A tech writer isn't a class of person. "Tech writer" is a role or assignment. You can be an engineer working as a tech writer.

Also, the primary task of a tech writer isn't to document code. They're supposed to write tutorials, user guides, how to guides, explanations, manuals, books, etc.

The tech writer backlog is probably worse, because writing good documentation requires extensive experience with the software you're writing documentation about and there are four types of documentation you need to produce.

This looks pretty nice for what it is. However, the RAM is a bit oversized for the vast majority of applications that will run on this, which is giving a misleading impression of what it is useful for.

I once tried to run a segmentation model based on a vision transformer on a PC and that model used somewhere around 1 GB for the parameters and several gigabytes for the KV cache and it was almost entirely compute bound. You couldn't run that type of model on previous AI accelerators because they only supported model sizes in the megabytes range.

This feels like an ad because you explained absolutely nothing.

It's one thing to explain to people what a screw driver is and you just happen to sell screw drivers to people who might need them.

It's a wholly different thing to sell the screw driver first and then let people figure out why they need it.

i’m not associated with temporal, nor does the link above have any referrer nonsense in there. i don’t profit from referring to it here. in fact it may well be a household name in the hn community. that out of the way, it’s not wrong to point to a proper resource that can explain and demonstrate my argument better than a couple of words could. temporal is open source[0] so maybe a github link would have been more palatable?

[0]: https://github.com/temporalio/temporal

In the SQL world even simple things like booleans are RDMS engine specific so I have no idea how that is supposed to work.

The economic incentives for men are exactly backwards. They're on the hook for alimony/child support in the face of no fault divorce and despite the chants for equal pay, men are still expected to earn more than women if they want to attract a woman.

Marriage is basically economically obsolete at this point and is primarily done for the sake of tradition and tax breaks. In the context of having children, marriage has devolved to a business contract that lasts until the children have left the nest.

Marriage did not devolve, one of its facets has always been a “business” contract. What evolved is that one of parties gained bargaining power, and the other lost bargaining power.

Marriage also has other useful facets, such as a contract to deal with healthcare decisions in case of emergency.

What's the alternative to banning bad actors? Making Linux maintainers take every spam commit 100% seriously as if it was legitimate? All that would bring about is that the second "research project" would be about spamming commits to the Linux kernel to DDOS the maintainers.

That professor just destroyed the ability to trust public institutions like universities to not be malicious actors. You can't restore that trust unless you comb through everything. If you just let them go, you now have to distrust every single university by default, which is even more expensive.

Not just that, it would also mean that every single Rust application is riddled with very noticeable miscompilation bugs due to the fact that Rust makes heavy use of strict aliasing rules for optimization. This isn't something that can easily be sweeped under the rug without people noticing.

I'm reading it as charitably as possible as in "Maybe some lifetime in some arcane combination is unsound." I did heard that 'static lifetime shouldn't be permitted in some cases.

The premise is too ridiculous to engage seriously. Apparently Google/AWS/MSFT/C++ engineers all missed a huge gaping hole in Rust borrow checker, something that random commenter could pick up.

Uhm, no? There is barely enough space for Rust, which happens to have a unique feature/value proposition that raises it above the vast majority of its competitors. If you're fine with UB or memory unsafe code, then you go with C simply because its deeply entrenched.

In that sense Zen-C changed too many things at once for no good reason. If it was just C with defer, there would have been an opportunity to include defer in the next release of the C standard.