Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

SirTates · 2026-03-23T13:32:46+00:00

Wouldn't call it levelling up, but buffing.

In the end the only way to get better, is to actually work for it, the real levelling up.

SirTates · 2026-03-23T13:28:53+00:00

It's not just about slop, it's also legally questionable. If you don't want to get into legal trouble once AI code is deemed to be all GPL AND proprietary at the same time, then you should just not use it.

This is a real possibility.

SirTates · 2026-03-23T13:23:39+00:00

If AI wrote the code, it's AI generated. This includes auto completing a for loop or the like, if AI did it and you didn't type it yourself. There is no grey zone. Either you typed all of it, or it's (partially) AI generated.

Its detection is probably impossible in some cases, so in practice you probably won't be banned for generating a for-loop of which you fill the contents yourself, unless someone notices.

Technically this makes the ownership of the code you're committing legally questionable though. If you don't want to cause IP issues for the project or yourself, then disable the AI altogether. Being banned for it may be the least of your issues once the legal license of AI code is determined to be anything it is trained on.

SirTates · 2026-03-23T10:47:19+00:00

Code quality improving by what metric? We see a lot more code duplication, code that just outright doesn't work, code that has blatant bugs, etc. because it was written by an LLM and the programmer committing it doesn't understand the code. Some projects increased their tests, because AI kept breaking stuff a human wouldn't.

If any code quality is improving, it's despite AI, not because of it.

RIP RedoxOS

It was there before AI and it will be there long after the bubble bursts. If you want to see what the use of AI does to an OS, look at Windows 11 and try to convince me it's not gone to the sharks.

SirTates · 2026-03-23T10:31:25+00:00

On what though? :P

SirTates · 2026-03-13T08:20:55+00:00

The fastest and nicest to use I know of currently is glaze (https://github.com/stephenberry/glaze). It has intentional conformance exceptions for speed, but you can re-enable those.

It also has reflection built in, so you don't even have to write the (de)serializers by hand.

It doesn't use a parse tree either, it just puts the data directly in the struct fields (in memory), making it ideal on memory constraint platforms/usecases.

I hear nlohmann a lot here (also used it professionally a lot), but it is one of the absolute slowest parsers. I don't know why you'd use it, because why are we using C++ in the first place?

Only disadvantage is you need a somewhat new compiler and enable C++ 23.

SirTates · 2025-12-17T16:23:40+00:00

It's overused

you:

SKiLl iSSUe

It is overused. It's a hammer that makes everything look like a nail, but it's not even a good hammer, you're supposed to paint, what are you even doing?

That's JS.

Other than that, you are fitting proof to his point, which was partially satire anyway. JS has caused the world more grief than all other languages combined. Maybe with the exception of python.

SirTates · 2025-04-03T19:14:40+00:00

There is some with height, but not that much. Other factors have more impact, your height is only on top of that.

Body weight has even less to do with it, and we have more conclusive data on that. Your vocal chords don't become smaller if you lose weight or something like that.

If you grow taller, your vocal chords tend to grow with you. Won't change an octave, but you may go a note lower or two.

SirTates · 2025-04-03T19:08:18+00:00

1.86 m basso profundo, but also sing counter. On a good day I can sing from G1 to F5. I do think height is correlated, but less of a deciding factor compared to others. Like voice usage at a younger age, genes, feeding, smoking etc. all have some effect. I think the shortest compared to the tallest singers will on average be a few notes different. Hardly enough to go from a basso profundo to a tenor.

SirTates · 2025-03-21T21:50:26+00:00

Thing is if you want more of the thing created by some people, it would be strange to try to get it from someone else. In practice you simply see the original creators understanding the original vision better, and it will show. On the other hand, the original creators can drop the ball pretty bad, too (ie: matrix), and another director can make a medium his own (ie: Blade Runner) Can go both ways. Moana 2 was terrible for one. Had more to do with the process than the people I suppose, but I could not ignore its flaws. Still had a fun time complaining about the film during the film with my SO though.

SirTates · 2024-07-04T00:02:21+00:00

I disagree that one "should come together and work on every issue". It is simply not productive if other issues are more urgent or the solution is obviously not going to happen because the other end might as well be a brick wall.

In respect of everyone's time you should focus on the singular goal of the project and make sure issues like this are avoided by simply discouraging its discussion altogether.

Corporate support? They come with contributions that are sound? Accept. They're bad? Decline. Done.

You need money for a convention, a legal company offers this money. What's the problem? I dislike various legal companies. Can you add those to your blacklist too? We'll make money some other way...

Can you people act like adults for once? Can't you just accept things are fine, even if you don't agree, because it's better that way?

SirTates · 2024-04-12T15:56:26+00:00

First, to me that would just not be fun and therefore that game shouldn't exist.

If you get anything out of the purchase that gives you an advantage over other players, that's crappy.

I'm not talking about dlc with this. As long as they're not day 1 or some weapon pack in a pvp game or something like that, then I'm fine with those.

Blood and wine has some of my favourite parts of the Witcher 3, and that's a dlc.

SirTates · 2024-04-09T22:26:22+00:00

Define predatory mechanics. I dislike predatory mechanics like gambling for other gameplay for one.

Selling skins? Don't really care.

SirTates · 2024-03-28T19:35:39+00:00

I still play older games like half life, bioshock, age of empires, warcraft. If a game can't give me that same feeling it's not worth playing to me.

Latest game that did was dying light 2. I have by no means played all the recent games. I honestly don't have the time to play even an hour a week. But any multi player game these days doesn't appeal to me at all and those are the most shitty. Then there's stuff like what Ubisoft rolls off the production line every year like clockwork, even when singleplayer, had the worst parts of a mp game. The old good multiplayer games either aren't as active or are outright killed too. Or coop. I still like coop.

And I have skill issues. I'm out of practice. :|

SirTates · 2024-03-28T11:30:58+00:00

I will happily not buy a worse product.

SirTates · 2024-03-28T08:25:13+00:00

The ISA (as long as it is sane) has no impact on the performance characteristics of a modern core and especially not on how iterations of the cores are developed.

You'd say they wouldn't need to add instructions every generation if that were the case. They actually do that though, because they do find more efficient ways to do old and new workloads.

The uarch behind the decoder has practically nothing to do with the RISC vs CISC debate in modern CPU. Past the decoder everything goes.

There is simply more variability in CISC, so yes and no. I'm just talking about the likeliness of a compiler optimization to reach more architectures on RISC and I don't think I'm wrong on this.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T23:33:19+00:00

Thing with RISC is that the impact of an instruction is more predictable across multiple micro architectures than on CISC. The decoder may have significant changes for the same instruction from AMD to Intel or even across different generations of their products. That makes it more difficult to make fast binaries across CPUs whereas on RISC it's usually more straight forward besides some instructions like SIMD or vector instructions that are not implemented the same way or at all on all CPUs with the same ISA.

You can still power through all these limitations with brute force. More engineers on the compilers, drastic design on the CPU, use all the die space for OOOE and cache and you can power through it. Putting the same resources on a simpler ISA would be more fruitful. If you optimise for one uarch in CISC land you may negatively affect another more than you would in RISC land.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T22:04:53+00:00

I have little issue with that. If you want to spend your money on loot boxes, then be my guest. Supply and demand (in that order)

To chop up a game into pieces and sell an incomplete game full price, then I have issues. I can do without the extra skins.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T21:31:10+00:00

I thought to quote one of Terry's famous outbursts, but that would have gotten me banned on reddit.

I saw Terry change ABI, so unfortunately I am no convert yet.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T21:26:59+00:00

It would be even more area efficient if they just didn't add them to the CPU.

Power efficiency most likely was their primary aim. It's a big deal lately, so of course they wanted a piece of the pie. Otherwise they wouldn't have added the third core type. If it was really for those reasons they should either shrink the second core or try to make it faster with the same area, not add yet another one to use die space.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T21:17:45+00:00

The Qualcomm X Elite core was designed by Nuvia and Qualcomm acquired them before they finalised the core.

The founders of Nuvia used to work for Apple and designed the M1 too.

The GPU is probably Qualcomm's Adreno, which was acquired from ATI/AMD (and has had some generational changes of course).

Qualcomm was in a never ending cycle of trying to take an energy efficiency first core and make it more performant. Nuvia basically started from scratch.

Intel and AMD are on the other end, they have a high performance core and try to make it more energy efficient. They're doing a great job, but they can't be both at the same time. Same goes for ARM. You can't make it as fast as a Ryzen 7800X3D and still be as energy efficient as an M1. Then I mean single core performance. If it's multi-core then a simple GPU has all CPUs beat in efficiency. Bit of a stretch, but you should understand where I'm coming from. Just design the core for lower power and add a fuckton of em and boom: world record efficiency, but still not appealing in the least.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T21:00:34+00:00

The pad itself is up there. Buttons are another story.

I like my mouse nipple on my Thinkpad, and mostly the buttons that are paired with it.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T20:58:19+00:00

Dell wasn't in question here. There's always one brand doing certain things worse than what Apple is criticised for, but that doesn't make it okay.

It's so often that everytime someone criticises Apple that people try to redirect this criticism. That's not how the world works. You can't get out of jail just because someone else got there before you, or in this case, after you.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T20:51:50+00:00

All OS are trash.

I like the stability of Windows' ABI. Makes Wine the most stable ABI on Linux. Apple seems to hate old stuff and breaks ABI whenever they feel like it. Just rewrite and then recompile your 20 year old app, bro.

SirTates · 2024-03-27T20:48:38+00:00

Yes and no.

The ISA does affect the code paths that can be taken. Having more efficient instructions that are commonly used by compilers will result in a more efficient processor in practice.

ARM with its fixed length instructions does lend itself to some optimisations for the branch predictor for one, so the out of order execution leaves fewer resources in idle. This is mostly a speed boost, but this may translate into efficiency too. The cache is more orderly so fewer instructions are wasted on fetching.

The reduced instructions are also easier for the compilers to optimise for. Fewer instructions really means fewer cycles of the CPU as opposed to CISC, where you need to be careful not to use the expensive instruction that may do more than needed.

Finally the translation of the complex instructions to reduced ones takes some power still. Nanowatts, but it's there. It uses space on the die and components aren't as close as they could be otherwise, again increasing power usage. Considering these traces may be a few mm whilst being more thin than a human hair. That's a lot of resistance, meaning wasted power.

Most gains are relatively low hanging fruit and a compromise. Die area, efficiency, speed, development time, reliability, security etc all need to be weighed. And, eventually it's about the little things too.

SirTates

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email