anthropic rumored to be having a profitable quarter is a ruse to ready them up for IPO or otherwise. they could've had a profitable quarter at any point in their history but they only do so if they stop making models; this has been established. they make a model, they sell inference and make a ton of money, they train the next model at 10x the cost, they sell inference and make a ton of money, they train the next model at 10x the cost, repeat
> I would still recommend not putting all your eggs in one basket just yet because [..] there will still be some value in knowing how systems work, both to differentiate yourself from other developers career-wise, and as part of effective LLM steering.
the thesis is that investing in your skills outside of LLMs pays dividends whether you decide to apply those skills to LLMs or not, plus spending time bonding with your fellow engineers is good for you too. so I'm sure Zig will be doing great in a few years
>> there will still be some value in knowing how systems work, both to differentiate yourself from other developers career-wise, and as part of effective LLM steering.
That seems like a strawman to as I can't think of anyone making a reasonable argument against. After all we still have C and even Assembly developers out there, despite the many languages-that're-more-convenient that've sprouted since.
I had half of a manifesto about how C programmers should be embarrassed on account of Zig but I ended up paring it down to be more focused on what the library is plainly.
Zig is obviously incredible and this library would not exist without it being the standard bearer for systems programming in many ways
> Rules that ask people not to use LLMs are ignored and almost impossible to enforce in open online events.
It's quite sad to see CTFs dying. I never had the time do seriously participate in CTFs, but I always respected those who did, as well as the people organizing these events.
> Rules that ask people not to use LLMs are ignored and almost impossible to enforce in open online events.
That's such a non-reason. If your competition cannot enforce the rules of the competition, then what's the point? Does the CTFs specifically need to be 'open'?
Because for the user experience, it is identical to <ul>. Use <menu> if it helps you to understand your code but in the browser's accessibility tree and in all other respects, it's just an unordered list.
Conveying that something is a list of actions requires adding ARIA attributes. The article mentions `role=menu` but that's not enough, each item also needs the `menuitem` role. The WAI Authoring Practices Guide explains the roles and interaction expectations; don't copy their coded examples and definitely don't use the roles for navigation menus.
<ruby> is going to be featured in my next article: You don't know HTML…Semantics.
I'm debating whether that one will be one or two articles because I'm going to be covering everything from <ruby>, <bdi>, <bdo> all the way through <var>, <kbd>, <samp>, <cite>, and <q>.
After that one, I'll probably have something like, "You don't know HTML interactions" or something to cover <dialog>, <popover>, and the Invoker API.
reply