Fun joke! Eggs are really old evolutionarily. Over 600 million years old if you count preamniotes.
You could still say that's recent on the evolutionary time span, given that life on Earth is ~3.5-3.7 billion years old. (Which is within the same order of magnitude as the age of the universe - which is itself wild to ponder.)
Chickens are a human invention.
It's fun to think about theropod language centers. Raptor kiki bouba.
Australia has two major parties that agree on absolutely everything, and a virtually non-existent civil society. No true free debate can take place in such circumstances. The Australian government loves falsely claiming a popular imprimatur for policies that have never been properly debated or put before the people.
The only reason we have any rights left is because the Australian government is - thankfully - comically incompetent.
"Australia is a lucky country" is a quote every Australian knows. Few know the full quote: "Australia is a lucky country, run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise." - Donald Horne.
I encourage all my teenage countrymen to use as many social media apps as they desire. Mullvad is a decent VPN and you can pay for it anonymously. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are your human rights. No government gets to take them away from you.
That's a fallacy. You don't have any evidence to support the claim that this system of age verification is popular and more importantly, whether it would remain popular if people had a full understanding of how it worked and how it can be abused.
It might be popular to have age verification conceptually and only as long as it's only used "as advertised", which is not the same thing.
This is one of the biggest issues of democracy. As long as your propaganda machine is strong enough (and anti-privacy propaganda is one of the strongest) you can pass just about anything and pretend that society put on the shackles of surveillance and coercive control voluntarily.
People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.
I am an upstream developer on the Rust Project (lang, library, cargo, others), and obviously a big fan of Rust. This kind of advocacy doesn't help us, and in fact makes our jobs harder, because for some people this kind of advocacy is their main experience of people they assume are representative of Rust. Please take it down a notch.
I think Rust is the best available language for many kinds of problems. Not yet all, but we're always improving it to try to work for more people. It gets better over time. I'd certainly never call it, or almost any other software, "defect free".
And I'd never call it "the final language"; we're building it to last the test of time, and we hope things like the edition system mean that the successor to Rust is a future version of Rust, but things can always change, and we're not the only source of great ideas.
If you genuinely care about Rust, please adjust your advocacy of Rust to avoid hurting Rust and generating negative perceptions of Rust.
I’d also add: as a lover of forward progress, I really hope rust isn’t the last good idea programming language designers have. I love rust. But there are dozens of things I find a bit frustrating. Unfortunately I don’t think I’m clever & motivated enough to write a whole new language to try to improve it. But I really hope someone else is!
For a taste: I wish we didn’t need lifetime annotations, somehow. I wish rust had first class support for self borrows, possibly via explicit syntax indicating that a variable is borrowed, and thus pinned. Unpin breaks my brain, and I wish there were ways to do pin projections without getting a PhD first. I wish for async streams. I wish async executors were in std, and didn’t take so long to compile. I could go on and on.
I feel like there’s an even simpler & more beautiful language hiding inside rust. I can’t quite see it. But I really hope someone else can bring it into the world some day.
> For a taste: I wish we didn’t need lifetime annotations, somehow. I wish rust had first class support for self borrows, possibly via explicit syntax indicating that a variable is borrowed, and thus pinned. Unpin breaks my brain, and I wish there were ways to do pin projections without getting a PhD first. I wish for async streams. I wish async executors were in std, and didn’t take so long to compile. I could go on and on.
I would like all of that as well. I think we can do much of that in Rust. I would love to see self-borrows available, and not just via pinning; I would also like relative pointers. I would like people to almost never have to think about pin or unpin; one of my rules of thumb is that if you see Pin or Poll, you've delved too deep, and nobody should need those to write almost any async code, including the interiors of trait implementations and async runtime implementations. And I would absolutely like to see async iterators, async executors, and many kinds of async traits in the standard library.
I also think there are plenty of things we are unlikely to get to even in an edition, and that might never happen without a completely different language. I'm not sure if we'll find a path to doing those in Rust, or if they will be the domain of some future language that makes different trade-offs.
> I also think there are plenty of things we are unlikely to get to even in an edition, and that might never happen without a completely different language.
Yes, this is my feeling too. All programming languages - perhaps, all computer programs - must decide how malleable they should be. Fast moving systems are exciting, but they're very annoying to use, or build on top of. I think generally we want a very slow moving language for infrastructure software, like databases or the linux kernel. Slow moving languages are often good for users, because they don't need to learn new things or rewrite existing software. (I think thats one of the reasons python3 was so poorly received.)
It might be too late for large changes in rust. This a sign of maturity, but its also a little bit sad. I want all those features you mention too.
Some day. Maybe LLMs will help somehow. Rust is, thankfully, not the last programming language humans will invent.
I'm sorry my autistic elation for Rust is perceived as being over the top, but I truly do mean everything I say. I could have articulated it in a less saccharine tone.
> > Defect free.
There's a Google talk on the matter. "Defect rate" / "defect free" is a term that is used quite a bit. I've latched onto this, because I find it true. Rust is a far more defect free language on a line by line basis measured and compared to other statically typed languages.
> And I'd never call it "the final language"
I honestly disagree, and I'm sticking to this prediction.
I don't think we're going to be writing code much longer by ourselves. The machines are going to outpace us soon.
Maybe something that's LLM-oriented will take over, but at that point these won't be "human" languages anymore. So I'll revise my claim to "Rust is the last human language".
If I want to serialize my thoughts to code, Rust is the language for it. It's probably the last one I'll be hand-writing or sending my revisions back to the LLM for.
Rust will also be an order of magnitude easier to author, at which point there shouldn't be much holding people back from producing it. If you have a choice between generating Java, C++, Go, or Rust, you're going to pick Rust almost every time unless you have to fit into those other ecosystems.
If you haven't used Claude or Codex with Rust, it's sublime and you should drop what you're doing to try it.
Oh my, there's a new language called Rust? Didn't they know there already is one? The old one is so popular that I can't imagine the nicely readable one to gain any traction whatsoever (even if the old one is an assault on the senses).
It's honest. If we can serialize our ideas to any language for durability, Rust is the way to go.
It's not the best tool for the job for a lot of things, but if the LLMs make writing it as fast as anything else - whelp, I can't see any reason not to do it in Rust.
If you get any language outputs "for free", Rust is the way to go.
I've been using Claude to go ridiculously fast in Rust recently. In the pre-LLM years I wrote a lot of Rust, but it definitely was a slow to author language. Claude helps me produce it as fast as I can think. I spend most of my time reviewing the code and making small fixes and refactors. It's great.
While Rust is excellent, you must acknowledge that Rust has issues with compilation time. It also has a steep learning curve (especially around lifetimes.) It's much too early to say Rust is the "final" language, especially since AI is driving a huge shift in thinking right now.
I used to think that I would never write C code again, but when I decided recently to build something that would run on ESP32 chips, I realized there wasn't any good reason for me to use Rust yet. ESP-IDF is built on C and I can write C code just fine. C compiles quickly, it's a very simple language on the surface, and as long as you minimize the use of dynamic memory allocation and other pitfalls, it's reliable.
If you're programming for ESP, then embassy is the way to go in most cases. You don't need to learn much about lifetimes in most of the application code. Steep learning curve people refer it is "thing blow up at compile time vs runtime." It's easy to write JS or C that passes all tests and compiles and then wonderful blows up when you start using it. It just forces you to learn things you need to know at IMO right now.
My biggest problem with rust right now is enormous target/ dirs.
> My biggest problem with rust right now is enormous target/ dirs.
We're working on that and it should get better soonish. We're working on shared caches, as well as pruning of old cached builds of dependencies that are unlikely to be reused in a future build.
Sometimes I forget programming languages aren't a religion, and then I see someone post stuff like this. Programming languages really do inspire some of us to feel differently.
I would say it's overall the best existing language, probably due to learning from past mistakes. On the whole it wins via the pro/con sum. But ... Still loads of room for improvement! Far from a perfect lang; just edges out the existing alternatives by a bit.
I'd say that it's taking much needed steps to achieve perfection but many more steps are there ahead. The next language closer to perfection would definitely have a much gentler introduction curve, among other things.
If AI gets sufficiently good what will be the point of rust?
I can just whip out some C code, tell the AI to make it safe (or just ask it if the code contains any undefined behavior), done.
When you do fully value-oriented programming in Rust (i.e. no interior mutability involved) that's essentially functional programming. There's mutable, ephemeral data involved, but it's always confined to a single well-defined context and never escapes from it. You can even have most of your code base be sans-IO, which is the exact same pattern you'd use in Haskell.
I actually like rust more than Haskell, but `You can even have most of your code base be sans-IO, which is the exact same pattern you'd use in Haskell.` glosses over the fact that in Haskell it's enforced at compile time.
Another argument as to why rust isn't the forever-language. My forever language should include effects!
Even rust has need of this. For example, I want a nopanic effect I can put on a function which makes it a compile error for anything that function calls to panic.
Though I think it's the closest language right now, ideally you have something that is close to "zero-overhead" as your forever language.
I really like how flix.dev looks, but there's always a little nagging at the back of my head that something like rust will always produce more performant software.
> Even rust has need of this. For example, I want a nopanic effect I can put on a function which makes it a compile error for anything that function calls to panic.
This!
This apart from build times is my biggest request for the language.
Isn’t Rust a pretty good functional language? It has most of the features that enable safe, correct code without being anal about immutability and laziness that make performance difficult to predict.
Rust may be the darling of the moment, but Erlang is oft slept on.
As AI makes human-readable syntax less relevant, the Erlang/Elixir BEAM virtual machine is an ideal compilation target because its "let it crash" isolated process model provides system-level fault tolerance against AI logic errors, arguably more valuable than Rust’s strict memory safety.
The native Actor Model simplifies massive concurrency by eliminating shared state and the complex thread management. BEAM's hot code swapping capability also enables a continuous deployment where an AI can dynamically rewrite and inject optimized functions directly into live applications with zero downtime.
Imagine a future where an LLM is constantly monitoring server performance, profiling execution times, and dynamically rewriting sub-optimal functions in real-time. With Rust, every optimization requires a recompile and a deployment cycle that interrupts the system.
Finally, Erlang's functional immutability makes deterministic AI reasoning easier, while its built-in clustering replaces complex external infrastructure, making it a resilient platform suited for automated iteration.
I really don't think so. I feel like we're at a takeoff.
Senior engineers using AI coding are 10x more productive. My output has jumped dramatically. I'm a senior engineer and built six nines, active-active systems that moved billions of dollars a day. I am absolutely a beast with these models. I can replace an entire team just by myself. I'm literally shipping an entire week of features in half a day. I'm reviewing the code and planning the architecture - I am not dialing this in.
Video editors using video models can replace entire studio production departments. Writer-directors who know how to direct are essentially now Hollywood studios in their own right. I know a lot about this in particular because I've been making films as a hobby for 15+ years and work with a lot of industry professionals.
You'll see a lot of slop, but that's the same thing we got when we gave the masses cell phones with cameras attached to them. We still have plenty of amazing photographers in the world, and the means of creation are only getting cheaper/easier and the scope of creation for any individual is growing and growing and growing.
So prices will need to increase -- if it makes a senior engineer 10x more productive then coding assistants could easily cost 20x-100x more then what they cost today. Same for video generation.
Given that 10x engineers cost in the millions and that movies cost in the hundreds of millions - this is okay!
Edit: HN rate limit won't let me reply, so here -
I'm saying that hiring ten senior engineer costs millions. (Not a single 10xer - that's such a debated thing anyway, Fabrice Bellard or not.)
AI companies will make bank when they've hooked us all on the tools and raise prices.
Companies would likely rather pay $500k/yr to Anthropic and $750k/yr to engineers than $2M/yr to an uneven team of humans with HR, taxes, and other expenses, attrition, etc.
How many 10x engineers paid millions are out there? How can you stay in business as an AI company by only charging those 10x engineers 200/month?
Edit: Fabrice Bellard is a 10x engineers because he invents cool and innovative tools that didn't exist, not because he can bang out code 10x faster. AI can't replace fabrice Ballard.
The price of tools isn't determined by how much money they make or save the user. That's just the price cap. The price floor (in the long run) is the cost of making the tool. The actual price will be somewhere in between depending on competition.
If you are able now to create 10 products instead of 1 in the same time frame you will have to plan, review and maintain 10 things instead of 1. How can this work? I mean to double your productivity is a huge jump but 10x sounds unsustainable.
Well, AI fanatics aren't about longevity or maintaining things. The fact that the LLM spit out a bunch of code is good enough for them. Drive-by PRs and vaporware are their bread & butter.
Yea but are you paying a profitable amount of money to your service provider for you to do it? I find it hard to believe that Anthropic is profiting off of my $100/mo subscription based on how active I keep my machines running.
The numbers mentioned by Ed Zitron in his podcast Better Offline recently suggested that a $200/mo Claude subscription allows you to spend $2300 - $2700 worth of Anthropic tokens. That's pretty bad, but better than I expected.
I don't see it being unreasonable that models and infrastructure could improve enough to bridge the cost gap within five to ten years. It's just that the AI companies already spend so much money that it might not matter.
The video models aren’t that good yet but for coding the utility is clear, yes. To be fair Darren Aronofsky also overestimates their quality.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but generating video is also much more resource intensive than equivalently productive text-only model use. It seems the industry could save itself a lot of hassle and infamy by simply avoiding artistic fields.
What people mostly see is the illusion of productivity. But the measure should be outcomes, not the amount of stuff made. If a factory produces 10x the product but it is only 1/3rd the quality of what it was before that is long term unsustainable and leaves the door open for a competitor to attack them on quality.
This is the key driver behind all those 'enshittification' problems that we see. Quantity over quality is almost always a balance and not a binary, if you start treating it as if one should always trump at the expense of the other then sooner or later it will catch up with you.
>Senior engineers using AI coding are 10x more productive.
Are the subscriptions of those engineers enough to make their use-case profitable and on top to also be subsidizing the cost of AI video slop generation and keep the company profitable?
>Video editors using video models can replace entire studio production departments.
Then why is OpenAI losing more an more money?
>This is the next industrial revolution.
I'm not saying it isn't, but we did have the .com bubble burst even though that was also revolution. Something can be a bubble and a revolution simultaneously. The internet didn't go away after the .com bubble burst, just the crazy speculations did, which is what I was saying will happen with the AI bauble. The bubble will burst and only the profit generating parts of AI will remain.
> I can replace an entire team just by myself. I'm literally shipping an entire week of features in half a day. I'm reviewing the code and planning the architecture - I am not dialing this in.
So you can review so much code so fast? Are you sure?
In many companies code reviews (properly) are the bottleneck. This was the case without AI. Now you're saying AI is giving you 10x more code reviews and you're even faster.
What am I missing?
p.s. I agree AI can make you and things faster just not suddenly god mode.
10x AI speed up only happens when you stop reading the code (or start skimming it, etc). This is pretty obvious to anyone that uses the tools and many vibe coding proponents have said as much.
Sacrificing quality for quantity makes these tools much less impressive. I say this as I tab over to my bug ridden memory hog CC tmux tab.
Video editors using video models can replace entire studio production departments. Writer-directors who know how to direct are essentially now Hollywood studios in their own right. I know a lot about this in particular because I've been making films as a hobby for 15+ years and work with a lot of industry professionals.
This is soul destroying. Literally made my day worse thinking about this.
The minute internet became widespread it was game over.
Pros and cons. :/
It'll never happen, but we need a bill of rights for privacy. The laypeople aren't well-versed or pained enough to ask for this, and big interest donors oppose it.
Maybe the EU and states like California will pioneer something here, though?
Edit: in general, I'm far more excited by cheap lidar tech than I am afraid of the downsides. We just need to be vigilant.
Lidar doesn’t really give you much to “see”, just shape and distance…so I’m a bit confused how it can be used for invasive surveillance, do you mean when fused with vision input it somehow allows it to infer more privacy stuff?
Medical, banking and insurance are three industries that the European data privacy watchdogs are much more strict about because of the potential for damage.
I'd say the numbers listed here prove the GPs point of poor enforcement. The largest fine is roughly 0.97% of Meta's 2023 revenue, the equivalent of a $600 fine for somebody making 60k / year. It's a tiny-tiny cost of doing business at best, definitely not a deterrent, given Meta's blatant disregard for GDPR since then.
> the equivalent of a $600 fine for somebody making 60k / year
I don't know about you, but on that income I would certainly not brush off such a fine as a "cost of doing business". Would it cause me financial trouble, or would it force me to sacrifice other expenses? Absolutely not. But would I feel frustrated at having to pay it, feel stupid for my mistake, and do my best to avoid it in the future? Absolutely yes.
My bad, a better analogy would be a dealer making 60k / year selling drugs, gets caught by police and is fined $600. I wouldn’t expect them to change much.
1% of Meta's global revenue is a tiny-tiny cost of doing business? At that point, I think I can stop even trying to argue here. It's a massive fine any way you put it. Especially when you consider the ceiling hasn't been reached and non compliance is more and more costly by design.
Their net profit was $60billion in 2024. This is peanuts. It can fluctuate by multiples of this fine in a month, depending on whether or not they've had a bad or good month, nevermind year. This pretty much is just a cost of doing business.
The interesting part is that it keeps going up. You seem to believe we have somehow reached a cap where Meta can just expense it as a cost of doing business. That's not how European law works. The fine maximum is far higher and repeated non compliance keeps making the fines higher and higher. It's a ladder not a sizing precedent.
Unfortunately it doesn't in practice. Meta's total revenue since 2018 when GDPR came into force is just shy of $1T. Even with all the smaller fines combined, the total amount of GDPR related fines is in the range of $3B. It's a rounding error.
There isn't a trend of increasing fines, nor has any fine even reached the cap, let alone applied multiple times for the recurring violations. Even more with the current US administration's foreign policy towards the EU.
While GDPR as a law is fine, with the exception of enforcement limitations, enforcement so far has been a complete joke.
Maximum GDPR fine is 4% of global revenue in the previous year. If a company has 30% profit margin then they can, in theory, treat is as a cost of doing business, indefinitely.
It's 4% per fine. Each violation is a fine and Meta owns multiple companies that can be fined. But 4% of global revenue already can't be treated as just a cost of doing business. Their shareholders would murder them.
Birth rates took a dip with broadband, smartphones, and TikTok.
Dopamine and attention sinks are pulling society in directions counter to evolutionary programming. Our runtime algorithms optimize for different things.
No value judgment, but it's interesting. I haven't had kids (yet?), and I feel the internet (and the career that revolves around it) is the biggest reason why.
> No value judgment, but it's interesting. I haven't had kids (yet?), and I feel the internet (and the career that revolves around it) is the biggest reason why.
How exactly the internet and the career prevented you from having kids? Have you discussed this with your partner?
"The phone killed babies" tracks with my intuition about this. Data correlates.
Finances aren't keeping me from having kids. The internet is. Smartphones are. Weird as that sounds. I can unpack more and expand this into a conversation.
This is completely ignoring the most common reason for not having children that I've heard amongst friends and family: "I can't afford a house, I'll never be able to afford kids."
Parents for all of human civilization and history have lived in worse.
The fastest growing populations have less money and safety nets than middle class folks.
It's the dopamine and time suck.
Men and women aren't bored and looking to fill the void and boredom with children. (Kids also can't work as free labor on the farm anymore, either, but that just adds to this argument.)
Kids keep you from nights out with the friends, dating, concerts, fortnite, girl gossip, phone time, etc.
People are choosing "I don't have time for kids (now)" and continuing with their dopamine filled lives. House purchase planning is orthogonal.
I guess there is an argument that every food product should add opium to their ingredients to make sure it's bought by as many people as possible and eaten as frequently as possible
But I don't think that's healthy for either the product or society
Chinese engineers are knowingly surveilled by the state with no recourse. Commercial offerings of all shapes and sizes have cameras and microphones. It's just new tech.
In the US, Five Eyes, and abroad, there is at least some ceremony around calling this bad even though a similar apparatus is installed. (Supposedly with "checks and balances", but who knows?)
People in Western countries almost unanimously find corporate spying creepy. (Though ad tech has snuck in via convenience and invisibility.) We find cameras a hard line.
The TikTok and Twitch generation has different attitudes about always-on cameras, though.
Google needs to be dismantled. A lot of us on HN have been calling for this for years now.
Can we start saying it in unison to legislators and the press? Please?
If you're in the EU, do your part too.
This company taxes the URL bar. It owns 92% of them and turns trademarks they don't own into forced bidding wars. There's no way to access any brand without paying Google extortion fees.
This company removed AdBlock.
This company controls 50% of mobile - the most important device category and devices we own and pay for - and now they're removing our ability to use them as we please. More taxation, more Google services, every app and search through the Google troll toll. You can't even order from a restaurant anymore without one of these things and Google lords over it.
They own your digital life. They own infrastructure. They own discovery. They own every touch point.
They are too big.
Anthropic and OpenAI are having to pay out the nose for 60% of users to even access them, meanwhile Google sings "lalalala" and forced their AI products onto users at no cost.
Break them up now.
Do it horizontally, not vertically: instead of splitting off Chrome and Search and YouTube, create Google A, Google B, Google C ... Make them split all the same pieces and make them all compete with each other.
That is fair for the consumer. That is fair for competition.
That is the most capitalistic friendly thing to do. Because right now Google is an invasive species in every market destroying the entire competitive ecology.
You could still say that's recent on the evolutionary time span, given that life on Earth is ~3.5-3.7 billion years old. (Which is within the same order of magnitude as the age of the universe - which is itself wild to ponder.)
Chickens are a human invention.
It's fun to think about theropod language centers. Raptor kiki bouba.
reply