I am a topic starter, and I had no emotional response, was just being curious. Never expected it will land at HN #1. I specifically posted the link to the first commit and not to the whole branch, because currently the prompt is the most interesting part.
The branch name is "claude/phase-a-port", there was zero indication this was an experiment until Jarred commented. The more accurate title might have simply been "there is a branch in the official repo of bun describing a port to rust from zig". No amount of soft titles would have prevented the discussion. People have their opinions about Bun, about Zig, about Rust and it's all going to come out in a discussion board.
Can’t every branch be considered an experiment? I have a ton of experimental branches that I don’t label «experimental». One of the reasons you use git…
Sure, but then how does it change anything around the discussion? You are still running an experiment to port to Rust, it still gets posted, the Rust-heads and Zig-heads still make their comments.
> there was zero indication this was an experiment
The goal of Phase A is a **draft** `.rs` next to the `.zig`
that captures the logic faithfully — it does **not** need to compile. Phase B
makes it compile crate-by-crate.
I mean, it would be hard to spell it out any clearer than that! Code that fails to compile is just not very useful for real work.
Phase B clearly says compilation is the next goal. The first goal is to get a like for like logic, the second goal is to get it to compile. Can you guess what the third goal will be? Throw out the code?
Yes, but that would require people to read past the title. You can't get a proper knee-jerk first post in if you do that! Completely unfair to expect people to make that sacrifice/effort.
[there was some sarcasm there, BTW, if anyone has a faulty detector that didn't pick up on it]
I couldn't use that title because I didn't know if it an experiment at the moment. Even now the correct title would be "Bun author says that he is entertaining the idea of porting it from Zig to Rust, creates an experimental branch".
An original topic starter? I'm pretty sure that this was originally posted on X by someone else, as I commented there, and minutes after, it was copied and put here on HN with the twisted title; the original was more of a "question, surprise tone"
This topic starter. I saw a post on Twitter in "for you" feed, verified it, found an interesting bit (rewriting prompt) and started a topic on HN. Like I said, I never expected it to hit #1.
While you are here, can you elaborate on the method chosen? For example, why not write a conversion script for phase A? I mean, same Anthropic model will produce it in no time, prompting it is at the same cognitive load level, but you would have a deterministic result.
Lots of people, me included, heavily invested their time and expertise into Bun, using it as a daily driver, to bundle production code or even using it in production as a JS/TS runtime. Of course, we are interested in Bun to stay a useful tool. The Anthropic acquisition was worrying enough on its own.
But there isn't any change in someone's expertise in Bun though, currently, just in development. Why would they have to dive you into a daily stand-up about their development process?
Bun may become unusable after Antropic meddling with it. In that case the expertise would be wasted. It's not a great deal for most of users, but still.
On the contrary. If you really do this street-corner experiment, 80% of answers would be "I want my phone to last longer on one charge." Other 20% will be "I want my phone to charge faster". No one will say, "Oh, I want it to be foldable," or "Oh, I want an AI inside my phone." Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Mobile phones are totally okay the way they are now. No one needs new ones, and almost no one wants new ones. My previous phone lasted for 5 years. I changed the battery halfway, of course - it took a repair guy in a local shop about an hour.
"Prediction markets" are just scams where insiders trade against suckers. So those who are not insiders should understand that their money will be alleviated by insiders, end of story.
I wonder if they deliberately withheld SMTP sending to get better vendor lock. However, without SMTP support, the email sending service is mostly unusable.
For about 10 years, I have had a habit of creating a new, separate Google account for every new project I start, and then adding my personal account as a team member/collaborator. This way, the potential blast radius is (hopefully) limited.
Signal does not send any sensitive information in push notifications sent via APNs [0]. This story concerns the local OS cache of push notifications, which are triggered after E2E decryption has occurred.
Right. So I send a push notification with the "silent" flag and encrypted content; the app receives it, decrypts the text, and displays the notification locally. Google/Apple has only ciphertext in their FBI/CIA/NSA-accessible databases.
I'm confused. You mean the iOS system notification would display the decrypted message in plaintext? Or do you mean the iOS system notification would display the encrypted message (i.e. it would be unreadable)?
So in that case, the system has access to the plaintext, therefore the Alphabet boys have access to it as well. Unless, of course, you believe Apple isn't cooperating with them.
Am I missing something here? Maybe I'm missing a subtle detail.
A system like the one in "my phone's operating system". Do you assume that "Alphabet boys" have access to all parts of all Android file systems of all the phones ever produced?
I think the confusion here is that Signal does in fact encrypt the notification in transit [1]. The FBI had access to the user's unlocked iPhone and went through the notification history on the device. The issue the user faced is that even though they deleted the signal app they were unaware that iOS (and Android by default) retain a database of past notifications even after they're dismissed from the notification pane.
[1] Well actually they just send a blank notification, the signal app then reaches out to the signal server for the actual encrypted message content when it receives the empty notification.
I'm sorry but I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're saying. The first sentence I cannot understand at all. As for the second sentence, I think you might be confused about my usage of the term "Alphabet boys", which is slang for the intelligence agencies: https://youtu.be/lLf84LPzlVc?t=61 it seems like you thought I was referring to Google's parent company.
reply