arendjr

Do elaborate on the batshit part :) It’s a scientific fact that physical matter does not exist in its physical form when unobserved. This may not prove the existence of consciousness, but it certainly makes it plausible. It certainly invalidates physical reality as the “source of truth”, so to say. Which makes the explanation that physical reality is a product of consciousness not just plausible, but more likely than the other way around. Again, not a proof, but far from batshit.

I see that’s certainly a different way of looking at it :) Of course I can’t say with any authority that it must be wrong, but I think it’s a flaw because it seems you’re presuming that consciousness arises from physical properties. If the physical act of copying a brain’s data were to give rise to consciousness, that would imply consciousness is a product of physical reality. But my position (and that of the paper I linked) is that physical reality is a product of mental consciousness.

let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.)

This right here might already be a flaw in your argument. Something doesn’t need to be physical to be real. In fact, there’s scientific evidence that physical reality itself is an illusion created through observation. That implies (although it cannot prove) that consciousness may be a higher construct that exists outside of physical reality itself.

If you’re interested in the philosophical questions this raises, there’s a great summary article that was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a

I can’t say for sure we won’t need to revisit this again as we learn more about the nature of what data is missing and whether with more context we can automatically triage and notify the right people, but for now it feels like the cost / benefit ratio of “talking versus doing” is about right.

This was a nice post, and I agree people should think a bit about how to name things, because getting it wrong can lead to others making wrong assumptions, which ends up wasting a lot of time.

That said, I would get pretty annoyed if a PR I’m involved with ended up with this level of bike-shedding over a function name. If the end goal is to avoid wasting people’s time, bringing out the big guns and making three attempts, with three rounds of review, to get the name of such a trivial function right is surely throwing out the cost / benefit ratio right upfront.

❤️

It's a fair concern, but if there's any consolation, we're experiencing quite the influx of new contributors lately and the maintainer team is growing every month for the last couple of months. There's a lot of steam coming our way, so I don't think we'll run out just yet :)

Surely it would be easier to leave that to the TypeeScript devs and just focus on linting and formatting, no?

Almost nobody uses the TypeScript compiler for transpilation. I think most people nowadays use either Esbuild or SWC for that. The advantage that Biome has is that we already have the parsing and the serialization infrastructure and can add features like that with relative ease. For users that means fewer dependencies, less configuration, and less room for error.

Couple of weeks ago there was a post here calling for more content to be posted in this sub, so I figured you might appreciate the content. As a project, Biome is also helping a lot of web developers become interested in Rust, since many of our contributors make their first-time Rust contributions there.

Please, please make a blog and spew your tirades there 😂

So to put it all together ComplexEnum = Nothing | TaggedU32 | (bool x String)? Is that correct?

Pretty much, yeah. But just be aware the tags are effectively unique constants, so each has only one value. For consistency I would write it as:

ComplexEnum = Nothing | Something(u32) | LotsOfThings(bool x String)

In this notation,Something(u32) could also be written as 1 x u32 because tags are constants.

take in user sourced input without any sanitization

But that’s exactly the problem: these applications were sanitizing the input using the APIs provided by their language standard libraries. Except that sanitization proved insufficient because the requirements for sanitization differ greatly when the command is interpreted by cmd.exe as opposed to running regular executables. This is such a big footgun in the Windows API that it was overlooked by seemingly every major programming language implementation out there.

It would print “&& rm -rf /“ and nothing bad would happen.