At your service! D fixed it, and I'm sorry C users have suffered as the array-to-pointer decay blasted their kingdom. Fixing it in C is easy and should be the #1 priority.
You seem to be under the impression that adding new syntax necessarily breaks existing code. But that just isn't true. If you can't fathom how it's done, then look at the use VERSION statement in Perl.
This answer that is both so stupendously confident and wrong is only possible if you in actuality decided to not read and understand how this problem is solved in Perl.
In C a[i] is converted to *(a+i) internally. i[a] is converted to *(i+a). Array names also act as pointers in c. so (a+i) or (i+a) give an address (using pointer arithmetic) that is dereferenced using
In C a[i] is converted to *(a+i) internally. i[a] is converted to *(i+a). Array names also act as pointers in c. so (a+i) or (i+a) give an address (using pointer arithmetic) that is dereferenced using *
If you're selling out venues at 5x a normal ticket price you will quickly be playing in much larger venues until you can't sell them out except at face value
I don't know if you're aware but a big meme at Google from when Eric was CEO was when he was encouraging all googlers to install Nest in "one of your homes"
At least the claim of Eric having a secret backdoor to Google servers letting him spy on whoever he wants seems unlikely. If he was spying on her putting spyware on her devices seems much more likely.
This combined with locally runnable models getting pretty good recently (e.g. Qwen 3.6) tells me that it's time to seriously consider local dev setup again
Do the economics work out ? You can downsize the devs you have, but you need to maintain a smaller stable of very expensive devs, and then factor in the token usage.
For example, a recent story about the openclaw creator using $1.3M of tokens/month. And let's assume he's getting paid $5M/yr which is probably a vast under estimate.
Is he providing value that a traditional software development org with normal developers couldn't provide for $20M/yr?
The issue is there’s non linearities involved. Although I don’t know I would use the open claw guy, but let’s take Isaac Newton. You can’t sum up people and arrive at an Isaac Newton worth of talent. He’s singular, unique, and irreplaceable at what he did. There were others similarly outsized in their ability to change things, and there are today as well. But you can’t funge talent at some level with more people - in fact as we know there’s a rapidly diminishing return on people investment.
Finally in some ways agentic workflows magnify the power of the individual who is adept at harnessing them, they don’t have to argue (much) with the agents to effect their ideas. I’ve found a lot of very bright engineers spend their days fighting to be heard by managers and peers who can’t / won’t understand them. By unshackling them from trying to debate down idiots, they deliver way way more, and of the right things, than they otherwise could have.
No? This is only true if you assume that Newton’s only notable achievement was the creation of calculus. Newton did far more for physics and classical mechanics than Leibniz. Did Leibniz also discover the universal law of gravitation? Did he match Newton’s prism experiments in some way? In what sense can Newton be replaced by Leibniz?
| Newton... He's Singular, unique, and irreplaceable at what he did.
Leibniz, literally parallel.
Was Newton just a smart guy at the right place and the right time. These smart folks require other smart folks to understand and verify what they did. There are many who have amazing pedigrees in history.
Both Newton and Leibniz intersected with calculus but had incredibly diverse careers spanning many subjects that were totally orthogonal. So, no, in fact the fact they discovered calculus in very different ways proves the point even further - they were so singular as to arrive at similar breathtaking insights from totally different perspectives totally independently, for the first time in all of mankind. You can’t substitute one for the other, and each was totally indispensable and irreplaceable.
The $1.3 million doesn't mean much. The article stated he could've switched to a significantly cheaper option and cut the bill to $300k. That's still a lot but since he worked for the company that sells the tokens it isn't as though they were paying the retail cost.
Yes, $1.3M in token cost in less than 30 days and some days were even off-peak, if you can call it that with that insane scale that likely hides quite a lot of tokens in the lower bars.
I honestly believe that most Silicon Valley developers could have their pre-AI output replaced by 10 dollars/day in Gemini 3 pay as you go spend.
I don't think existing companies will bite that bullet, but I think you'll see AI native companies in five years with like, a baffling small number of people.
> Where are these hyper productive small companies running laps around bigger ones right now?
Getting bought by the bigger companies as it is currently the goal of most start-up since no one cares about monopolies and anti competitive behavior nowadays.
The reason the US is blockading is because Iran is only partially blockading it. If Iran wasn't blockading at all then America wouldn't either. But it's pretty clear that "only shops whose countries pay a lot of money to Iran" would help Iran.
Huh? You can send an email and receive a response within a minute. You can call someone and literally have a live conversation with them.
Yes, we've lost the ability to quickly send pieces of paper to arbitrary homes, but there really isn't a need for it when you have better alternatives.
reply