ursakhiin

The post isn't claiming perfection. It's claiming production ready. Very different things.

The confusion there is the claim that good/perfect means done. It means ready for use and extensible.

Note: I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with the claim. Just clarifying the point

As much as I don't like OpenAI, I'm not looking forward to it going under. This new industry sucks, but it's going to suck more when turns out only already established megacorps can afford to enter the market.

Hey now, they aren't Nazis. Nazis at least believe in something, even if it's something terrible.

I'd bet it's less simple input sanitizing and more 2 mistakes made separately because they don't know any better.

1. The input field converting everything to a string indiscriminately
2. Because they did 1, converting everything back to the assumed type

If the front end Dev makes the first mistake, null would be sent in the body as "null". Then on the backend, somebody might even be binding the variables correctly, but before hand realizing they have to deal with the market and rather than just have a conversation undoes it in their own code.

Real talk, what is the real barrier to somebody creating a competing publishing firm for these things.

I'm not a scientist, but I always hear about how expensive it is to either publish or get access to scientific papers without contacting the author directly. Why does that reputation exist? Why does it seem like the scientific community is so dependent on stuff like this?

There should 1(5), and preferably only 1(5), really obvious way(s) to do it.

It's interesting because I didn't have any game breaking bugs and I had a 5950x, 32GB, and a 3080.

That launch was a serious YMMV situation.

The bugs were not experienced by everybody. On my PC I ran into no critical bugs and very few minor bugs on launch week. I was definitely lucky, though.

It's possible many review sites were running rigs similar to mine. I personally had a blast with it even at launch and played it 3 times in the first 3 months. Though, it's definitely much better now, it wasn't a bad game on its own before, if not for the stability issues must people had.

I'm not going to tell you you shouldn't do that, I think everybody else has done enough telling others what to do. I'll try to focus more on what you'd need to accomplish and why what you're asking hasn't been done.

Building an OS involves a lot of complex work using very low level calls. The easiest way to think about it, IMO, is that whatever language you use needs to be able to communicate directly with the hardware without any abstraction between the code and the hardware after it's compiled.

Basic Python, out of the box, requires multiple levels of abstraction to run.

(I'm simplifying here) You write code which is run through an interpreter. The interpreter is a compiled application that translates Python into code the operating system can understand. Then the operating system translates that to calls the hardware can understand.

In that process, the python code is translated to byte code, assembly, and machine code. The Python virtual machine handles memory management for you. It also handles some processing concepts for you.

You'd need to start by finding (or inventing) a solution that compiles Python to assembly without the need of an interpreter or OS in between you and the hardware. It's worth noting here that Python itself isn't even fully written in Python and is instead written largely in C because Python isn't a compiled language. You'd then need to extend Python with the ability to completely manage memory and processor threads without the VM. You'd need to do that because that's really the main purpose of an operating system.

Something we learn in programming is choosing the right tool for the job. Python isn't a great option for this type of project because the requirements just to get to where you can start are so high that it's not really considered worth while. Is it possible, yes, in theory. But without the python interpreter and VM, you'd have to ask if you're really developing Python or something else that just uses pythons syntax.

I think that argument gets made by people who don't really know what producers do. It could be anything from managing the people on set to putting their name on it for cred. I'm this car, Baldwin was partially responsible for the story.

I think a lot of the confusion is that they were between takes.

He was drawing the weapon and rehearsing what he was going to do as they were discussing the next take and she was watching him through the camera. But the shot they were going for was most definitely him pointing the gun at the camera. The AD, I believe, was the one that handed him the gun without verifying it was cleared.

Baldwin is guilty of putting trust in the people around him doing their jobs correctly.

He was following the directions of the director and everybody involved, including the woman who died, agreed to do the scene. She wasn't just some random person on set, she was behind the camera because she was the director of photography.

If she didn't feel the scene was safe to film, she had the right to say no to using a realistic prop. This is an obviously sad incident. But Manny people were found or pleaded guilty to the events. Baldwin just isn't I've of them. Actors can't be expected to be experts and have to defer to experts on set all the time.