Except all major social media sites are also corporations with their own interests. I'd rather the business model of traditional media that rides on journalistic reputation to a recommendation feed where the only job of it is to keep you on the site, especially when said feed can easily be manipulated.

No media organisation is perfect but your description of social media as some nirvana of decentralised truth is very questionable.

For what it's worth, this is commonplace in Australia too. I feel like you're describing a general safe country thing. I've lived in Japan so I know it's probably one of the safest places in the world, but I feel like what this thread describes is more US/Canada/some Euro countries being particularly dangerous, and not Japan being uniquely safe.

Canada is not particularly dangerous, but it has a horrible case of being drowned out by American culture (which strongly influences Canadians' subjective perceptions of their environs), and having the same kind of problematic urban planning as the United States.

I think it's more high-trust than high-safety. Most American cities (and certainly suburbs) are quite safe, and have only been getting safer over the past decades.

And yet we are constantly bombarded with fearmongering around children getting kidnapped on every street corner, every hour of the day.

I'll absolutely agree that a place like Tokyo is safer for a child on their own than NYC or SF, but the gap isn't as wide as the mainstream media would seem to suggest.

It's not just kidnapping though. You also need road safety, or some level of pedestrian safety.

By far the most dangerous thing for kids, is traffic. And in many places that is the delimiter of their freedom.

I think the main reason more time might be spent thinking is because there's relatively less training data on Haskell out in the wild, meaning an agent may have to check back and forth with static analysis to figure out what's valid.

Compact syntax is generally only a good thing for LLMs because it saves context windows and tokens.

Plenty of valid reasons to pick C, memory safety isn't a reason to trade off all other possible benefits. One big reason is portability, you can't compile Rust for example for certain targets.

Do you need a reliable edge or just a slightly better than average edge?

I mean, supply chain attacks are a thing that could have happened even in the earlier days. Linux almost got backdoored in 2003.

Also with the number of remote code execution exploits that have occurred in Web browsers over the years it's hard to know for sure if what you installed hasn't been hijacked unless you spent all your time on gnu.org

Yes, but the probability of the average user getting pwned was so small that it wasn't worth the constant firewall babysitting.

No, there was a big internal project (which they communicated publicly about - search for the blogs relating to it) to address it that involved roughly a year of effort from a big chunk of the developers.

Thanks. Do you have a view on whether the project went far enough?

Rovo is backed by the typical LLM providers in general, Atlassian isn't training its own models.

If you're experiencing this you're either a very junior dev or you're not as senior as your title might suggest...

They’re not facing this. They’re just lying.

You're assuming performance has been the core priority, or even a priority at all, and I think this is a bad assumption to make. I would estimate a much smaller number of people-months of work if I were you.

Dev users assume the only problem a product can solve is performance, when there is a lot more than that in reality.

Maybe in the past companies wouldn’t take the extra time for performance enhancements - but they’re apparently saying that AI is sooo good and speeds up work that they don’t need all of these extra people. So if their product was sped up it would enable their customers to work faster and lay off all of their extra employees (or just keep everyone and just do more stuff faster).

So are they doing this to make the product better or, as others have mentioned, they can’t innovate further and can’t grow their market so they need to cut costs.