It might be interesting for "opportunistic" DoTLS towards authdns servers, which might listen on the DoTLS port with a cert containing a SAN that matches the public IP of the authdns server. (You can do this now with authdns server hostnames, but there could be many varied names for one public authdns IP, and this kinda ties things together more-clearly and directly).
It might also he useful to hide the SNI in HTTPS requests. With the current status of ESNI/ECH you need some kind of proxy domain, but for small servers that only host a few sites, every domain may be identifiable (as opposed to, say, a generic Cloudflare certificate or a generic Azure certificate).
I like this argument, but it does somewhat apply to software development as well! The only real difference is that the bulk of the "licensed work" the LLMs are consuming to learn to generate code happened to use some open source license that didn't specifically exclude use of the code as training data for an AI.
For some of the free-er licenses this might mostly be just a lack-of-attribution issue, but in the case of some stronger licenses like GPL/AGPL, I'd argue that training a commercial AI codegen tool (which is then used to generate commercial closed-source code) on licensed code is against the spirit of the license, even if it's not against the letter of the license (probably mostly because the license authors didn't predict this future we live in).
https://ziglang.org/ is a solid future C-replacement, IMHO. There's pretty much no downsides and all upsides from a C hacker's perspective. It just hasn't reached 1.0 yet!
Zig is a nice language, but from a 10000 ft view it's not fundamentally different from C (thankfully) - at least from the CPU's point of view. Any hardware that's a good match for C is also a good match for Zig.
Not everyone thinks of Zig as a "no downsides and all upsides" C-replacement. First, a lot of people will take issue with it still being in beta and it being unknown how many more years will it take to reach 1.0. There are a bunch of C-replacements, or at least viable alternative languages out there. Both old and new. With more "C-killers" likely to pop-up in the not so distant future.
There are also a lot of people, after doing their Zig language reviews, that don't like it. Muratori (Handmade Hero) won't touch it and there was a recent article that's been covered on here and other sites, where the person explained why they stopped using it (linked below).
IIRC, the blog you linked was written by someone who loves Rust and other languages which have, to say the least, a different philosophy from C and Zig.
I'm not familiar with Muratori's opinion on Zig; do you have a link?
Muratori, who is a well known C programmer and instructor, has made his dislike of Zig quite clear[1]. Others, like Tsoding (many videos) and Kihlander (doesn't like syntax among other things), have given clear reasons for their dislike of Zig or why it was not their preference[2][3]. Various recognized programmers are not going to go along with, "no downsides and all upsides". Which for any language still in beta, would be a huge stretch in believability, by itself.
It's not a Rust thing, as many C/C++ programmers are not advocates of it either and if venturing out to something else, can prefer other languages. Tsoding has even dunked on Rust as being unreadable[4].
The hole in the system, though, is fixed-rate loans over the long term, and the ability to refinance relatively-cheaply. If you buy a house when rates and inflation are low, then over the life of the loan you'll win on inflation. All you have to do is hang on to that low-interest loan. If you happen to buy when rates are high, then you refinance the next time they're low and hold that loan. It's the ability to (worst-case, "eventually") lock in a low rate for decades that lets you win from inflation in the long term. There are a lot of people that were holding onto real estate loans at ~2-4% throughout the pandemic monetary+housing inflation cycle that made out very well. They didn't have to predict it or time it, they just grabbed a low-rate loan some time back whenever they could, and then waited for the inevitable to eventually happen.
Inflation being a years-long painful problem to wrestle with was inevitable with all the stimulus pumped in to keep us afloat through the pandemic. We could have fared far worse, and many countries did. I don't know why the left didn't push on this argument harder to defend themselves.
The laws in question are ambiguously worded and untested-yet in courts. They promise severe financial penalties and prison terms for offenders. I don't blame a doctor for being scared.
Why were those "rentiers and parasites" ever involved? Why wasn't the NYT (or any other Thing) just created by the workers without their involvement? The answer in practice is that they provided value by providing the necessary capital to build the thing, and they did so in return for a cut of the future wealth earned by the thing. It's arguable that the wealth inequality that set the initial conditions for this is out of hand, but given the starting conditions, how else do you make big things?
I cook on cast iron multiple times a week. Have for years, using a very antique pan from a dead relative. My rules are fairly straightforward. I don't do any other maintenance or cleaning than this after-care routine:
* Let the pan cool (if I'm lazy or it's late, possibly this is overnight and then I do the rest in the morning).
* Scrape out any easy solid waste (burnt food bits, etc) with a wood spatula edge and throw the waste in the trash.
* Toss a healthy amount of salt into the pan and scrub the pan using the salt, with your hands/fingers. The salt is a great abrasive, like sand, but I don't want sand ground into my cookware, while salt is fine for food.
* Rinse out the dirty-salt-mess with plain water from the sink.
* Occasionally, if stuck-on things are particularly stubborn, repeat some of the above steps as necessary until the pan surface is smooth and clean.
* Wipe off most of the remaining wetness with a paper towel (the towel will probably look pretty dirty, that's ok).
* Throw the pan back on the cooktop, pour a few tbsp of cheap olive oil in the middle, and turn the burner on as high as it goes. Wait a few minutes for the oil to thin, spread, and smoke. Once it's smoking pretty well, shut off the fire and leave the pan to cool again.
* Later when it's cooled off again (possibly overnight or hours later, whatever), gently wipe off any excess liquid oil with a paper towel and store the pan back in the cabinet, ready for next use.
What if they live in a country in which genetic evidence of a disease can deny or significantly increase the cost of health coverage? Even if you're clear of those for now, a new marker may be discovered tomorrow. Apparently (according another commenter) Life Insurance /can/ legally look at this even in the US. What about employers? What if it puts them on the DNA-evidence hook for a "crime" in their jurisdiction which you and they don't think is an ethical law (evidence of homosexual activity in a country that imprisons for it, or worse).
The crime thing sounds like a huge stretch given it's not actually your DNA.
With the insurance example I'm not sure I have a problem with that? The whole pre-existing condition conversation around health insurance is totally out-of-whack. Insurance was not designed for things you know have happened. It was invented to reduce the downside of things that could happen, commensurate with the risk of that thing happening. It's risk management. It makes zero sense to apply that model to something like universal health coverage. If someone is 100x more likely to get cancer, their insurance premiums should be higher. Just like if I'm a ship captain sailing into the bermuda triangle my premiums should be higher than sailing around the mediterranean.
If you feel that everyone should have healthcare, utilizing health "insurance" for this is the worst of kludges.
That's kind of how I look at it, in practice. I get the mathematical reality that buying lotto tickets is a financial waste. However, if I never buy a single ticket, there is a definite 0% chance I'll ever win the big prize. Whereas if I play at all, at least there's a chance, however remote, of a quite life-changing positive event happening. So, therefore, it makes sense to put a very small amount of totally throw-away income into big-prize lotto tickets, just so you're in the game at all.
Based on this kind of thinking, my personal rules are: never spend more than 0.1% of take-home pay per time-period buying tickets, and only buy big-prize lotto tickets that have potentially-life-changing payouts.
There's a near-zero possibility that the next potato chip in the bag has been laced with cyanide. But if you never eat any potato chips, there's a definite 0% chance that you'll die of cyanide-laced potato chips.
This kind of thinking never holds up when it's a small chance of a horrible outcome.
> However, if I never buy a single ticket, there is a definite 0% chance I'll ever win the big prize.
I'm not sure about that. There is some chance of someone random buying a ticket and gifting it to you and then that ticket winning. Not a big chance. But it is not 0.
