The catch
You're relying on garbage collection, which is nondeterministic. You don't get to know when the suspended function is collected. For our use case, that's fine. We only need to know that it will be collected, and modern engines are reliable about that.
The real footgun is reference chains. If anything holds a reference to the hanging promise or the suspended function's closure, the garbage collector can't touch it. The pattern only works when you intentionally sever all references.
I once knew a guy who was disabled and walked on crutches. Jobs got mad at him for being late to a meeting, and the guy replied "well someone parked in the handicapped parking spot, and it took me awhile to walk from a normal parking spot.
No joke, Jobs looks him (a disabled person) directly in the eye, and says "oh, that was me; I think the country built an excess of disabled parking spaces after WW2." To the disabled guy!!!
Surprise surprise: the arrogant selfish child doesn't have empathy for anyone else.
If four thousand kids were all laughing at a rumor that you had a small dick, and every girl you were interested in laughed you out the door for the rest of your college career, would you really be like "it's ok, 4k people are having fun"?
I guarantee OP would be the guy calling the site operator and threatening to jump him.
Given his background, you'd think he'd know that he should provide some evidence for his position (instead of making this completely unsupported rant).
I wasn't too upset with Bram's article, but I do think people should be citing specific claims, even in blog posts.
If you make an assertion in a blog post, I have no idea if you got the information from a respected scientific journal, or Reddit, or InfoWars, or the writing of a bathroom stall. It's hard to know if the assertion is grounded in reality or just something you made up.
The response I get to this is universally "LOL just look it up yourself man!", but that feels like a cop out. When I write blog posts, I put inline links all over the place to try and justify my assertions to show where I'm getting this information. If I sourced some bad information from a bad source, it's clear to know where I got it from and you can either notify me or disregard the assertion.
>> and those tasks were never just tasks. They were the mechanism that built judgment, intuition, and the ability to supervise the systems we now delegate to AI.
>Bullshit. The busywork wasn't being done by low level engineers to train them up, they were doing it because it needed doing, it was undesirable, and they were lowest on the totem pole.
Why not both? It was work that needed doing AND it taught people to be better engineers.
Except I worked at a company with a QA department made up of entirely "Automated Verification Engineers" ... over a decade ago. And the head of the department had taught at a local QA school (so presumably other QA engineers learned that style of work from her also).
Good QA departments switched to this mode long before AI was even a thing! Maybe 90+% of QA departments didn't work that way pre-AI, but there certainly were ones that did!
reply