Not to be a contrarian but that vanilla look is what creates traction or commerce. When we pull into a 7-Eleven weather in Seattle or Florida people want the same experience and the same expectations. And as such with end with liminal space. A sad space where the coffee and the Slim-Jim are the same. The familiarity of nowhere or anywhere America.
I think abstracted a bit more, this is just humanity in general, and isn’t really an America only thing. Humans like and gravitate toward homogeneity. Same is comfortable, same is safe. The more I travel and see big cities around the world, the more I recognize how closely related they are to major US cities. Like sure, there’s nuanced differences, and you can experience a wide variety of cultures and history. Ultimately though, they all have same metropolitan features, issues, positives, and characteristics.
It’s really the small villages and grass roots communities that shine with heritage, tradition, and unique experiences. Unique of course when compared against one another, but even more homogeneous within their own borders.
Concrete heavy architecture enables far more interesting geometry due to how you can use various molds and modular construction.
In addition, brutalist(and adjacent) architecture also plays a lot with lighting and sight lines, which IMO makes fore incredibly visually interesting structures.
I think there's a weird cultural thing where the cold war attitudes towards the USSR then influenced opinions on concrete-heavy architecture and created canned "brutalism ugly" memes. This even swings back around with weird obsessions with "classical architecture", which means even less and often results in essential virtue signalling via shallow features glued onto facades.
I think this also extends to various modern/contemporary art. Many people write it off before they even try to absorb it. They'll see a classical oil painting(with mid technique to boot) and go "pretty picture" and see a more modern piece with a lot of technique using shapes, color, and texture to draw attention in different ways and say "i can do that" but they wouldn't know where to start.
Rothko and Rembrant both produced pieces with spectacular use of color and depth, but people write off the former to circle jerk on the latter, especially due to various "trad" virtue signal type behavior.
Anyway, when you're looking at a brutalist building, follow the lines, look closely how the lighting interacts with the shapes, look how the lines interact with the flow of the room. There's so much thought and creativity involved, it deserves better.
I get the aesthetic of concrete. It is very appealing visually. At the same time brutalism is not functional. In a way, it is anti-human. One can compare it with functional architecture that takes the person into account and will see that visuals only might not be enough for people living or working or studying there.
All of this depends, of course, on what we consider brutalist, but I think we can agree the purest brutalist constructions are not thinking of the human experience.
In a way, it is like marvelling at a torture device, like an iron maiden. It might be visually interesting but I think most people wont love it for good reasons, not out of laziness.
The metro is pure brutalist, through-and-through, and it's utterly amazing. But you're inhabiting the space; there's little-to-no contrast with foreign elements; and the nature of the structure means everything about brutalism, artistically and functionally, could be exercised to its best effect.
I will say that I've always disliked most of the above ground platforms, for the same reasons I dislike brutalist architecture generally. The underground platforms transport you to its carefully constructed world. The above ground platforms don't and probably never could have the same effect.
As time goes on the metro has been slowly adulterated, but it's still amazing.
My personal adaptation of Hitchen's Razor for LLM content is that "that which is brought for review with low effort, must be dismissed with as much or less effort".
I think there's a category of Denial of Service vulnerabilities that we call 'amplified DoS' attacks, where the asymmetry of effort allows an attacker to generate a disproportional waste of resources, submitting LLM content output that magnifies the volume of the input, I think is a form of such attack, and hiding the fact that it is LLM would be the cherry that adds maliciousness.
Already happened. My AI coded C compiler already bypassed gcc in less failures, compiles 10x faster, and with their new policy they'll fall far behind.
Does your compiler replicate 100% of gcc's functionality? I've heard of similar compiler projects skimping on the lesser used functions and taking shortcuts. gcc is BIG.
But the real point is even if we get an ability to AI generate an accurate and fully-featured C compiler from scratch, everyone will keep using gcc. C compilers are solved, gcc is already here and it's pretty amazing. It's not flawed or in need of replacement, there's nothing for it to fall far behind on. We don't need another C compiler, the reason why AI users are attracted to the topic is just to "look ma, no hands!". And using gcc also ensures that I'm using something that has been looked at by thousands of qualified eyes in the past and will be looked at by thousands more for the foreseeable future. Will an AI compiler be comprehensible in ten years? Will every update be guaranteed to be better than the previous?
If you're just declaring gcc broken and removing its functionality, then why compare yourself to it? For any of the metrics you're using to hold water, you want the project to actually be comparable to gcc in terms of features, otherwise you could just remove half of their features and declare yourself as more efficient because half of gcc would compile faster than gcc.
And why are you talking about the optimizer? What I'm curious about is whether this compiler will successfully compile any project that can be compiled with gcc. Will it?
In addition to build time comparisons not meaning anything if the projects aren't equivalent, I also just don't get why it's so important. Most people don't spend their days recompiling gcc, they just want it to compile their projects quickly and accurately.
It compiles the kernel and my big projects, but I haven't released it yet.
Feature wise I don't do bitint, decimal and FloatX. No auto-vectorization, but better than most simd/neon projects, which don't use __attribute__((vector_size(N))). Manual vectorization.
no sanitizers nor flto.
rcc is for the people who want to compile their projects sanily, and fast. And who want to find unicode attacks. And for those who run into tcc bugs, there are many still.
gcc and clang are insanily slow.
Prove it and that your compiler is fully C compliant and can handle all possible inputs GCC can accept (and optimize as well as GCC), then we'll talk. Only then will your compiler risk leaving GCC behind.
I did also say optimize as well as. As in: your compiler needs to be genuinely better than GCC to compete with it. Good Windows support is a start, but you have yet to reach architecture equality of what GCC provides (which is fair I suppose) and you shell out to GCC for linking (which is pretty funny given that you claim GCC is being left behind...). Although "being left behind" is so nebulous as to be meaningless. For example does your compiler autovectorize? It doesn't look at a glance like it supports OpenMP or OpenACC either.
No openmp, no openacc, though that would all be trivial. For linking, my own linker still has a lot of regressions, but is at least 10x faster than shelling out to gcc/ld. Similar to tcc.
No linker scripts, no LTO via the native linker. rcc can easily fallback to the gcc linker for such features.
Auto vectorization would need extensive -O3 opts, which I dont do yet. No ssa, no escape analysis. The compiler should stay fast. And I prefer manual vectorization via attributes. Still better than using the insane and platform dependent SSE/neon apis, everyone else is using. See the torture/vect/ tests. They all pass
Some move all their lives and keep adapting their movements as their age. Others did not move much through the lives and when they hit 60s and they start loosing the mobility, doctors suggest for them to move more, if anything.
If you never hiked and you start hiking in your 60s for health reasons.
Pick up short flat trails.
Do you want the graphs with 300 squares to be bigger than your screen, or do you want the graph with 1 square to be 30x30 px for no reason? They're just zoomed.
That's what I mean, I can't imagine why anyone would argue the same thing of graphs in general so I'm curious what the difference makes it so they find it so odd in this specific case.
reply