Opus 4.7 (haven't tried 4.8) just really struggles writing correct code for complicated (i.e. valuable) work. I can handle architecture, which takes <1% of my time anyway. But writing code that's wrong is a cardinal sin. I've had much more luck with GPT 5.5 so far.
You're probably thinking about jevons paradox. But you slightly mis-stated. It is the phenomenon that increasing the efficiency of resource consumption can end up increasing total consumption.
As you stated it, it would merely be a property of (nearly) all demand curves. Jevons paradox only happens sometimes. It isn't a law.
An example of where it stopped happening is with gasoline in developed countries. Cars having better fuel efficiency doesn’t make me drive further to the grocery store or work.
Generally when someone replaces their vehicle the new one is more fuel efficient than the old one even if I bought the same car.
Why do we need to quantify an exact quota to qualify as well thought out political thought? Some people think about this issue from the basis of fundamental freedoms. Innocent, productive people deserve the opportunity to move where they obtain the most prosperity.
If I advocated abolition in the 19th century, it would be missing the point to turn around and say "oh yeah? And how many slaves would you like to free per year, and what effects do you expect that to have? Include examples of past slave rebellions"
The citizenry would probably fare no worse than with the arrival of the Irish, the Italians, or the Germans. What are you expecting, for the Indians or Chinese to sack DC aux Visigoths?
False positives are noise, but if the tool is filtering out its own noise via AI, it might work. Or you could take a high false positive/low false negative tool and instead of bothering humans with its noisy output, have AI investigate and evaluate if found issues are false positives or not.
> The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously
I grew up playing chess but my grandfather always insisted that pawns could only be promoted to captured pieces so when I played him we had to play a that variant.
I suspect this came from players not having extra pieces with their chess sets.
That and just avoiding the obvious advantage of promoting every piece to a queen every time. Puts more constraint on the game which usually makes for more interesting play
If half of your code is unsafe then unless you exercise tremendous discipline (Claude basically doesn't) you will just end up with a big ball of unsafe, peppered with hallucinations in whatever random documentary comments Claude decided to make. I doubt they enforced the confinement of unsafe to a specific architectural layer or anything like that.
Aren't the Rust unsafes a reflection of the Zig it was ported from? However now that you're working with Rust, you're in a position to continue improving and eliminating the unsafes.
Plus I seem to recall the Rust community solved this issue by making tooling that proofs if unsafe code is truly unsafe, I remember one of the concurrent frameworks got scanned and people freaked out, the creator was about to abandon ship entirely as a result, don't recall what fully came of it. Anyway my overall point being, if there's already tooling to find the truly unsafe / bad code, it might make fixing it simpler / quicker to accomplish.
There is no Rust tooling that tells you if your unsafe code is shit or not. If there was you wouldn't need the unsafe stuff at all.
The Actix web stuff was the maintainer using unsafe code to increase performance (iirc, it was a long time ago) in what was the most popular rust web frameworks at the time. It has since declined and been supplanted by other projects but the push was mainly a web framework shouldn't need so much unsafe. They eventually ceded the project to another maintainer and went off to work on something else.
Fuzzing can help with that. But it’s not only applicable to Rust.
For Actix web he was using “unsafe” to increase performance. That doesn’t mean the code written was unsafe… The Rust community was turning to a cult on this topic when perfectly experienced C++ can write code would need the unsafe in Rust when they perfectly know the code isn’t. It’s good for the community to push people to avoid to use unsafe but not to that extend of drama and bullying…
reply