GP was arguing against the OP, not a comment, and AI written posts are fair game.
Also, the comment you responded to was criticizing the attack to the substance of the post based on who/what wrote is. The comment neologism actually fits, IMO.
Agree with the sentiment! But "securing ... in all ways possible"? I know many people who would choose "password" as their password in 2026. The better of the bunch will use their date of birth, and maybe add their name for a flourish.
Is it a good proxy, though? My intuition is that many economic effects play out very differently if they are limited to one country vs the whole world.
To make this more concrete, tax havens only work because most countries keep producing for real. AI will take all jobs, not just Angolan jobs.
*Samsung phones. Known for a long time for their crapware infested devices. At the other end of the spectrum, Pixel phones are quite easy and smooth to set up.
What makes you think this trend will continue? In a situation with finite resources (eg the number of parameters), the default is to assume things will plateau.
Trying to be language agnostic: it should be as self-explanatory as possible. 2>&1 is all but.
Why is there a 2 on the left, when the numbers are usually on the right. What's the relationship between 2 and 1? Is the 2 for std err? Is that `&` to mean "reference"? The fact you only grok it if you know POSIX sys calls means it's far from self explanatory. And given the proportion of people that know POSIX sys calls among those that use Bash, I think it's a bit of an elitist syntax.
POSIX has a manual for shell. You can read 99% of it without needing to know any syscalls. I'm not as familiar with it but Bash has an extensive manual as well, and I doubt syscall knowledge is particularly required there either.
If your complaint is "I don't know what this syntax means without reading the manual" I'd like to point you to any contemporary language that has things like arrow functions, or operator overloading, or magic methods, or monkey patching.
No, the complaint is that "the syntax is not intuitive even knowing the simpler forms of redirection": this one isn't a competition of them, but rather an ad-hoc one.
I know about manuals, and I have known this specific syntax for half of my life.
Arrow functions etc are mechanisms in the language. A template you can build upon. This one is just one special operator. Learn it and use it, but it will serve no other purpose in your brain. It won't make anything easier to understand. It won't help you decipher other code. It won't help you draw connections.
> the syntax is not intuitive even knowing the simpler forms of redirection
The MDN page for arrow functions in JS has, I shit you not, 7 variations on the syntax. And your complaint is these are not intuitively similar enough?
0%? Extremely unlikely. [0] Is your plan as an evil overlord to implement the stack ranking killing the evilest 10% generation after generation for the good of humanity?:)
Also hope you’re going global since other populations will quickly outcompete the docile sub-population if given chance.
Is Microsoft receiving payments for these?
reply