Further to this, you can trivially observe two further LLM weaknesses:
1. that LLMs are bad at weird syntax even with a complete description. E.g. writing StandardML and similar languages, or any esolangs.
2. Even with lots of training data, LLMs cannot generalise their output to a shape that doesn’t resemble their training. E.g. ask the LLM to write any nontrivial assembler code like an OS bootstrap.
LLMs aren’t a “superior intelligence” because every abstract concept they “learn” is done so emergently. They understand programming concepts within the scope of languages and tasks that easily map back to those things, and due to finite quantisation they can’t generalise those concepts from first principles. I.e. it can map python to programming concepts, but it can’t map programming concepts to an esoteric language with any amount of reliability. Try doing some prompting and this becomes agonisingly apparent!
How can a language both be human-unfriendly and also sanely auditable? The types of issues that require human intervention in LLM output are overwhelmingly things where the LLM depends on the human to detect things it cannot. Seems to break the loop if the human can’t understand well
Rust is supported by the [seL4 Microkit](https://docs.sel4.systems/projects/rust/), which is the core framework enabling LionsOS. LionsOS can currently run components written in Rust, and there are some WIP drivers written in Rust in the seL4 Device Development framework (judging from pull requests).
From their verification roadmap, it sure seems generous to refer to this as “formally verified”. They don’t prove anything important about the kernel clearly at all. Seems very disingenuous to describe it as they do since it lacks any of the merits of other formally verified kernels like seL4 and Tock.
Standards sure have dropped. I saw a new iPad mini in store, on display, and it simply couldn’t run the home screen without stuttering and visible frame rate drops! At least in my mind, this seems like a transgression from Apple’s former standards and that’s before the accessibility and visual challenges new iOS has.
Definitely a microbenchmark and probably wouldn’t be generally representative of performance. This page gives pretty good standards for OS benchmarking practic, although admittedly geared more for academia https://gernot-heiser.org/benchmarking-crimes.html
What’s the news value of this? LWIP is the most popular embedded network stack and has been around for ages. It also is awful to use and riddled with undocumented issues (in my experience, anyway)
In my experience, it is a breeze to use. ~10 years ago, we managed to significantly cut down the cost of IP cameras by using lwIP with NuttX which allowed us to use a cheaper microcontroller instead of a more expensive chip that could run Linux.
Plugging in a new TCP congestion control scheme was also straightforward.
the stack itself is extremely solid and works perfectly with reasonable performance. the codebase is extremely stable and has not had major changes, nor significant bugs in ages.
the biggest problem with lwip is the documentation. you have doxygen API docs that tell you exactly what the interfaces are (and not much more than the reading the header filed does), you have a few pages of "how to ..." and higher level background. but often it's slightly bit rotted, subtly hasn't kept up with design changes. so it's difficult to learn - you effectively have to thoroughly read the code to get the big picture. and if you make a mistake in handling your application callbacks, you can easily leak buffers or create other problems. it's not "awful to use", it's actually very simple - once you understand it, which is seriously hampered by truly lacking documentation.
the second issue is that the SoC vendors inevitably pay some overseas contractor to do the port and MAC/PHY drivers and example code, just like another [1] comment describes. that's where a lot of the instability and bugs come in. it's not lwip, it's the port that sucks.
My experience comes from actually writing the ports as opposed to using it in other places. I’ve gotten issues like the UDP checksum generation breaking in the raw API at higher speeds or DHCP packets managing to come out corrupted, and in both cases I fixed it by just replacing the code that’s responsible. I’m not claiming this is representative of anything in general however, these are all for somewhat esoteric networking analysis in an academic setting. It definitely works well when you just use it as intended on microcontrollers however and I’ve never had issues when I’m not doing awful things to it :)
The author of this article evidently is ignorant to the current state of the world. Simply having the existence of a group become no longer illegal doesn't mean that rights are guaranteed at all. Groups advocating for women's and LGBTQI rights have continued to exist despite advances because groups working to undo everything they have achieved also continue to exist. There is obvious evidence of this - women's and LGBTQIA rights have gone backwards definitively both in the US and UK and are unambiguously in a much worse state than they were 10 years ago.
This is quasi-intellectual bullshit written by a contrarian who fails to identify that social systems are dynamic, and evidently has a bias informing this (cough cough, certain pejorative terms throughout). This is spun as some sort of centrist triumph, but this is really the true voice of regression - if we stop advocating for the rights of groups who actively have their rights under attack by others, they will simply lose whatever has been achieved.
It is a somewhat interesting point w.r.t. the Dimes syndrome itself in whatever limited cases it might actually apply, however I would argue that this article is working overtime to misappropriate the term to advocate for silencing progress (while not ever implying that anti-rights groups should be seen the same).
This is one of a large number of carefully crafted policy pieces disguised as a wide range of things all brought to the US public eye by The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
The whole thing is ridiculous and cartoonish. The main thrust behind the author's litany of complaints seems to be: (and I'm guessing the author hasn't been the subject of a whole lot of discrimination)
Are you gay? Black? Woman trying to prevent sexual violence? Interested in preventing smoking or reducing birth defects? Stop and look around, things are better now! Don't worry or complain any more, those problems were already taken care of!
LLMs aren’t a “superior intelligence” because every abstract concept they “learn” is done so emergently. They understand programming concepts within the scope of languages and tasks that easily map back to those things, and due to finite quantisation they can’t generalise those concepts from first principles. I.e. it can map python to programming concepts, but it can’t map programming concepts to an esoteric language with any amount of reliability. Try doing some prompting and this becomes agonisingly apparent!