I know it's not the only problem (but it is IMO the main one), but this is why I'm a proponent of allowing operator overloading in languages.
Yes, you can't tell at a glance if `+` really still does what it should, but I find that problem no different from a library mis-naming a function and/or said function having strange side-effects.
`+` should do addition, period. No, not even concatenation if possible (I do find the lack of a separate concatenation operator to be a language flaw --- that said, I understand the use of `+` for concat in libraries targeting languages that offer no alternative).
I think the abuse (especially in C++ ... seriously, allowing overloading of the comma operator? --- and <iostream> working via bit-shifting streams by ${some_string} bits) gave everyone a bad taste and they kind of threw out the baby with the bathwater.
php has a separate `.` operator that concatenate and you get an error if you try to do it with a `+`. That's indeed better but most of the time you concatenate with `sprintf` anyway
Yes, and it's a surprising good part about PHP (a language that otherwise has an enormous collection of warts, to put it mildly).
I feel like the more dynamic and/or weakly-typed the language is, the more important it is to have a separate concat operator.
The worst ones being weakly-typed and dynamic. Consider `'5' + '10'` in JavaScript vs `'5' - '10'`.
I also very much dislike Python's `+` for concat, but at least it's more strongly typed.
PHP, Lua, and Erlang are three examples of dynamically-typed languages with separate concat operators (`.`, `..`, `++`; respectively), and they all are better for it.
That said, even statically-typed languages benefit greatly from it. Maybe if C++ had a concat operator, it'd never end up abusing `<<` for writing to a stream (yes, there's no opposite for reading, but maybe they wouldn't end up doing that in this case).
For example, D uses `~` in infix for concat. Even UnrealScript, a 1990s game-engine-specific language (which tend to be a mess in general) did this right (it uses `$` or `@` --- with `a @ b` being equivalent to `a $ " " $ b`, IIRC).
I shouldn't undersell it quite as much as I did, the original SSL concept comes from Taher Elgamal who was ex-RSA and had published the cryptosystem named after him. So it's not really true that there aren't any cryptographers in the room. However more importantly what TLS (and earlier SSL) wants to do is extremely hard and once Javascript comes into the picture it's ludicrously harder for this to deliver security than basically any system ordinary people have used. Several "But obviously I would never do that" scenarios you'd learn about in a cryptography class like "What if your adversary can control part of the messages to be encrypted?" or "What if your adversary can force you to transmit the same exact message thousands or millions of times?" are routine requirements of security for HTTPS because of how the Web works.
And for SSL in particular why would math people (which is what cryptographers are) even be interested? 30+ Years Ago Tim's hypermedia system is just a toy and while its name, "World Wide Web" does sound like a big deal it's not actually important to your everyday life. If you live in a big city and it has a "web page" on Tim's system it's probably knocked together by some IT nerd who works for the city and the actual local government have no idea what a "web page" even is.
Probably by the time TLS 1.2 shipped, the relevant IETF Working Group (also named TLS) could have reached out and asked cryptography researchers to help first and got some engagement because it's obvious this is a big deal, but that didn't happen until TLS 1.3
I really hate the whole thing about companies promoting using LLMs to change one-liner emails into this long multi-paragraph thing that ends up saying almost nothing ... just wasting everyone's time in reading them (with an extra sprinkling of hallucinations).
LLMs have created more billable hours for me as an attorney because the LLMs convince the client that they need to know more about irrelevant issues, how specific statutes may apply, and other such things. They may ask about specific procedural issues that they would otherwise have no idea about that I then need to explain in greater detail. It reliably bloats things that would be a .1 into .5 or more.
>They may ask about specific procedural issues that they would otherwise have no idea about that I then need to explain in greater detail.
My favorite part about LLMs is that their insufficiency as legal aids (Aides? Aids.) seems to be slowly cluing-in the general public as to how Byzantine and "inside baseball" our legal system has become. (This is a bad thing.)
It's a big part of why I'm strongly opposed to common-law systems (as opposed to civil law). All the case law, all of it becomes, well, law. And then you get the whole "legislating from the bench" critique, which, while valid critique, is only a big problem because it's a common-law system.
Yes, I realize many (most?) legal systems are actually hybrid, but they do tend to err pretty strongly into one direction or another.
I thought that it was. I thought journals were starting to implement full bans upwards of a year+ for those who don't honestly disclose AI usage in their work? If I'm not mistaken, arXiv is doing this as well? granted, disclosure is different from overuse, but it seems like a small jump to just go ahead and just ban not checking ones work! ...disclosed or not disclosed. my own personal view on it, is if you can't be bothered to spot hallucinations and other such errors, its not ai that is the issue, it is incompetence and laziness
What is your area? I publish in AI (mainly IJCAI/AAAI, MLJ and some smaller conferences) and had one of my rejected papers copy/pasted into a new submission to a different conference without my consent. When I asked for the copy to be retracted a new paper was written, also based on my paper, to replace the copy of my paper without telling the conference. When I complained to the conference the new paper was sent to the reviewers of the first copy (which had been accepted before the new paper was written) with a note "explaining" a mistake had been made and then the new paper was also accepted to the conference. I reported all this to the integrity team at the host institution and there was an informal investigation which found that there had been "some level plagiarism" (sic) but it was only poor academic practice, not misconduct and there would be no disciplinary consequences. Right now we're at the point where I'm waiting for Springer, who publish the conference proceedings, to also sweep it all under the rug and let me know that publishing a copy of a copy of my paper meets their high scholarly standards.
Plagiarism brings a slap on the wrist unless the case is very high profile, like the example posted by azan_20 in the sibling where the plagiarising academic had many accolades and a big reputation. If the target or source of plagiarism is not famous it's like stealing bikes.
And of course if you're a senior academic being accused of misconduct by a less senior academic you can LOL about it because it's all a big joke and the less senior academic is the one who'll get a hit to their reputation for making a fuss and rocking the boat.
> Plagiarism brings a slap on the wrist unless the case is very high profile, like the example posted by azan_20 in the sibling where the plagiarising academic had many accolades and a big reputation. If the target or source of plagiarism is not famous it's like stealing bikes.
I'd like to clarify - the very high profile case did not even get wrist slap and Cambridge is actually defending him.
That's right. At least there's reporting in the lay press which can cause a scandal and that may finally convince Cambridge to do something, although I'm not holding my breath.
My #1 complaint by far is that it --- pretty much silently --- depends on systemd to work correctly.
Try having a docker-compose with a service that waits until a dependency is healthy --- in a host that has no systemd (such as Alpine Linux).
The service will never start because Podman relies on systemd (and only systemd) to do the periodic healthchecks which it needs to do in order to handle such dependencies.
And of course, this fact isn't adequately documented anywhere. And Red Hat says they'll never, ever drop this dependency.
---
But I don't know if there are any tools compatible with the Docker ecosystem other than Podman. I'd love to find one.
Yeah that's an unfortunate downside of the daemon-less design. Service management (like dependencies, health checks, etc) are outsourced to systemd since there's nothing locally available to monitor them. The fact that the documentation doesn't mention this is a major miss.
On macOS, there's Orbstack, which is ridiculously compatible (I believe it's based on the same moby engine underneath). On Linux there's oodles of options for working with OCI containers, but nothing else I know of that's compatible with the docker API or CLI.
You can't rip it, or even make backups in the US (you can in most, if not all, of Europe; dunno about the rest of the world). It's illegal, and constitutes piracy.
reply