There is a significant chunk of the rust community that encourages the use of Arc, clone and Box outside of the hot path. Perhaps you're just hooked up with the wrong part of the community?
You're likely to get more pushback when creating public crates: you don't know if it's going to be someone else's hot path.
But the internal code for pretty much any major rust shop contains a lot more Arc, Box and clone than external code.
Conventional LLM's are moving fast too. The argument is that OpenClaw isn't any more useful than conventional LLM's, and I suspect it will always be true because the conventional LLM's will gain any useful capabilities.
I think openclaw provides a unique feature of a standardized host environment for a persistent assistant. This is different than the chat interfaces that are presented by anthropic/openai/others that give you a 'while you are here' assistant interface and is very different from the idea of trained llm weights and ways of serving them up like llama.cpp and others. There really is something unique here that will evolve over time I think.
Agree. It is like just having one continuous chat session with ChapGPT forever. Of course they do have memory already (at least ChatGPT does). I ended up turning it off however, because it kept bringing irrelevant stuff into the current convo.
> In every case, when you dig deeper, the story is one of two things: either what they built could already be done with standard AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, any decent LLM with a simple integration), or it’s aspirational
All your use cases are fairly well handled by conventional LLM's. OpenClaw is a security nightmare, so it's probably worth switching away.
Maine obviously wouldn't have a problem with that, this law indicates they want them somewhere other than Maine. Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations.
>Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations.
So basically steal legitimacy from real environmentalists by applying their label to something that's not really motivated by environmentalism but can be construed that way?
"They don't actually want what I'm selling so I'm gonna dress it up as something else, they'll never know"
AreWeTheBaddies.jpg
The other problem you're gonna have is that this isn't an original thought. You're at least 20yr late to the party. So, so, so much absolute garbage has sailed under the flag of environmentalism that the public is starting to be more critical (see for example the kerfuffle over wind turbines off Rhode Island) and it's not unforeseeable that eventually the environmentalists are gonna have some sort of purge or reformation or reversion to more traditional environmentalism and serving corporate interests in order to reclaim some lost respect/legitimacy. Trying to sail "obviously not primarily about the environment" stuff under the flag of environmentalism is only gonna hasten that.
Unfortunately enviromental law has become a favorite tool of industry to stop, delay, increase costs to competition. Industry funded pretend enviriomentalist groups bringing up friviolous lawsuits has done much harm to the movement.
And a tool of industry to make easy money. You pay off the right people and your "environmentally friendly" product that's 99% as bad as the other thing while performing 50% as well can become "technically not mandatory but you won't get shit approved without it". Or some competing solution will get nerf'd driving business to you.
In a particular state in the midwest. The regulator has adopted the policy of "no new septics". You have to do a mound system at great cost. No rule, no code, no performance standard, just an unofficial policy of "we don't approve those". I know someone who's got a textbook perfect property for a traditional septic. They don't care. The shit pump people are laughing all the way to the bank.
Did you calculate pension benefits? That military pension should be worth millions since you can start earning it young in life and it's based on your highest pay during the career.
It ought to be worth millions, given that you work your tail off, for significant less pay, and get that pay instead of the civilian 401(k) you could have.
Let's look at an E-9 Master Chief, the highest enlisted rank. Their basic pay is $9267 a month[0]. If they're in for 30 years, and get the High-36 retirement plan[1], then they get 75% of that — $6950/mo — afterward. That's certainly not chump change.
However, the kind of person with the drive, leadership skills, political savvy, and work ethic to become a Master Chief would rise to least a director or VP, or a senior VP, at a civilian company. So yes, their military retirement's quite good, but at a substantial opportunity cost.
To be super clear, my main argument is that the military should earn more, especially for the sheer amount of work they put in. They earn it.
This is an absurd comparison. You neglect to include BAH or other tax-free allowances; your figure significantly deflates total compensation. Command Sergeants Major comparing themselves to VP of Human Resources is a meme in veteran circles; as in, those who do it fail miserably to get hired when applying to these positions. They are not comparable.
I don't deny that servicemembers earn their pay. There is a premium to accepting the upheaval of a cross-country move every 3 years. But to assert that the average E-9 is equivalent to a director or VP position is incorrect. People of that rank are told in TAP to accept positions of perceived lower authority. Those who are successful in going from E-8 or E-9 to Director or VP roles are extraordinarily rare.
It's true that lower income families spend a higher proportion of money on food [0], but that was equally true in 1963. It's a static fact about income brackets at any time, and doesn't explain the change in average share.
Food share dropped from ~30% to ~6% because real incomes have risen and food has become cheaper relative to housing, healthcare, education, and so on. That shift affects all income levels, including the poor. Your point doesn't contradict the article's, that the poverty line, based on 1960s food budgets, no longer reflect current costs of living.
Could you send the article where the author revises their claim?
In the 1950's poor people in America may have had housing, but there's a good chance that housing didn't have plumbing. Poor people in the 50's spent roughly 0% of their income on childcare. Much of the article is complaining about the cost of child care.
You may think that poor people should be able to afford child care. That's a valid thought. But then you can't compare that to a 1950's definition of poverty where child care is definitely not affordable by the poor.
In the 60s (and 50s, though not sure why we're moving backwards) most households were single income; childcare costs were virtually nonexistent because mothers typically stayed at home to raise children, and a family would get by on the father's income alone.
That actually illustrates the point nicely: typical economic and living situations from when the metric was created were very different from today in a variety of ways, and once again, the reason the 3x food costs number was chosen -- that roughly 1/3 of income of low-income households was spent on food -- is simply no longer true.
Now, what the poverty line should be is a whole 'nother topic -- for the record the ~150k number is more as an demonstration of how broken the metric is than an actual suggestion, at least as I see it. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere though so I'm tapping out, but I would still appreciate it if you would link to the article you mentioned.
I think the advantage is being able to move the cows on a daily basis. If I had to guess, the 20% savings comes from rotation grazing. Rotation grazing is a lot easier on your pasture, allowing you to have more cows per acre. Rotation grazing can easily be done manually -- it doesn't take much training before moving cows between paddocks is as easy as opening the gate between the two paddocks and yelling out "I've put your tasty bribe in the next paddock, come and get it". Well that's not what you yell at them, but that's what they hear.
But just because it's easy if you do it daily it quickly adds up to a lot of hours.
And the small paddocks of rotation grazing take a lot of expensive wire.
It's called a herd for a reason. Usually if you've found one cow you've found them all. In the wild any cow with genes for aloofness quickly got culled by predators.
The exceptions are the lame & sick ones, but no fancy gadget is going to bring them in; you've got to take a truck to them.
Which is a recent development. A year ago LLM's really struggled with Rust.
reply