Thanks for sharing this! I really think that when people see LLM failures and say that such failures demonstrate how fundamentally different LLMs are from human cognition, they tend to overlook how humans actually do exhibit remarkably similar failures modes. Obviously dementia isn't really analogous to generating text while lacking the ability to "see" a rendering based on that text. But it's still pretty interesting that whatever feedback loops did get corrupted in these patients led to such a variety of failure modes.

As an example of what I'm talking about, I appreciated and generally agreed with this recent Octomind post, but I disagree with the list of problems that "wouldn’t trip up a human dev"; these are all things I've seen real humans do, or could imagine a human doing.

Right, but their endorsement is still likely to do more harm than good in terms of public perception of the law, I think.

It's a "stream manipulator" function that not only generates a new line, it also flushes the stream.

Obviously this isn't specific to Rust, but frankly it's bizarre to me that ICANN chose to tie top-level domains to country codes in the first place. Languages might have made sense, but a major feature of the internet is that it's less beholden to political boundaries than most of the physical world is.

From your comment, I'm not convinced you do get it. You wrote a lot of words completely beside the point of the joke, which is a series of analogies, not a statement about the natural languages involved in the creation of programming languages.

There is nothing special about C.

I wish that were true, but isn't it somewhat wishful thinking? Even an assembly-language Lisp would require an operating system in order to build a functioning compiler, wouldn't it? And operating system APIs are in C.

Edit: more importantly, as the post explains, the special thing about C is the existence of TinyCC.

In this context, stabilization refers to the adoption growth curve flattening out.

To be fair, I'm a pretty thorough code reviewer and I've definitely made a mistake of this kind.

ed, the "standard editor" (according to its man page) and the predecessor of vi (the "visual editor"), is a terminal editor that doesn't automatically display any of the text you're working on; you have to use the p ("print") command to display the lines your wish to see.

I really like that it follows this up with, effectively, "we're done here, get out"

It's pretty nice. I've been following its progress essentially since the beginning and would like to adopt it as my primary shell eventually, but it's had some blockers that prevent me from switching completely, most of which have been resolved by now. The one I'm currently waiting for is the ability to suspend and resume processes: https://github.com/nushell/nushell/issues/247

If the executable were easily reproducible from the source code, then yes, downloading a precompiled binary would be akin to executing code in build.rs or a proc macro. The fact that it's not makes these very different, because it makes your suggestion of "vet[ting] their packages themselves" impossible.