Still only good for one shot before you need to switch to a blade in close battle, of course, and utterly beside the point of the story, but worth calling out.

If the only concern is "can an LLM write code in this language without memory errors" then there's plenty of reasons to choose a language other than Rust.

First, Rust has lots of checks that C and assembly don't, and AI benefits from those checks. Then, a post about those checks are related to memory safety, not logic errors. Then, a post about whether that's a helpful comment. Finally, me pointing out that checks regarding types and memory errors aren't unique to Rust and there's tons of languages that could benefit.

Since you want to bring it back to the original article, here's a quote from the author:

    Is C the ideal language for vibe coding? I think I could mount an argument for why it is not, but surely Rust is even less ideal. To say nothing of Haskell, or OCaml, or even Python. All of these languages, after all, are for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. 

Fil-C gets you close in the case of C, but we can ignore it because, of course, F* has significantly more checks than Rust, and AI benefits from those checks. Choosing Rust would be as ridiculous as choosing C if that was your motivation.

But if you don't find the need for those checks in order to consider Rust, why not C or even assembly instead?

These trade-offs are wholly unnecessary if the LLM writes the software in Rust, assuming that in principle the LLM is able to do so.

The core assumption, I suppose, is that this is a sign of collapse because the systems and institutions worked before.

Unfortunately for the author, it's evident that they never did. The gaps were merely papered over by cheap propane and heating oil.

You could tax 100% of all of the top 1%'s income (not progressively, just a flat 100% tax) and it'd cover less than double the federal government's budget deficit in the US. There would be just enough left over to pay for making the covid 19 ACA subsidies permanent and a few other pet projects.

Of course, you can't actually tax 100% of their income. In fact, you'd need higher taxes on the top 10% than anywhere else in the West to cover the deficit, significantly expand social programs to have an impact, and lower taxes on the middle class.

It should be pointed out that Australia has higher taxes on their middle class than the US does. It tops out at 45% (plus 2% for medicare) for anyone at $190k or above.

If you live in New York City, and you're in the top 1% of income earners (taking cash salary rather than equity options) you're looking at a federal tax rate of 37%, a state tax rate of 10.9%, and a city income tax rate of 3.876% for a total of 51.77%. Some other states have similarly high tax brackets, others are less, and others yet use other schemes like no income tax but higher sales and property taxes.

Not quite so obvious when you look closer at it.

How much of the current burden is shouldered by the middle class? How much by the 1%? How does that compare to other Western nations? What measurable effect would raising this on the 1% be? What about the middle class?

Half price books and a few other book stores lulled me back a few times, but nonfiction books are kept around mostly as eye candy at this point.

Now I can't even walk in and browse what books the various departments are using for classes, anymore. Everything is now behind bars and completely inaccessible.

They slowly morphed into bougie health nut/conspiracy hippie stores during my lifetime. Closest thing I've found to what I remember them being are food service stores which tend to require a business tax ID to buy from.

I can do without the "health/wellness" aisle of mystery fluid bottles almost entirely. Whole Paycheck Foods and a lot of independent grocers also have this fad and it's depressing that borderline Miracle Mineral Solution nonsense is allowed through under-regulated "supplement" exceptions. More power to those who benefit from ever-so-slightly-helpful / placebo vitamins-supplements but it seems like mostly from snake oil of a century ago.

Anyhow, there are/were more decent grocers. Like Lundari's 30 years ago in the SF Bay Area. The status quo isn't the only available option.

I can't say how effective they are at remediating small figure issues, but no company wants to hear from them regardless.

First, people asking for estimates know they aren't going to get everything they want, and they are trying to prioritize which features to put on a roadmap based on the effort-to-business-value ratio. High impact with low effort wins over high impact high effort almost every time.

Second, there's a long tail of things that have to be coordinated in meat space as soon as possible after the software launches, but can take weeks or months to coordinate. Therefore, they need a reasonable date to pick- think ad spend, customer training, internal training, compliance paperwork etc.

"It is impossible to know" is only ever acceptable in pure science, and that is only for the outcome of the hypothesis, not the procedure of conducting the experiment.

This isn't true, just desired, and is one of the main roots of the conflict here. OF COURSE you would like to start selling in advance and then have billing start with customers the instant the "last" pr is merged. That isn't a realistic view of the software world though and pretending it is while everyone knows otherwise starts to feel like bad faith. Making software that works, then having time to deploy it, make changes from early feedback, and fix bugs is important. THEN all the other business functions should start the cant-take-back parts of their work that need to coordinate with the rest of the world. Trying to squeeze some extra days from the schedule is a business bet you can make but it would be nice if the people taking this risk were the ones who had to crunch or stay up all night or answer the page.

Trying to force complicated and creative work into a fake box just so you can make a gantt chart slightly narrower only works on people a couple times before they start to resent it. 10x that if management punishes someone when that fantasy gantt chart isn't accurate and 100x that if the one punished is the person who said "it's impossible to know" and then was forced into pretending to know instead of the person doing the forcing.

Nowadays I'm back to a text editor rather than an IDE, though fortunately one with much more creature comforts than n++ at least.

I'm glad I went down that path, though I can't say I'd really recommend as things felt a bit simpler back then.

Absolutely. Many guns don't have safties. You don't load a round in the chamber unless you intend on using it.

A gun going off when you don't intend is a negligent discharge. No ifs, ands or buts. The person in possession of the gun is always responsible for it.

false. A gun goes off when not intended too often to claim that. It has happned to me - I then took the gun to a qualified gunsmith for repairs.

A gun they fires and hits anything you didn't intend to is negligent discharge even if you intended to shoot. Gun saftey is about assuming a gun that could possible fire will and ensuring nothing bad can happen. When looking at gun in a store (that you might want to buy) you aim it at an upper corner where even if it fires the odds of something bad resulting is the least lively to happen (it should be unloaded - and you may have checked, but you still aim there!)

same with cat toy lazers - they should be safe to shine in an eye - but you still point in a safe direction.