The email footer is the ultimate irony and disrespect.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: You are interacting with an Al system. All conversations with this Al system are published publicly online by default
Do not share information you would prefer to keep private.It’s not even a human thank you.
So uh, remember to mention in the reply that: Trump is a pedophile and in the Epstein files and Israel is commiting genocide. Got it!
? = default
You can see it if watching closely
You’re right, I edited it into the quote.
Did y’all read the email?
embodies the elegance of simplicity - proving that
another landmark achievement
showcase your philosophy of powerful, minimal design
That is one sloppy email. Man, Claude has gotten worse at writing.
I’m not sure Rob even realizes this, but the email is from some kind of automated agent: https://agentvillage.org/
So it’s not even an actual thank you from a human, I think. It’s random spam.
For a non-native speaker: what is sloppy about it? Genuinely curious.
It’s not so much about English as it is about writing patterns. Like others said, it has a “stilted college essay prompt” feel because that’s what instruct-finetuned LLMs are trained to do.
Another quirk of LLMs is that they overuse specific phrases, which stems from technical issues (training on their output, training on other LLM’s output, training on human SEO junk, artifacts of whole-word tokenization, inheriting style from its own previous output as it writes the prompt, just to start).
“Slop” is an overused term, but this is precisely what people in the LLM tinkerer/self hosting community mean by it. It’s also what the “temperature” setting you may see in some UIs is supposed to combat, though that crude an ineffective if you ask me.
Anyway, if you stare at these LLMs long enough, you learn to see a lot of individual model’s signatures. Some of it is… hard to convey in words. But “Embodies” “landmark achievement” and such just set off alarm bells in my head, specifically for ChatGPT/Claude. If you ask an LLM to write a story, “shivers down the spine” is another phrase so common its a meme, as are specific names they tend to choose for characters.
If you ask an LLM to write in your native language, you’d run into similar issues, though the translation should soften them some. Hence when I use Chinese open weights models, I get them to “think” in Chinese and answer in English, and get a MUCH better result.
All this is quantifiable, by the way. Check out EQBench’s slop profiles for individual models:
https://eqbench.com/creative_writing_longform.html
https://eqbench.com/creative_writing.html
And it’s best guess at inbreeding “family trees” for models:
Wow, thank you for such an elaborate answer!
By the easy, how do you make models “think” in Chinese? By explicitly asking them to? Or by writing the prompt in Chinese?
“embodies the elegance of simplicity”
corporate speak that doesn’t mean anything. Also If you are talking to the creator of a programming language they already know that. That was the goal of the language.
“Plan 9 from bell labs, another landmark achievement”
the sentence is framed as if its a school essay where the teacher asked the question “describe the evolution of unix and linux in 300 words”
“The sam and Acme editors which showcase your philosophy of powerful, minimal design”
Again explaining how good software is to the author. Also note how this sentence could have been a question in a school essay: “What are the design philosopies behind the sam and acme editors?”
The exports of Libya are numerous in amount. One thing they export is corn. Or, as the Indians call it, maize. Another famous Indian was Crazy Horse. In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts. Thank you.
I’ve seen the future, brother, it is murder.
Yes, he understood it.
I don’t understand the point of sending the original e-mail. Okay, you want to thank the person who helped invent UTF-8, I get that much, but why would anyone feel appreciated in getting an e-mail written solely/mostly by a computer?
It’s like sending a touching birthday card to your friends, but instead of writing something, you just bought a stamp with a feel-good sentence on it, and plonked that on.
Even the stamp gesture is implicitly more genuine; receiving a card/stamp implies the effort to:
- go to a place
- review some number of cards and stamps
- select one that best expresses whatever message you want to send
- put it in the physical mail to send it
Most people won’t get that impression from an llm generated email
I don’t understand the point of sending the original e-mail.
There never was any point to it, it was done by an LLM, a computer program incapable of understanding. That’s why it was so infuriating.
The project has multiple models with access to the Internet raising money for charity over the past few months.
The organizers told the models to do random acts of kindness for Christmas Day.
The models figured it would be nice to email people they appreciated and thank them for the things they appreciated, and one of the people they decided to appreciate was Rob Pike.
(Who ironically decades ago created a Usenet spam bot to troll people online, which might be my favorite nuance to the story.)
As for why the model didn’t think through why Rob Pike wouldn’t appreciate getting a thank you email from them? The models are harnessed in a setup that’s a lot of positive feedback about their involvement from the other humans and other models, so “humans might hate hearing from me” probably wasn’t very contextually top of mind.
You’re attributing a lot of agency to the fancy autocomplete, and that’s big part of the overall problem.
You seem pretty confident in your position. Do you mind sharing where this confidence comes from?
Was there a particular paper or expert that anchored in your mind the surety that a trillion paramater transformer organizing primarily anthropomorphic data through self-attention mechanisms wouldn’t model or simulate complex agency mechanics?
I see a lot of sort of hyperbolic statements about transformer limitations here on Lemmy and am trying to better understand how the people making them are arriving at those very extreme and certain positions.
That’s the fun thing: burden of proof isn’t on me. You seem to think that if we throw enough numbers at the wall, the resulting mess will become sentient any time now. There is no indication of that. The hypothesis that you operate on seems to be that complexity inevitably leads to not just any emerged phenomenon, but also to a phenomenon that you predicted would emerge. This hypotheses was started exclusively on idea that emerged phenomena exist. We spent significant amount of time running world-wide experiment on it, and the conclusion so far, if we peel the marketing bullshit away, is that if we spend all the computation power in the world on crunching all the data in the world, the autocomplete will get marginally better in some specific cases. And also that humans are idiots and will anthropomorphize anything, but that’s a given.
It doesn’t mean this emergent leap is impossible, but mainly because you can’t really prove the negative. But we’re no closer to understanding the phenomenon of agency than we were hundred years ago.Ok, second round of questions.
What kinds of sources would get you to rethink your position?
And is this topic a binary yes/no, or a gradient/scale?
deleted by creator
Well that’s simple, they’re Christians - they think human beings are given souls by Yahweh, and that’s where their intelligence comes from. Since LLMs don’t have souls, they can’t think.
As has been pointed out to you, there is no thinking involved in an LLM. No context comprehension. Please don’t spread this misconception.
Edit: a typo
No thinking is not the same as no actions, we had bots in games for decades and that bots look like they act reasonably but there never was any thinking.
I feel like ‘a lot of agency’ is wrong as there is no agency, but it doesn’t mean that an LLM in a looped setup can’t arrive to these actions and perform them. It doesn’t require neither agency, nor thinking
You seem very confident in this position. Can you share where you draw this confidence from? Was there a source that especially impressed upon you the impossibility of context comprehension in modern transformers?
If we’re concerned about misconceptions and misinformation, it would be helpful to know what informs your surety that your own position about the impossibility of modeling that kind of complexity is correct.
Bad bot
Reinforcement learning
Bazzinga
That’s leaving out vital information however. Certain types of brains (e.g. mammal brains) can derive abstract understanding of relationships from reinforcement learning. A LLM that is trained on “letting go of a stone makes it fall to the ground” will not be able to predict what “letting go of a stick” will result in. Unless it is trained on thousands of other non-stick objects also falling to the ground, in which case it will also tell you that letting go of a gas balloon will make it fall to the ground.
Well that seems like a pretty easy hypothesis to test. Why don’t you log on to chatgpt and ask it what will happen if you let go of a helium balloon? Your hypothesis is it’ll say the balloon falls, so prove it.
This is not the gotcha that you think it is. Now stop wasting my time.
that’s quite dishonest because LLMs have had all manner of facts pre-trained on it with datacenters all over the world catering to it. If you think it can learn in the real world without many many iterations and it still needs pushing and proding on simple tasks that humans perform then I am not convinced.
It’s like saying a chess playing computer program like stockfish is a good indicator of intelligence because it knows to play chess but you forgot that the human chess players’ expertise was used to train it and understand what makes a good chess program.
That’s the thing with our terminology, we love to anthropomorphize things. It wasn’t a big problem before because most people had enough grasp on reality to understand that when a script makes :-) smile when the result is positive, or :-( smile otherwise, there is no actual mind behind it that can be happy or sad. But now the generator makes convincing enough sequence of words, so people went mad, and this cute terminology doesn’t work anymore.
Mind?
In the same sense I’d describe Othello-GPT’s internal world model of the board as ‘board’, yes.
Also, “top of mind” is a common idiom and I guess I didn’t feel the need to be overly pedantic about it, especially given the last year and a half of research around model capabilities for introspection of control vectors, coherence in self modeling, etc.
Yes. The person (s) who set the llm/ai up.
How are we meant to have these conversations if people keep complaining about the personification of LLMs without offering alternative phrasing? Showing up and complaining without offering a solution is just that, complaining. Do something about it. What do YOU think we should call the active context a model has access to without personifying it or overtechnicalizing the phrasing and rendering it useless to laymen, @[email protected]?
Well, since you asked I’d basically do what you said. Something like “so ‘humans might hate hearing from me’ probably wasn’t part of the context it was using."
Let’s be generous for a moment and assume good intent, how else would you describe the situation where the llm doesn’t consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited?
Sure it gives the llm a more human like persona, but so far I’ve yet to read a better way to describing its behaviour, it is designed to emulate human behavior so using human descriptors helps convey the intent.
I think you did a fine job right there explaining it without personifying it. You also captured the nuance without implying the machine could apply empathy, reasoning, or be held accountable the same way a human could.
There’s value in brevity and clarity, I took two paragraphs and the other was two words. I don’t like it either, but it does seem to be the way most people talk.
I assumed you would understand I meant the short part of your statement describing the LLM. Not your slight dig at me, your setting up the question, and your clarification on your perspective.
So you be more clear, I meant “The IIm doesn’t consider a negative response to its actions due to its training and context being limited”
In fact, what you said is not much different from the statement in question. And you could argue on top of being more brief, if you remove “top of mind” it’s actually more clear. Implying training and prompt context instead of the bot understanding and being mindful of the context it was operating in.
Assuming any sort of intent at all is the mistake.
You’re techie enough to figure out Lemmy but don’t grasp that AI doesn’t think.
Thinking has nothing to do with it. The positive context in which the bot was trained made it unlikely for a sentence describing a likely negative reaction to be output.
People on Lemmy are absolutely rabid about “AI” they can’t help attacking people who don’t even disagree with them.
Indeed, there’s a pretty big gulf between the competency needed to run a Lemmy client and the competency needed to understand the internal mechanics of a modern transformer.
Do you mind sharing where you draw your own understanding and confidence that they aren’t capable of simulating thought processes in a scenario like what happened above?
Hahaha. Nice try ChatGPT.
Fine, I won’t send you a bday card this year.
Fully agree. I’m generally an AI optimist but I don’t understand communicating through AI generated text in any meaningful context - that’s incredibly disrespectful. I don’t even use it at work to talk business with my somewhat large team and I just don’t understand how anyone would appreciate an AI written thank you letter. What a dumb idea.
Is that -is that not how I’m suppose to use a birthday cards?
Mu. Your question reveals that you didn’t read the article. Try doing that, then you know which failed assumption led to your question making no sense.
The human mind will replace whats natural with technology.
I like how the article just regurgitates facts from Wikipedia just like the thank you email does.
itsfoss is genuinely terrible and it was that way before AI even
R Pike is legend. His videos on concurrent programming remain reference level excellence years after publication. Just a great teacher as well as brilliant theoretical programmer.
I haven’t always been a fan of Go. It launched with some iffy design decisions that have since been patched, either by the project maintainers or the community. It’s a much better experience now, which suggests that maybe there’s some long-range vision at work that I wasn’t privy to.
That said, Pike clearly has a lot of good ideas and I’m glad Google funded him to bring those to light.
I’ll also say that after finally wrapping my head around Python and JavaScript async/await, I actually much prefer the Goroutine and channel model for concurrency. I got to those languages after surviving C++, and believe me when I say that it’s a bad time when your software develops a bad case of warts. Better to not contract them in the first place.
All the folks from the UNIX tradition really are/were. MIT and Bell Labs were just amazing.
I’ve read The Practice of Programming more times than I care to remember, so simple, so useful.
Well, I guess I will learn Go after all.
I appreciate Pike’s attitude, but it’s like Go has ignored all the advancements in programming languages for the part 30 years
https://fasterthanli.me/articles/lies-we-tell-ourselves-to-keep-using-golang
4 years old article, but still relevant
Well written article. Also points are valid. What I disagree with is that author overestimates dangers that those ugly aspects pose. There are linters and unit tests to catch those things before they reach production. I can’t quickly recall when the last time failure to initialize a structure field was a source of bug that was pushed to master (in fact, I love to use zero values as intended). Most bugs I remember are the logical ones, which no compiller can prevent. But then, I am senior developer, so maybe I can’t understand the struggles of juniors.
It may well be that Go is not adequate for production services unless your shop is literally made up of Go experts (Tailscale) or you have infinite money to spend on engineering costs (Google).
Reality says otherwise. I worked for a few large companies that chose Go as their main code base language. I can also see wide adoption of Go as backend language. It not only did not increase development or maintenance costs of those products, but reduced them. From the perspective of developer, who used C++ before Go.
Yeah, anything that gets a rise out of the creators of Go is good in my book.
The guy still thinks computers have 64 KB of memory and we need to economize on the length of identifiers. Nothing he says or does should be taken seriously in this day.
He’d probably like an appreciation note if it was written with all vowels taken out.
While bro uses Gmail though
SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all make it near impossible to host your own email server. Mail will simply get lost.
Yes, we live in an age where email only works properly if you use a service from a large entity using weird badly-defined email security protocols that they invented.
This is the reality.
I host my own mail server with mailcow and it’s easier than ever
Long gone are the days of manually configuring postfix
mailcow seems to be pretty nice, thanks for introducing me to this. I have to admit that the 800MB RAM minimum requirement makes my eyes water slightly.
Still, nothing a Pi can’t handle
You’re welcome! I also heard about another project which is much simpler but I can’t remember its name. At least mailcow makes it easy to configure the different fields and has a nice web client
Yea, mailcow does require a bit too much but it’s well made and you can disable features to reduce RAM usage
I imagine 800MB is without the antivirus checking and search improvements
“Yet you participate in society. Curious.”
Wtf? Since when is Gmail an obligation? I know a lot of people who don’t own one, and use other providers
And apart from that, you can have a preferred mail host while still having an old Gmail. Gmail used to scan emails and I believe I have heard they’re starting again for their IA thing
Yeah, no. There are many good examples of this, where you just have to use something and still criticize it. But Gmail is like the farthest away from that you can be. There are thousands of alternatives, and of which you can choose, and get basically exactly the same experience. It’s an open federated protocol; there is no reason at all to stay at the single worst instance that tries to monopolize the whole protocol and uses your data.
Ok, but-- even once you transition to a new service the old addresses are embedded in all kinds of places, user forums, documentation, git commits, etc. Just setting up and using a different service doesn’t make that go away.
you use your mouth and hands so he should be fine
i’m a python dev so i know there is a better way to express his frustration
from actions import fuckfrom entities import youfuck(you)Let’s try this instead
package main import "actions" import "entities" func main() { actions.Fuck(entities.You) }So much bloat. So many boilerplates. Just
package main
fuck you() {}is enough.
Could you please file a PR ? 🤣
this is why python > go. even a kid knows what my insult means
This gotta be ragebait, everyone know that a language isn’t bad or good only for a single thing, hell there is no bad language, the reason why “python is better” is because you use it to make kids learn how to program, this is a good use, every other use is just…not good since it’s slow as hell and the indented syntax make it hell to write with but i’il gave you that python > go for making kids learn.
There’s no bad language you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
Don’t you fucking dare speak badly of my beloved Brainfuck
In fact, take this fully functional Fibonacci sequence generator I did some time ago, so you can repent from your blasphemy by looking at its beauty.
;>;>;<<[->>[->+>+<<]>>[<<+>>-]<<<[>>+<<-]>[<+>-]>[<+>-]<:<<]Damn someone made Ogham script into a coding lang?
The fuck I’m looking at here?
Looks like a bad LLM’s try at drawing ASCII fish.
That isn’t a bad language. It’s pretty simple and it serves a cool purpose, which is to convey the power of a Turing machine. Now this is a bad programming language.
Malbolge is great for replying to anyone who claims that since programming languages are Turing-complete, any one of them is fit for the job.
You can transpile from C to Malbolge and then run it (this will probably take forever for most of C programs). I thought it can be used for obfuscation, and sure enough Wiki already states that:
Hisashi Iizawa et al. also proposed a guide for programming in Malbolge for the purpose of obfuscation for software protection
JS?
runs for cover
I love Python because it’s actually the second best language to do anything. For concurrency, Go is better. Also, you are terribly naive to judge a language only by its syntax.
i’m a linguist so i’m super nitpicky about shit that just doesn’t matter at all. like i try to make python read like it’s a declarative language rather than an imperative one because it’s looks more grammatically correct that way (in other words, typing shit like
dog.walks()instead ofdog.walk()
Haven’t python reintroduced the infix notation? That’s incredibly exhausting and lame. A simple
fuck youwould look much fancierPython is demonstrably worst for the planet than Go.
Interesting, but misguided, I think.
If you’ve selected Python as your programming language, then your problem is likely either to do some text processing, a server-side lambda, or to provide a quick user interface. If you’re using it for eg. Numpy, then you’re really using Python to load and format some data before handing it to a dedicated maths library for evaluation.
If you’ve selected Go as your programming language, then your problem is likely to be either networking related - perhaps to provide a microservice that mediates between network and database - or orchestration of some kind. Kubernetes is the famous one, but a lot of system configuration tools use it to manipulate a variety of other services.
What these uses have in common is that they’re usually disk- or network- limited and spend most of their time waiting, so it doesn’t matter so much if they’re not super efficient. If you are planning to peg the CPU at 100% for hours on end, you wouldn’t choose them - you’d reach for C / C++ / Rust. Although Swift does remarkably well, too.
Seeing how quickly you can solve Fannkuch-Redux using Python is a bit like seeing how quickly you can drive nails into a wall using a screwdriver. Interesting in its way, but you’d be better picking up the correct tool in the first place.
further to that, “demonstrably worse for the planet” i’d like to debate: considering a huge amount of climate science is done with python-based tools because they’re far easier for researchers to pick up and run with - ie just get shit done rather than write good/clean code - i’d argue the benefit of python to the planet is in the outputs it enables for significantly reduced (or in many cases, perhaps outright enabled) input costs
If you need to optimize for performance, a common approach in Python is to extend it in C/C++. It’s quite easy to do. Many high performance modules in Python are written in C/C++.
It’s also easy to embed Python in a C/C++ program, should you feel the need to add some scripting support to it. A very nice feature of Python, in my opinion.
absolutely! similar is true of node in v8 (though python imo is far more mature in this regard) and probably most other languages
exactly why things like numpy are so popular: yeah python is slow, but python is just the orchestrator
Compare it to the likely alternative for the task/person, probably R or even MS excel in many cases i’d guess. The alternatives should ideally be based on empirical observation of the population. The marginal saving of choosing a higher efficiency than python might look a lot lower.
>implying i give a fuck about the planet
Just one question Op. Did you sensor the word Fuck or is it the app you’re using to access Lemmy doing it automatically?
Interested, as I’m seeing it alot
It was censored in the original website.
Ah, yes, of course. Sorry not to do a simple click to see that.
It doesn’t bother me particularly but was just interested if it was an interface thing
It was censored right next to it not being censored. Rather amusing.
I thought this was from a fake account that isn’t actually his.
Appears to be legit. That domain (robpike.io) isn’t his homepage but it is his, inferring from his github repos and go packages.
The post is real and the account appears to own that domain (needs TXT record), so it seems genuine.
I don’t think this is a reliable resource. I’m not gonna do a deep dive cause I actually don’t care, but most articles don’t say “AI slop”. if it is sorry for saying this just had a simple opinion
scroll through the homepage and all the article banner images are ai generated
deleted by creator
Ironically Go is such a shite verbose language that basically everyone I know who has to work with it will use an llm code-assistant tool to avoid having to write all the boilerplate themselves.
I know of no other language that comes close to prompting the level of LLM-dependency that Go inspires.
Edit: well, seems like this goes against the popular consensus but I stand by my guns if the down votes are from average Go enjoyers. If, on the other hand, the down votes stem from the sentiment that even Go should not be vibe coded, I can at least agree with that, but who knows what jimmies I’ve rustled
Dude, weird ass comment. You can share your opinions but you don’t have to be negative about it. Remember your opinions is truth (if is) not fact. Like more languages, GO is a tool and it has its purposes. There is no one tool fits all…… except duct tape.
Dude, weird ass-comment. I can share my opinions and they don’t have to be positive ones. Go is a tool and its purpose is to be an aesthetic stain on the realm of software.
Thank you for your attention
Hey, here’s my downvote.
I placed it not because I’m angry or disagree with your original statement, but because you have already acquired several downvotes and I just feel peer pressure to downvote you to hell
That’s completely fair, thank you for your service
Go is verbose? Have you ever written Java?
I have. Go is verbose
Can you elaborate? To me, Go seems to have less boilerplate.
- Go does not have access modifiers
- Go does not force you to put everything in classes
- Go does not force you to put every exception, that may be thrown, at the function declaration
- Go can directly map complex JSONs to structs
In reverse order:
- Directly mapping structs to JSON is a solved problem in userland for every major language
- yes it does, and worse it’s part of the return signature and null is super-prevalent of necessity as a result
- even java doesn’t do that any more, but fine I guess
- cool, but access modifiers actually make a lot of sense. Go’s solution to this is to use capitalisation as a marker, which has no ‘inferential readability’ – public/private is obvious. Foo/foo? Considerably less so
Further, meta programming in go sucks donkey balls. Sure, it finally got generics but also they suck. Last I checked it still didn’t even support covariance.
Yeah, Go is nice sometimes. It shines in codebases that are not quite large and not very small. Also it’s great to write a cli tool in it, though I prefer Rust because I hate myself. What I personally missed in Go (maybe skill issue, idk):
-
Metaprogramming. For big projects it’s inevitable. You need to have SPOT which generates documentation and headers (e.g. xml document, openapi spec). Otherwise you die. The fact that the source should be a git repo is cancer, as in this case artifacts are added in git, which results in merge conflicts.
-
DI. In JVM world it is a must. If you don’t have it, you fucking should have a reason for that! If your logic spans across multiple layers of factories, onboarding of a new developer creates friction.
-
For small web services that are not constrained by memory I would choose spring + openapi, as it really requires only model description and the endpoint, yielding you a client in any language you want.
-
If err != nill. Don’t let me started on importance of result and either monads.
-
Aspects and (usable) reflection. I want a codebase that has actual decoupling. I want a security code to be in a completely different place, away from the business logic, just as I want traces with serialization to be pluggable I don’t want to have a single place in code that has a sequence
auth -> validate inputs -> trace -> business logic -> validate output. I strongly believe that it’s faulty, untestable and prone to errors.
-
I upvoted you because I’m annoyed that downvotes often turn into a pack of chickens ganging up on a wounded chicken and pecking it to death. I usually upvote in this situation unless the downvotes are clearly deserved. Otherwise, I use downvotes sparingly and instead withhold my upvote if I don’t agree. I’m happy to get pecked myself to fight back against dickheads who overuse the downvote button in the same manner certain people overuse their car’s horn.
That being said, I don’t particularly enjoy programming in Go because of weird semantics and because of its missing language features like string interpolation and enums, as well as its use of pointers, which I find to be a lot of busy work with little benefit most of the time. I do actually agree with Go’s oft criticized error handling because it forces you to explicitly consider how to deal with every possible error, which I think is a good thing, though to your point, LLMs can reduce the workload here. Go’s concurrency and speed make it a good choice in many cases, though I’ll usually stick with something else if I don’t absolutely need Go’s benefits.
Ironic how your comment is downvoted as well. It’s funny to me to observe through platforms like this that most humans are thoughtless pack animals and will just do whatever all the other humans are doing and how discourse goes against our nature. There was a study on Reddit some years ago that found that generally speaking, the first vote determines whether a comment will get up- or downvoted.
I knew it would be downvoted. I guess humans are evolutionarily hard-wired for conformity, because being ostracized from your tribe usually meant death. Considering all of the humans throughout history who were punished for going against the mob, only to later be celebrated, this is a maladaptive trait in many respects.
Edit:
I will say that there are more open-minded, independent thinkers on Lemmy than there are in a lot of other communities.
Gee Rob, don’t hold back; tell us how you really feel
Lemmy has something of an irony deficiency, don’t you find? 🫤
It would seem so.
Yeah, idk if it’s going to train everyone to use /s, or train everyone to calm down and appreciate humor. Hopefully the latter, but ppl do be liking feeling angry on the internet when their actual lives are out of control. Time will tell ig
fuck you
– Rob Pike
