Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | greesil's commentslogin

Shitloads of already existing libraries. For example I'm not going to start using it for Arduino-y things until all the peripherals I want have drivers written in Rust.

Why? You can interact with C libraries from Rust just fine.

But you now have more complexity and no extra safety.

That's not really the case. Not all C APIs are inherently unsafe by construction, and I've always appreciated when someone has wrapped a C library and produced two crates:

- a pure binding crate, which exposes the C lib libraries API, and

- a wrapper library that performs some basic improvements

Stuff in the second category typically includes adding Drop impls to resources that need to be released, translating "accepts pointer + len" into "accepts slices" (or vice versa on return), and "check return value of C call and turn it into a Result, possibly with a stringified error".

All of those are also good examples of local reasoning about unsafety. If a C API returns a buffer + size, it's unsafe to turn it into a reference/slice. But if you check the function succeeded, you unsafely make the slice/reference, and return it from a safe function. If it crashes, you've either not upheld the C calls preconditions (your fault, check how to call the C function), or the C code has a bug (not your fault, the bug is elsewhere).


If you create wrappers that provide additional type information, you do get extra safety and nicer interfaces to work with.

You have extra safety in new code.

This is another key to understanding – and thus deflating – the AI bubble. The AI can't do your job, but an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with an AI that can't do your job

you need to understand and stress how the products of the AI will be substandard

Delightful insight given the present state of this technology.

I'd be curious to hear his take on driverless cars though. It's literally going to replace jobs, seems competent enough at what it does.


First I've heard of this. My initial reaction is why oh god why this name. I liked Anathem, but seriously you're not going to using this as the Internet 3000 years from now.

Meshtastic at first glance seems silly. No routing, one spammer could mess up the whole thing. Hopefully this is better.


Does going to college and learning say, compilers or differential equations not have value? Your employer won't teach you. Please don't tell me the heat equation is fake.


I think they're saying that learning compilers, differential equations, or the heat equation aren't actually that relevant for getting a mid-level procurement job or becoming the manager of a hotel.


I mean that's what a reasonable person might write but that's not what the parent comment actually wrote.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Cash

Ethereum has entered the chat


I have seen a Waymo do a very stupid thing where it darted across a busy street, and it left very little margin of error for the oncoming traffic, which happened to be a loaded dump truck that could not have stopped. The dump truck driver was clearly surprised. It was a move that I never would have made as a driver. Did they dial the aggression up? I'm sure they're safer than humans in aggregate as there are some dumb humans out there but it's not infallible.


Waymo continues to improve every year, but dumb drivers never will.


It is probably possible to get drivers to improve if the incentives were there or if they had no choice due to external factors. I bet it would be cheaper than money spent on self driving tech too.

Or public transit on a track.


Drivers can improve, but they won't. They will talk about the abstract just fine, but always in context of how "the other guy" is so bad, they resist any suggestion that they might not be good either. As soon as your point out something that nearly everyone is doing wrong (as backed up by statistics and traffic safety engineers who study this) and suddenly they will shut you down. As the other reply said: drivers vote and so any change that would affect all of them is impossible.

I'd love to see better public transit, but transit is so bad for most of us that it would take a massive investment before there is any return, and half measures won't work. You have to go all in on transit before you can see any significant change - if you invest in the wrong network you won't know until a massive amount as been invested and there is no return (leaving open the question of if a different investment would have worked).


Drivers hate enforcement, and they vote.


But the incentives are there. The knowledge is even there. What's left is the sum of all values.


American drivers specifically can be improved. Every other country stands as an existence proof of that.


If only we honked the horn when our cars are stopped, to let people know where it is. And honked before putting our cars in motion, to let people know we're about to move. And while the car is in motion, to let people know the car is in motion. I saw no collisions while visiting India, and continuous honking must be a significant part of the reason.


You clearly haven't been to very many countries if you think American drivers are the worst out there.



Ah of course, all other thirty seven countries of the world.


True, the UK is basically an alien civilization compared to the average american state. No comparison is meaningful unless we compare it to every nation state in the world.


What about non-OECD countries? I'm told those are actually most of the world's population and driving.


Not normalized per miles driven? Sure, makes sense chief.


Weird, because per capita deaths leveled off in the 1930's and declined from that plateau in '70's to lows in the 2010's.

Did we get less dumb drivers starting in the '70's?


Deaths and accidents are different measurements. Cars are much safer in an accident than they were in the early/middle 20th century.

Per-mile-driven deaths started climbing again around 2012 in the U.S., I'd wager due to the trend towards larger vehicles causing more collateral damage.


Waymos do seem to have gotten a lot more aggressive.



That reminds me of the Feb 14, 2016 collision in Mountain View [1] (sorry for pdf, but it has the best images of articles I saw) between a Google self-driving car and a VTA articulated bus. TLDR, the software and the safety driver thought the bus would move out of the way because it was a big vehicle and a professional driver. From the report:

> Google said it has tweaked its software to "more deeply understand that buses and other large vehicles are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles."

Maybe that got lost.

[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-03-apnewsbreak-video-google-self-...


I think it made a calculation that it could do it, and did it. I think it was absolutely correct with respect to the physics and timing. What was not factored in to it was how surprising it would be to other drivers, and what would happen if a pedestrian or cyclist or some other surprise showed up, and it would just have no margin whatsoever so it would be straight to the trolley problem.


That would make parties a bit awkward, but it would avoid collisions.


Hi,my name is 1bd0a30d-b415-4747-9650-f1f6e530cd2a, can I get you something to drink?


What a coincidence! That's my name too!!


John Jacob Jingleheimer cfeb6ddc-43a5-4ba9-8a28-b71d93407c78, that's my name too. Whenever I go out, the people always shout, cfeb6ddc-43a5-4ba9-8a28-b71d93407c78


As The Clash booms through the speakers


Lock the taskbar, lock the taskbar!


Hmm, yes, I don’t know what I want, but I’m sure we’ll hash it out together


There are four kinds of people, those that put things into categories, and those that like matrices.

There's at least two meanings for stupid. One is someone who is not intelligent, and it's just kind of an intrinsic thing. The other is someone who does something stupid, irrespective of their intelligence. This is a conditional attribute that depends on available information / motivation / laziness.

Point being a 2x2 matrix is just an oversimplification of real life and also wtf are the axes here???


> There are four kinds of people, those that put things into categories, and those that like matrices.

I must be missing the joke here - those are not exclusive categories, and there are only two of them.

> wtf are the axes here???

It's explained in the text just below the drawing....


It's not?


This trial puts them in quite a pickle.


Real schmear campaign.


No you're now a technology manager. Managing means pep talks, sometimes.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: