Because powerful interests are trying to hijack human creative pursuits in the interest of profit. None of the images in the post are art.

This kind of comment mystifies me. What’s the value of it, what are you trying to say? Are you proud of your ignorance, or trying to ridicule, or what? What is alarming about coming across something you’re not familiar with? J and APL have Wikipedia articles that serve as a basic enough introduction. Why not educate yourself first?

Boundless optimisation is something we should be resisting, at least in our current economic system.

Don't want businesses to communicate with me, thanks. So entitled!

Wasn't the refrigerator trying to communicate with her the best way it could?

No wonder people could think it's trying to do that, because it's true.

>mistakes smart fridge ad for psychotic episode (reddit.com)

OTOH, when you put it like that it would also be easy to get the idea that your fridge was the one having the psychotic episode ;)

If you change words in a text then the meaning changes. Even if all ads are speech (I don't think they are, but I don't need to argue that), not all speech is advertisement. You can say your piece in one of many other forms that doesn't hijack my attention.

I didn't say that all speech is ads, I said that ads are speech.

?? I know you didn’t. I don’t think my post is hard to understand. The point of freedom of speech is the free expression of ideas and opinions. You can do that in many ways. You could write a book. You could email the editor of a news website. You could write a song. In my ideal society, though, you would not be allowed to put it on a massive billboard that everyone has to look at all the time. I don’t think this curtails anyone’s freedom of speech.

These are extremely trivial, to the point that I don’t really know what you’re complaining about. What would expect or prefer?

it's not about triviality, but why not use what is generally accepted already, why did zig decide to be different?

What is "generally accepted" though?

If you mean C-style declarations, the fact that tools such as https://linux.die.net/man/1/cdecl even exist to begin with shows what's wrong with it.

<auto/type/name> <name/type> (array?) (:)= (value)

<fn> <generic> <name>(<type/argument>[:] <type/argument> [(->/:) type]

[import/use/using] (<package>[/|:|::|.]<type> | "file") (ok header files are a relic of the past I have to admit that)

I tried writing zig and as someone who has pretty much written in every commonly used language it just felt different enough where I kept having to look up the syntax.

There’s almost countless languages that don’t do anything like this, whereas Zig is very similar. It’s fine to prefer this syntax or that, but Zig is pretty ordinary, as languages go. So yes, the differences are trivial enough that it’s a bit much to complain about. You can’t have spent much time with Zig or you’d have learned the syntax easily.

The same goes for go, though. And out of the two, I find Zig is still closer to any sane existing language schema. While go is like, let's write C-style types, but reverse the order, even though there is a widely accepted type notation that already reverses it with a :, that even let's you infer types in a sane way.

I think for production code this is wildly irresponsible. I’m having a decent time with LLM code generation, but I wouldn’t dream of skipping code review.

That all sounds incredibly dystopian, ugh.

I don’t get the extreme negative reaction here and elsewhere. It’s not for me either, but I also don’t think it looks ridiculous – it just a little bag. There’s a pretty hard limit on how crazy that can look. It’s like the detractors aren’t aware or accepting that there are people with different tastes in the world. Why not just say “it’s not for me”?

Capital has other ideas, it wants “problems” “solved” faster and faster.