Chad Nauseam
@nauseam.bsky.social
Can't believe that the company that makes the game you see in every mobile game ad also gives $6,000/month to the rust game engine Bevy. Might have to download it to see what they're about
November 17, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Can't believe that the company that makes the game you see in every mobile game ad also gives $6,000/month to the rust game engine Bevy. Might have to download it to see what they're about
big things happening on lesswrong
November 9, 2025 at 3:45 PM
big things happening on lesswrong
One of the craziest interviews I've seen is this one, where Bill Gates predicts Netflix/Letterboxd in 1994
September 12, 2025 at 7:47 PM
One of the craziest interviews I've seen is this one, where Bill Gates predicts Netflix/Letterboxd in 1994
You see I'm struggling with women, and you tell me to take off my fedora. Tell me, when you're at the gym and see someone struggling with a bench press, do you also tell them to take off the weight?
August 2, 2025 at 3:45 PM
You see I'm struggling with women, and you tell me to take off my fedora. Tell me, when you're at the gym and see someone struggling with a bench press, do you also tell them to take off the weight?
I think it just made this up
July 24, 2025 at 7:47 PM
I think it just made this up
ngl i don't really understand reborrows in rust. why is it doing all this?
July 24, 2025 at 3:45 PM
ngl i don't really understand reborrows in rust. why is it doing all this?
Last is Victoronz. I actually have no idea who this is lol. But they're a bevy contributor which is awesome, and I appreciate their contributions to the quiz!
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Last is Victoronz. I actually have no idea who this is lol. But they're a bevy contributor which is awesome, and I appreciate their contributions to the quiz!
Next is waffle, who also works on rust, is also accepting sponsorships, and has a very entertaining blog too!. Check it out!
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Next is waffle, who also works on rust, is also accepting sponsorships, and has a very entertaining blog too!. Check it out!
Another author is the prolific Mara Bos, who you may know from the classic book "Rust Atomics and Locks" or her many other activities in the rust community!
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Another author is the prolific Mara Bos, who you may know from the classic book "Rust Atomics and Locks" or her many other activities in the rust community!
There are many more questions on the quiz - please go check it out! But who are the authors? I found out about the quiz through Boxy - who is also working on making Rust's "const generics" more flexible! (She is also accepting sponsorships on github... just saying)
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
There are many more questions on the quiz - please go check it out! But who are the authors? I found out about the quiz through Boxy - who is also working on making Rust's "const generics" more flexible! (She is also accepting sponsorships on github... just saying)
But things are different in the second code sample. When returning a place expression from a block (normal or unsafe), it is "coerced to a value", which necessitates loading it, which does cause UB. So the second example really is unsound.
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
But things are different in the second code sample. When returning a place expression from a block (normal or unsafe), it is "coerced to a value", which necessitates loading it, which does cause UB. So the second example really is unsound.
Here, there's no variable on the left hand side of the `=`. There's only an `_`. This is the wildcard pattern, and unlike other patterns, the wildcard pattern does not load anything. So in the first code sample, the place expression is never loaded!
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Here, there's no variable on the left hand side of the `=`. There's only an `_`. This is the wildcard pattern, and unlike other patterns, the wildcard pattern does not load anything. So in the first code sample, the place expression is never loaded!
Answer: Claude is wrong. It is not unsound to deference a null pointer! It is only unsound to "load" a null pointer. And that first code sample doesn't load anything! The prefix * operator in rust is special syntax that creates a "place expression"
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Answer: Claude is wrong. It is not unsound to deference a null pointer! It is only unsound to "load" a null pointer. And that first code sample doesn't load anything! The prefix * operator in rust is special syntax that creates a "place expression"
(credit to WaffleLapkin, BoxyUwU, m-ou-se, and Victoronz.)
At first glance, you'd think both are unsound. "Obviously" it's unsound to deference a null pointer. Even Claude 4 Opus with extended thinking agrees. Is that your final answer? Make up your mind now - spoilers below
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
(credit to WaffleLapkin, BoxyUwU, m-ou-se, and Victoronz.)
At first glance, you'd think both are unsound. "Obviously" it's unsound to deference a null pointer. Even Claude 4 Opus with extended thinking agrees. Is that your final answer? Make up your mind now - spoilers below
I recently found the "unfair rust quiz" with some really tough questions. (URL in first pic.)
The code in one of these code samples is sound, and the other is not. Do you know which? (This is your chance to prove you're smarter than Claude and deserve to keep your job.)
The code in one of these code samples is sound, and the other is not. Do you know which? (This is your chance to prove you're smarter than Claude and deserve to keep your job.)
June 10, 2025 at 10:21 PM
I recently found the "unfair rust quiz" with some really tough questions. (URL in first pic.)
The code in one of these code samples is sound, and the other is not. Do you know which? (This is your chance to prove you're smarter than Claude and deserve to keep your job.)
The code in one of these code samples is sound, and the other is not. Do you know which? (This is your chance to prove you're smarter than Claude and deserve to keep your job.)
deploying ML models at work which means I have to write python
May 22, 2025 at 7:47 PM
deploying ML models at work which means I have to write python
That's all folks! If you want my honest opinion on C++, check out my article on the subject:
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
That's all folks! If you want my honest opinion on C++, check out my article on the subject:
So yes, this ACTUALLY gets optimized down to `return true;`. If you run this code, it will say that Fermat's Last Theorem has been disproved.
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
So yes, this ACTUALLY gets optimized down to `return true;`. If you run this code, it will say that Fermat's Last Theorem has been disproved.
So, the excellent cppreference has outdone themselves once again and made a C++ example out of this situation. Do you see the issue?
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
So, the excellent cppreference has outdone themselves once again and made a C++ example out of this situation. Do you see the issue?
He then died, and 350 years later so many people had tried and failed that it was assumed to be unsolvable. But Andrew Wiles attacked the problem nonstop for 6 years in total secrecy until he finally proved it true, and concluded with possibly the highest-effort troll of all time
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
He then died, and 350 years later so many people had tried and failed that it was assumed to be unsolvable. But Andrew Wiles attacked the problem nonstop for 6 years in total secrecy until he finally proved it true, and concluded with possibly the highest-effort troll of all time
Andrew Wiles is an English mathematician specializing in number theory. What he's best known for is proving a conjecture first put forward by Pierre de Fermat around 1637. The conjecture became well known for it's importance and the hilarious way it was stated.
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Andrew Wiles is an English mathematician specializing in number theory. What he's best known for is proving a conjecture first put forward by Pierre de Fermat around 1637. The conjecture became well known for it's importance and the hilarious way it was stated.
Yeah, it always returns true! The compiler sees that the last iteration of the loop does an array access out of bounds, and so it goes ahead and obliterates your whole function (to always return true without doing any work).
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Yeah, it always returns true! The compiler sees that the last iteration of the loop does an array access out of bounds, and so it goes ahead and obliterates your whole function (to always return true without doing any work).
Let's try another one. What does this compile to?
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Let's try another one. What does this compile to?
You might expect it to overflow, causing it to return false, but signed integer overflow is undefined. So this code actually compiles to `return true;` on many compilers!
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
You might expect it to overflow, causing it to return false, but signed integer overflow is undefined. So this code actually compiles to `return true;` on many compilers!
BTW, I have no problem with C++. In my free time I develop a C++ game engine. I just think the language is funny.
Let's do a few more for fun. I'm taking these examples from cppreference btw. What happens if you pass the largest possible signed integer to this function?
Let's do a few more for fun. I'm taking these examples from cppreference btw. What happens if you pass the largest possible signed integer to this function?
May 14, 2025 at 2:45 PM
BTW, I have no problem with C++. In my free time I develop a C++ game engine. I just think the language is funny.
Let's do a few more for fun. I'm taking these examples from cppreference btw. What happens if you pass the largest possible signed integer to this function?
Let's do a few more for fun. I'm taking these examples from cppreference btw. What happens if you pass the largest possible signed integer to this function?