’s just unhelpful and honestly pretty damn rude to make a blanket comment that seems to assume that people just won’t or will refuse do their research, and should just listen to your authoritative take.

Wouldn’t it be better to just rephrase your comment into something like, “Please remember to keep an eye on price histories to make sure that the displayed prices are discounted as claimed.”?

Or does it feel better to speak as if people are dumber than you are? I mean, if you need to feel smarter and better, there are other healthier avenues for that, and I would suggest that you try looking into those instead.

The return statement always returns for the function, regardless of scope within the function. So what you want is just Some(link) without the semicolon.

That said, I’m not quite sure if you’re using the for loop correctly here. Are you trying to get just one value out of link_nodes?

Many of these meanings seem to be captured in some modern solutions already:

• We plan to provide a value, but memory for this value hasn’t been allocated yet.
• The memory has been allocated, but we haven’t attempted to compute/retrieve the proper value yet
• We are in the process of computing/retrieving the value

Futures?

• There was a code-level problem computing/retrieving the value

Exception? Result monads? (Okay, yea, we try to avoid the m word, but bear with me there)

• We successfully got the value, and the value is “the abstract concept of nothingness”

An Option or Maybe monad?

• or the value is “please use the default”
• or the value is “please try again”

An enumeration of return types would seem to solve this problem. I can picture doing this in Rust.

2 things I like about golang is just 1) the ease of getting someone to start work, and 2) goroutines. I have no complains about goroutines cause I’ve barely used it, and when I do it’s been fine. The first point though, I’d say the simplicity of the language is a double-edged sword — it’s easy to learn with little surface to cover, but it forces you to implement a lot of basic machinery you find in other languages by yourself, and so your codebase can get clunky to read really quickly, especially as your project grows.

Not trying to dissuade you from learning golang tho. I think it’s a good language to learn and use, especially for small simple programs, but it’s not the great language many try to say it is. It’s… fine. There are many reasons why it grinds my gears, but I’m still fine with using it and maintaining it for prod.

Ehhh, golang’s pretty down there for me too. Sure, you have types, but the way you “implement” an interface is the sussiest thing I’ve seen in most well-known programming languages. Not to mention all the foot guns (pointers for nullables is a common one, and oh, if you forgot that a function returns an error, and you called it for its effects, you’ve just built a possibly very silent bomb) you end up building into your programs. I use in prod, and I get scared.

I mean, if we think of how we sometimes respond to people in a mechanical, maybe even programmed way (e.g. “How are you?” with “Doing fine (though I’m actually not). How’re you doing?”), you ain’t wrong about it.

??? Am I? Never noticed that. Imma go check my settings

Edit: Not sure why that box was ticked. Guess I did that by mistake.

You can force a specific Proton version on each game, though I’m not sure (off the top of my head at least) if that would help with not installing duplicates. Iirc best practice for using Wine for games is to have separate installations to avoid having conflicting dependencies, though I’m not sure if Steam does that.

Also, GE is short for Glorious Eggroll, which is the name of the dev who creates custom Proton distributions. People refer to these distributions simply as Proton GE or just GE. Ref: https://github.com/GloriousEggroll/proton-ge-custom

You are correct. This notion of “size” of sets is called “cardinality”. For two sets to have the same “size” is to have the same cardinality.

The set of natural numbers (whole, counting numbers, starting from either 0 or 1, depending on which field you’re in) and the integers have the same cardinality. They also have the same cardinality as the rational numbers, numbers that can be written as a fraction of integers. However, none of these have the same cardinality as the reals, and the way to prove that is through Cantor’s well-known Diagonal Argument.

Another interesting thing that makes integers and rationals different, despite them having the same cardinality, is that the rationals are “dense” in the reals. What “rationals are dense in the reals” means is that if you take any two real numbers, you can always find a rational number between them. This is, however, not true for integers. Pretty fascinating, since this shows that the intuitive notion of “relative size” actually captures the idea of, in this case, distance, aka a metric. Cardinality is thus defined to remove that notion.

Not sure why artists are brought up here but I guess that’s one of the highly affected groups.

Just to talk about that particular consequence, however, I don’t agree with your take. There are AI trained on works of specific artists, and the end result is that the AI is really good at producing work that’s similar to that artist’s work, effectively creating an alternative to that artist, even if it’s of slightly lesser quality and a lack of depth of the original. While this would likely not affect the artist in the short term, in the long term, new prospects who don’t yet know the artist well enough would likely be unable to tell the difference in quality, and may even go straight to the AI model since that’s distributed cheaply or even free. It may also negatively reflect on the original artist to people who don’t know the artist, as the works from the AI would likely be more abundant, and people not in the know may think that the original artist was in fact just producing their works through AI. It is highly discouraging for artists who have worked hard to hone their craft, only to have people think that their works have little difference or even a mimicry (don’t underestimate misinformation).

There has been many instances where such training was done without the knowledge of the artist. Imagine just waking up one day, and finding that there’s someone or something that can very closely reproduce your works, one’s you’ve taken many years of practice to produce, of which its quality is almost unique to yourself. There’s a blatant lack of respect for the hard work that people put into their craft, one that seemingly belittles their blood and tears, and could even be a mockery of their existence. Some artists don’t have other jobs; their art and craft is their job, and some may have even sacrificed learning the skills needed for other jobs to pursue their passion.

Saying that AI is not intended to replace artists, but to improve accessibility, is like saying ATMs weren’t meant to replace bank tellers. True, there’s much less skill required for bank tellers, and getting cash out of banks is an important process that should be swift with almost no errors, so replacing bank tellers with ATMs is a general good, except for the bank tellers, which then banks can retrain them for other jobs. Since then, the job has virtually gone extinct, and almost nobody would want to become a bank teller, and if anyone would like to, they would need to perform better than ATMs. Artists require great skills and creativity, many of which are not easily trained or obtained. Seeing an automated system produce works that are acceptable by most people would either greatly discourage new artists or perhaps even entirely remove the idea of becoming an artist for most people. It raises the barrier to becoming an artist: not only do you need to stand out, you also need to be good enough such that people can’t just train an AI model on your work to produce results that are highly indistinguishable from yours. How many more years do people need to train to be that good? For those with a job but wish to become an artist, abandoning their job to focus on their craft will likely become a much more difficult choice to make. Also, I don’t doubt this would further rise the prices of commissions due to how much work artists would have to put in, and this would only get worse at a rate that’s much faster than a scenario without AI.

So a line should be drawn somewhere. AI trained on public works or artist-approved works are definitely okay. All other options will likely need further discussion and scrutiny. We’re talking about the possibility of ruining an already perilous career path, whose works are coveted.