> I can assure you that the core utils have all already went through static analysers doing more checks than the Rust compiler.
I'd be very interested in reading more about this. Could you please explain what are these checks and how they are qualitatively and quantitatively better than the default rustc checks?
Please note that this is about checks on the codebase itself - not system/integration tests which are of course already applicable against alternative implementations.
Sounds like a reasonable theory but do you have an actual example? The one you gave:
> For example, a typical bilingual speaker of Indian English and Hindi will replace instances of the /æ/ phoneme (as in "blast" or "fast") with another phoneme like /a:/ (as in "father"). Which isn't that unusual since /æ/ is pretty uncommon among languages.
does not apply to Indian languages because most of them have daily-use-words with the /æ/ sound.
It's actually stunning how off-putting it is. I started Duolingo because I was in a relationship with someone and wanted to learn their language. I paid for subscription because I didn't want to be assaulted with ads and upsells (and I believe in paying for software in general and I think subscriptions can be a fair business model), but even as a paying customer it was miserable!
It's so fucking lousy with gems and upsells and quests and "try the AI call, you get one for free and then you can upgrade to a more expensive subscription!". The gamification of everything in Duolingo is so bad. And, as you say: I feel like I'm wasn't learning any of the fundamentals, can't you just tell me how to conjugate this verb and then testing me instead of making a dumb guessing game out of it?
Compare it to (say) YouTube Premium: I know a lot of people hate it, and that it's an expensive subscription, but I honestly think it's pretty fair. All the commercialization and upsell go away entirely, you get a very clean experience for something that I use more than any other streaming service. Don't mind paying for it at all. Not Duolingo though, I cancelled it after a week and a half.
Plus Duolingo has become insanely expensive. I re-installed the app recently and my heart skipped a beat when I saw the pricing. The app left my phone shortly thereafter.
> it's become a gameified mess, rather than actually teaching necessary grammar and language concepts.
They would be seen as a stuffy edtech companion app if they did the unsexy work of teaching. Gamification = user growth and engagement = investor money.
To add insult to the injury, they claim that most people should stick to Play Store - a malware repository controlled by an ad distribution company - for better privacy. We're supposed to take this seriously.
I understand why the other comments would be flagged, but this one is legibly reasoned and I've vouched for it.
It is obvious that historical advancement of technology has caused widespread cultural changes, and a sizable percentage of them are considered negative by a large portion of the population. To state that commercially viable AI could cause such effects as well does not seem necessarily unhinged to me, but in fact worthy of discourse on this forum.
I'm always amazed reading that this isn't already the case in the US. In India, every charge requires SMS based 2fa. Starting a bank mandate (ECS/NACH) for automatic transfers needs me to physically sign a paper. It can be revoked any time by the user without any involvement of the receiving party, and can be done online as well.
As someone with a teeny tiny commit in this release and a maintained personal fork, I feel compelled to say that the biggest benefit of fish over bash/zsh for me is not just the OOTB completions UX etc., but also how much more approachable it is to hacking. I would never even bother reading the source code of bash again, let alone try to patch it, because I have 0 confidence that something completely unrelated is not gonna break.
I'd be very interested in reading more about this. Could you please explain what are these checks and how they are qualitatively and quantitatively better than the default rustc checks?
Please note that this is about checks on the codebase itself - not system/integration tests which are of course already applicable against alternative implementations.