universal null type safety has sadly been discarded as a core concept of Valhalla in my Understanding; that being said, the proposals in Valhalla have null-safety as a side effect, but only under certain conditions.
Really? I don't thinks so. There is a reason JEP 539 is in preview. There is a reason internal annotations exists in current valhalla jdk prototype and upcoming java 28 such as @jdk.internal.vm.annotation.NullRestricted, @jdk.internal.value.ValueClass.newNullRestrictedNonAtomicArray. Also, there is a reason value classes are allowed to be null. This is because nullness types will be a key factor to the java language.
You really need to dare to try something else, Kotlin has been available for many years and the cost for a Java shop is super small since the same tools work with both.
I’ve used also Dart which is lots of fun. Even Typescript can be a good alternative depending on what you’re doing. All have nullability guarantees and a nicer type system than Java while being in the same ballpark in terms of performance.
The elephant in the room is the standard library (collections). It isn't even type safe yet, because some methods were around before generics were added. And collections are too core for anyone to be able to agree on a 3rd party standard.
I mean, I guess you could say stuff like get(Object) and contains(Object) aren't type safe, but I've never seen that as an issue in practice. Plus there are some ErrorProne checks that'll tell you if you're doing something wrong in regards to calling contains(Object) with the wrong type.
They accept Object not because they're not type safe. They accept Object because key `equals` method might return `true` for unrelated classes by design, and collections interfaces have to accommodate for that. In other words, you might put key of class C1 into the map, and later use `get` with key of class C2. And if these classes happen to implement `equals` accepting each other, the collections are supposed to work.
So the core issue is that `Object.equals` method isn't type safe. Collections API just follow that.
Oh yes. Claude still saves the day sometimes, but hopefully better alternatives pop up soon.
Recent case: had to plan a trip involving multiple bus switches. Gpt 5.6 Sol proposed a route that would bring me to a dead end, since it was sunday and a specific bus had a different route on weekends.
Opus 5 correctly identified that and built a route that worked.
But yes, Darios wife trying to get funding from Epstein for a porn studio says a lot about the founder.
I am fully unbothered about Amodei's wife trying to make high end porn for women, in the same way that I am fully unbothered by Melania Trump having been essentially a glamour/nude model. I know (and have creatively worked) with women who do/have done both; they are better, less hypocritical, more grounded humans than many others.
Both Cami Clark and Melania Trump can properly be judged on their involvement with Trump, Epstein (or possibly Trump and Epstein) alone.
I think the Epstein money thing reflects extremely poorly on Cami Clark's judgement. Basic due diligence should have shown up that he went to prison for something very anti-women, and even then it was clear he secured a shady deal with a prosecutor.
I don't know how it reflects on Amodei except that her presence as a sort of off-the-books "adviser" is yet more evidence that Anthropic runs by giving Dario a play pen to be a "visionary" (a bunch of advisers and his only direct report, a chief of staff) while his sister actually runs the gig.
"High end" porn business is usually linked with other "services", my guess is that his wife saw value not in revenue from porn but from influence the other services may bring.
Of course this is speculative, but this is my guess about her. Darios assiciation with her also indicates a lot about his moral compass.
Imagine what we don't know.
Also there is a very big difference for a woman to participate in porn (usually they regret it) and a women trying to get other women to make porn.
High end porn can just be expensive production values; that is what I assumed. She wanted a proper studio and production company, and the implication is she was positioning it in opposition to the handful of studios that dominate that industry who have a very male outlook. She did want an e-commerce platform attached, but again, that's commonplace.
None of that is necessarily indicative of trafficking or prostitution, but banks and payment providers tend to run scared of it, so I suppose if one does want serious investment to make a studio, there are relatively few people you can go to.
She went to Epstein because she knew he was very rich and unbothered by that association, I am sure. The fact that she must also have known who he was — a sex offender who basic due diligence would have told her was likely a trafficker — is what is ugly.
What is bizarre about it is that if she had taken his money then needed to go to payment providers, she would have had an extra millstone around her neck, because they definitely do due diligence. But maybe Epstein had clout enough to offset his reputation.
Not going to too get into questions of porn and regret, except to say that even in a post-onlyfans world I think "regret" is often shorthand for "made to regret", which is rather different. It's the same for art and life models, which is where my creative experience lies. People are always out there trying to project their morality onto things that are not their business, so subsequent "regret" is often a practical, imposed matter.
This is why I think it's important that we judge these women for the clearer questions of morality that have nothing to do with porn.
There are exceptional cases, detrimental to both you and the company. Company already swallowed a pretty serious loss, in that case arguably common sense is to let it go, sometimes sh*t happens.
> generally we insure ourselves against acts of nature and accidents and thieves.
No. We insure ourselves against unforeseen events whose effects are financially unbearable to us otherwise. You've conveniently carved out certain unforeseen events in order to serve your point rather than being intellectually honest.
Businesses insure themselves against the death of an important employee, for example. If that employee is murdered, that is neither an act of nature, an accident, nor thievery.
You might argue "you were robbed of an employee" and stretch the meaning of the word "thief" but then I'd say a similar stretching of "act of nature [or] accident" includes "aircraft malfunction"
Businesses also insure against a great many other things.
If they truly were exceptional that would be fine. But long delays happen a lot, and I am sure there are things airlines could do to improve that like maintain the planes better so they aren't grounded as often and having backup planes so that if one has problems they can put customers on a different one.
I'm with you on the delays, especially since it's one sided, company doesn't loose anything, main inconvenicence is to the user so the company has to be incentivised to be on time (it may be even beneficial for the airport, since passengers would buy more overpriced stuff from waiting area).
I was referring to the case when an engine went bad and company had to use intermediate airport and accomodate all users for the night. Also you wouldn't want to punish company hard for admiting technical issues, since that might cause them to underreport and create dangerous situations.
It probably doesn't make sense for every airline to have a backup at every airport. But maybe the airport itself keeps a couple of backup planes that it rents out to airlines when they need it.
This is a distinction without a difference. Arko proposed to receive a copy of all RubyGems access logs containing full user PII.
He'd accept this PII en lieu of dollars for secondary on call coverage, so a safe assumption is that he intended to monetize the extracted user PII in some way. I am sure he would deny this, but there's a point where you have to let the evidence we do have combined with common sense guide us to the most likely conclusion.
You have a set of apis that user can access to do something, the llm uses those same apis. How is that limiting usefulness? By not invoking apis user is not allowed to?
The only way to mitigate the damage an LLM can do because of prompt injection is to limit what that LLM can do in the first place. That’s what they mean by limiting its usefulness. If an LLM has access to an api and I want it to abuse that API in some way, I can attack its prompt and eventually get it to use the api the way I want
reply