Remember that a compiler is allowed to do anything when it sees undefined behavior, which includes doing the thing you want it to do.
Here's a little example of code disappearing due to a read of uninitialized memory:
void test(int x) {
int uninit;
puts("hello");
if (uninit)
puts("non-zero");
else
puts("zero");
}
clang 23.1.0 -O3 targeting ARMv8 deletes both branches of the if. Not only that, it deletes the code to return from the function. The very last instruction of the function is `bl puts`, meaning that after puts returns, it will start executing whatever function happened to come after this one in memory. That's probably a good thing in context, because that's likely to crash or infinite loop and make it clear that something went badly wrong, but the failure could easily be something more subtle that just disables some random seeding while otherwise executing normally.
I concede the C99 specification (which I now have a copy of), on page 490 (502 of the PDF) states “The behavior is undefined in the following circumstances:” this is followed by a long list, and on page 501 (page 513 of the PDF) it says, one case where behavior is undefined is when “The value of the object allocated by the malloc function is used”
It’s not clear whether that is the memory location malloc() returns or the memory pointed to by malloc(), but based on the next item in the list of cases where behavior is undefined, we have “The value of any bytes in a new object allocated by the realloc function beyond the size of the old object are used [results in undefined behavior]”.
The good news is that, as Taek and sltkr have pointed out elsewhere in the thread, clock_gettime() gets us a tiny bit of entropy, not perfect, but better than nothing. clock_gettime() is also POSIX compliant, although I remember about 15 years ago macOS didn’t support clock_gettime() (I checked, and it does these days).
getentropy() will become better than /dev/urandom for kernel level random numbers, but the problem is that getentropy() was only standardized and added to POSIX in 2024—too recent for me to feel 100% sure it’s widely implemented. And, yes, /dev/urandom (like chroot(), like sergroups()) isn’t defined in POSIX but it’s widely used.
The least crap of the crap is not a laudable position. I’m a big Apple fan but they need to stop this shit with advertising. The amount of advertising built in to a $1,000+ device, including ads for the device maker’s own services, should be exactly zero.
And they were right. American manufacturing is $3 trillion/year, second only to China, and 1/5th of the entire world. American built airliners and American built engines fly all over the world. Millions of American cars come out of factories every year. American rockets put more into orbit than everyone else combined.
The idea that the US lost its manufacturing is not based in reality. One reason people think that is because people think cheap plastic crap and consumer electronics when they think “manufacturing.” Another reason is that US manufacturing has become highly efficient and automated, so a fairly small portion of the population works in it.
Yeah, your iPhone wasn’t built in the US. But the plane that got it here probably was.
Whatever analysis you make, let's use the correct numbers, from which you were off by about 1/5th. Should you think that is a negligible margin, you'd have to consider the US participation in global manufacturing output as similarly significant.
I'm sure fresh numbers are available, they're just unpublished.
We could do some educated guessing here - in the last 5 years China's economy grew at the rates of 8.6%, 3%, 5.4%, 5%, 5%, the US grew at 6.5%, 2.5%, 2.9%, 2.8%, 2.2%. We can extrapolate the manufacturing numbers based on that, which would give some advantage to the US because the US manufacturing lags the average, while the Chinese leads it.
Ok thank you for finding more up-to-date data for US manufacturing GDP. Let's re-do the analysis with 2025 data, because I draw the line at using annualized data for a year that has not yet ended.
So you were very much closer to the 3 trillion figure (again, 2026 annualized data is not current, it's forecast). Still quite off from the 1/5th of total. About the same as the EU - 3.03 trillions for 2025 (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/eur...)
In terms of participation in world total the US has come down from 22.44% in 1997 to 16.82% in 2025 losing 5.38 percentage points or a loss of over 1/5th in less than 30 years.
I'd say there is some justification to claim a decline in US manufacturing.
Again thank you for engaging productively and providing up to date data. I feel like I should offer praise as I chastised you for cursing at me for using data 4 years out of date.
There’s a decline in the relative share, but that’s down to the rest of the world growing. Adjusted for inflation, 1997 was slightly below the current figure. That’s nothing to brag about, but it’s a far cry from the “we don’t make anything anymore” narrative I see so much.
Where it has declined substantially is employment. That peaked at almost 20 million at the end of the 70s and is now under 13 million.
> The idea that the US lost its manufacturing is not based in reality.
But I disagree with your claim that people are right in being extremely dismissive of losses in US manufacturing.
>> Absolutely people were extremely dismissive to anyone saying that we're losing the ability to make things in this country!
Interpreting that as a complete loss of manufacture capacity I agree with you, with the qualification that concerns of relative decline were justified since there was a definite decline in aggregate.
I have to say that overall I don't think economies and citizens of these economies should prefer certain economic activities over others. In principle I think specialization is a good thing. On the other hand, I do think that the US has committed some strategy mistakes in terms of how much manufacturing activity was moved out of the country and how dependent it has come to be on foreign supplies of, for instance, rare earths and advanced IC.
But that analysis is predicated on US strategic goals and geopolitical intent. The coming impasse over Taiwan with China is almost completely self imposed due to the prioritization of short term corporate profit over strategic goals.
But that is a different conversation altogether. I think data from the past 30 years show that alarmism over de-industrialization was overblown as you said AND that there has been nonetheless a significant decline in the previously absolutely dominant position of the US economy in global manufacturing. If that is good or bad, to whom or to what ends, is way outside the scope of internet forum messages.
And do you know where the tools and dies to make those things come from? Where the robots that work at those lines come from? Where the chips in those robots at those lines come from?
Hint: not here. Even basic machining is cooked here. Go on Xometry and compare the pricing of any simple design made in USA vs. China and you’ll see, we can’t competitively do the basics anymore (you conflate basic with crap).
If you go back to WWII America was the China of the world: mass produced products if midrange quality.
Europe owned high end quality, especially Germany.
Most Radar technology was invented in the UK and then sent to the USA where American engineers would redesign it for mass production. You'd have a magnetron that the British machined at great expense and the Americans would redesign it so it could be stamped out by the thousands.
Germans would look at the wrecks of bombers they shot down. Early on they'd look at a B17 and say "this thing is crude" but by 1944 they'd look at a late model bomber and say "we don't even know how they made some of this stuff".
People have it entirely backwards. They think if you can do high end manufacturing the low end is easy. In fact if you can do mass production of low end parts with consistent quality then high end stuff is easy.
We can't manufacture most of those low-end things at competitive prices with developing nations - and we never will be able to (or else we have bigger problems).
So who's going to buy the low-end stuff at high-end prices?
You can try tariffs and the like (as we're foolishly doing right now) - that usually ends up having the opposite intended effect. You make everything more expensive domestically, including manufacturing (b/c your inputs got more expensive), and hurt our ability to export, even the things we did well.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world unencumbered with protectionism reaps the benefits of free trade and out competes us.
All this eventually leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs and output and manufacturers that can only sell to the domestic market (instead of the whole world). The whole sector starts to shrink. So that's no good.
America has lots of natural resources (even more when we're friendly with Canada) cheap electricity, good transportation infrastructure (historically).
China has to import much of their raw materials. Wood from SEA and Russia, oil from the middle east and Russia, even coal, ore and beef cattle from Australia! They don't have the water supply, forests, mines or oil that exist in North America.
There is no good reason for them to be the manufacturing center of the globe and there were rational reasons why the US was the center of manufacturing in the globe in the 20th century.
The reason they became the global center of manufacturing was policy choices in China and the US at the turn of this century, and the reason why they remain the center of manufacturing is they developed a massive amount of capital and know-how in an era where the USA was actively destroying its own.
China has plenty of coal. They import metal refining coal, which they don’t have. And they import thermal coal because it’s easier to boat the stuff in from Indonesia than move it east by rail from western China.
Australia was never very interested in being a manufacturing power house, they simply don’t have the people for it anyways, and it’s easier to ship raw material than finished goods vast distances. Russia has the same problem in population so China is convenient for them. China would have happened even if the USA didn’t help it along in 80s-90s.
One other metric the parent didn't mention: The US is #1 in the world in productivity per worker in manufacturing.
We're not the largest in absolute output, but we are literally the best manufacturer in the world, and we are the 2nd largest.
We manufacture lots of stuff, often the most state of the art and difficult things to manufacture. We're very good at it.
And we've sat around close to full employment for so long, the only way to convert more of the economy to manufacturing is to either import workers, cannibalize other sectors of the economy, or automate even more.
Yes, a larger share of the economy is services, but is there some objective optimal ratio of services to manufacturing we should be shooting for? If so, what is it? No one ever says.
Yeah but something something testosterone manliness degeneracy decadence.
Sending emails from an ergonomic chair for eight* hours a day and having to be civil to female coworkers and polite to your boss inherently degrades the male spirit in a way that permanently damaging and poisoning your body with 12-hour factory shifts with a foreman yelling at you doesn't. This is so self-evident and obvious that nobody even bothers to state it, it's just an assumed undercurrent in discussions of "bullshit jobs" etc.
Among others, yes. Nearly $100 billion in revenue last year. From your snark I guess we’re not supposed to count a manufacturer with revenue equaling the GDP of a small country because they’ve had some quality issues?
Boeing is not a healthy company it's a deeply sick company with a horrible internal culture. I know because I've spoken with people who work there.
The fact that leadership is focused on extracting profits out of the enterprise is also not a show of strength. It's a demonstration that they're trying to drain whatever value is left in it.
This is pretty much true of any of the American "greats:" Boeing, Intel, GE, GM, Corning. They're producing (or have recently been producing) great profits because they're eating their own seed corn. Nobody expects them to still be the businesses they currently are in another few decades.
The ecosystem to build cheap physical products is incredibly important for creating new wealth. If you're building something new, in manufacturing cities in China you can walk across the street and get everything you need. In the U.S. you have to fly to China and build relationships with Chinese suppliers. Which means creation of new products, which is where most future wealth will come from, is extremely difficult. This is like Germany lacking a meaningful tech ecosystem because creating tech startups is so difficult.
We can make planes and engines because we kept the expertise, and we can make rockets because of herculean efforts of a few people. This simply isn't good enough, we need to make creating new physical things as easy as possible.
That's manufacturing based in dollars which is quite misleading. Rolling with your example of planes, this [1] is how a 737 looks in terms of manufacturing. Boeing does a lot of assembling, but the majority of the manufacturing is outsourced.
When people think of manufacturing they generally think of going from basic materials to something useful, rather than 'just' assembling quite advanced parts. Like if I go buy some parts and 'build' a PC that'd technically be manufacturing, and quite high value manufacturing if I was able to sell it at a good markup.
This also applies to the UK: major manufacturer of turbines, i.e. Rolls Royce in Derbyshire. More electronics than you'd expect, but all short-run highly specialized things like satellites and scientific instruments and Martin-Baker ejection seats.
Massive numbers of people on production lines is not coming back. The rest of the economy is too well paid for that and automation too advanced. VW will retain car manufacturing in Europe by automating away its workforce, at the cost of high redundancies.
If you can’t see the direction and velocity of China you’re beyond hope
Americans cars are falling behind, they rely heavily on American cultural exports which relies on the world not thinking Americas are twats because the voted for Trump. Germany alone is over twice the size of America in terms of car exports. Including domestic destinations then china is three times the size of America.
America planes fall out of the sky far too often as Boeing pivoted from engineering to politics
Musk does good rockets. Not America. China is catching up and lost to overtake unless starship proves itself; and if it does China will copy that too.
Chinese planes are increasing very year, comac now about 15% of traffic, and heading towards about 20% in a decades time. and Boeing is about the same size as airbus at 40% each which will shrink as china catches up, won’t surprise me in 2050 is the largest provider of passenger planes is Chinese.
I think one other point is that demand for American goods has never been higher. I've had Europeans come to me with tears in their eyes saying 'sir, sir, we want more Fords'. There has never been a better car brand than an American one, that's for sure.
>“we don’t make anything anymore” narrative I see so much."
This conflating US financializing manufacturing vs actual industrial capacity, i.e. the entire manufacturing by value / MVA "cope". US objectively doesn't make much relative to past and a lot of shit US makes, US doesn't actually make, others does the actual making while US financializes and capture via spreadsheet maxxing, hedonic adjustments etc, and do insert "I made this meme" on things US fundamentally did not "make"
Like US does make some legitimate frontier stuff in house - the reality is is in aggregate industrial base terms, US MAKES / FABRICATES very little vs pre industrial chain hollow out, US does import a lot of subcomponents that others make, integrates, or outsource actual MAKING abroad while capturing intangibles like IP/patent fees that get bundled up into value add stats, but when people talk about making they're talking about extraction to factory gate pipeline. Not US can sell a bunch of foreign made goods with some CONUS final assembly or IP accounting because muh smile curve that attributes disproportionate "value" to US "makers". Consider a US widget co imports $10 of components assembles and sells for $40, the statistically manufacturing value add is $30 even though US did very little making. Now add tariffs, regulatory capture etc and widget sells for $50 and that's $40 of MVA for basically doing minimal M. Said US widget factory makes 10 widgets and adds $400 to MVA. Meanwhile a PRC widget company makes 100 identical widgets at $2 each... but their MVA is only $200, but they did literally all the making. These two industrial bases are not the same. Then a few years later, US BLS/BEA applies a statistical adjustment because widget X is slightly more performant... (prevalent in tech), so that widget is now listed as $100 equivalent utility, so hey manufacturing expanded (it didn't).
SpaceX... doesn't make that much... they make a few thing that are reusable and due to techstack can lift a lot, i.e. operational improvement (not discounting how game changing resuable is). But compare to PRC, who made like 2x-3x more first stages, i.e. their output is significantly higher, which is to say SpaceX is "making" at about American scale. For reference Boeing like ~30% domestic content, US auto ~50%. Reality is the ONLY thing US is REALLY good at making is refined fossil, agri, wood products etc. Almost everything else US very good at making money, but not the stuff.
TLDR US got much better at MAKING money from other people MAKING things. The other caveat is regulatory capture = US grossly overpay for mediocre shit, a lot of stuff that makes in US are just... not good, i.e. vehicles, but people trapped paying domestic premium which inflates value add but not actual relevant when people discuss US making things. US broadly makes a lot of mediocre overpriced things while population stuck shopping in company store for large items, that looks good on value add / productivity stats... but it's not reflection of industrial capacity which is what people think about in terms of real manufacturing.
Always bring a length of fiber optic cable when you're in the wilderness. If you get lost or stranded, bury the cable. Within a few hours, a backhoe will stop by to dig it up, and the crew will rescue you.
The selling point is being able to say things like "remind me about the next early release from school the night before" and it'll dig up the info from your emails and then create the reminder.
And people really trust the bot to do that stuff for them? They risk letting down their kid by not being there to pick them up just to save half a minute of finding the right email? That sounds crazy to me, creating a reminder isn't exactly hard
Parents—in many places—already let themselves rely entirely on driving their kids to every activity, which puts them at much higher risk of getting maimed in an accident under a guise of efficiency and spurious claims of other danger imposed by living closer to people and the activities that their kids could get themselves to. Many people are lazy, fearful, and prioritize comfort and control over all else, therefore it doesn't surprise me at all to hear people would opt for the convenience whenever an opportunity strikes.
This reads like a comment from a non-parent, or a comment from the kind of parent who argues its okay for their kid to spend 16 hours with their eyes glued to a screen because "blippi is educational".
> a comment from the kind of parent who argues its okay for their kid to spend 16 hours with their eyes glued to a screen because "blippi is educational".
So, just to make it abundantly clear that this is all a bunch of unfounded generalization: the kid in question takes the bus, can get home and get inside independently, and the reason I'm asking this convenient machine for a reminder is just to avoid being surprised.
Asking my phone for a convenient reminder makes me lazy, fearful, and prioritizing comfort and control over all else. Never change, HN. Actually, you know what? Please change, HN. This shit is tiresome.
No, I wasn't commenting about your kid, I was commenting on my generalized observations about the tendency for people, including parents, to accept the possible cost of risk when there's the prospect of even minor amounts of increased convenience. A friend of mine who doesn't earn much took out a large amount of debt to get a car so he could drive just himself to and from work even though there's a train that would get him there faster and more safely because he has weird prejudices and has control issues, which are not uncommon among parents who move to the burbs to raise their kids and keep a watchful eye in an isolated environment. My comment was about why I wouldn't be surprised by any shortcuts people take even if there's some risk involved, because being alive is time intensive and many people intentionally put themselves in situations where they feel they need a stack of shortcuts at their disposal to get even extremely trivial tasks done. Could be smoking or not going to the gym or not having a strong social circle or whatever.
And you were doing this in response to someone using the voice assistant on their phone to make a reminder about their kid getting home from school early.
I don't take transit because I don't like microtransactions. I'd rather have one car payment and be able to go anywhere I want whenever I want than have to pay a few bucks (or more) every time I move. A train ticket to visit some relatives would be like $70 while the same trip only costs me $20 in EV fast charging. (Would be less if I had access to home charging)
As an example, it costs like three dollars to board a bus here. The maximum cost per day is two of those, but come on. If I needed even just to take a bus to work and back each weekday, that's already over a third of my car payment, and I lose carrying capacity, climate control, social distancing etc.
Also I have to walk to/from bus stops, which I can't easily manage due to my disability. That's why I keep an electric scooter in my vehicle nowadays, but I highly doubt a bus would allow me to bring one of those on board. So at that point just use the electric scooter without bothering with the bus, except when I did that, I got hit by a pickup and needed to go to the hospital and counseling, etc.
I prefer to just pay in bulk. I care about more than simply raw cost, but the little microtransactions always seem to be a worse experience.
I mean it seems like you have a valid reason, but the raw cost in terms of just the loan payment isn't a trivial difference. "already over a third of my car payment" means your car payment alone is 3x the total cost otherwise, which is... a lot. Once you factor in maintenance, insurance, depreciation (which has been lower in recent years), it seems like it would be quite a leap if you didn't have a disability that made public transit more difficult.
I think the difference between transit methods within a city that has built-in alternative options has been interesting to examine now that I have a motor vehicle myself (that I got for free, but costs a lot to actually drive). I went without one for 8 years before someone offered it to me, and I do value the flexibility to occasionally get out of town wherever I want, but the tires alone will cost $2000 when I need to replace them, and the gas is crazy, so it's perfect in the sense that it sits there taking up street parking until I really need to get someone that a bike, scooter, bus, train, or walking doesn't work as well for. I'm not encouraged to use it for anything that it's really not needed for, and if it died tomorrow I wouldn't replace it with anything.
Relying on only the bus, even if the transit system is well-funded, has never been a particularly ideal situation, but the advantage is that I get that time back instead of being singularly occupied by driving. If there's traffic, I'd wildly rather be on the bus, but the train is always better.
It shows where it found the information. In this case, it included a link to a text message from the school which had this info, and quoted it so I could see that it got it right, and it shows the reminder it created so I could see that it's correct. I don't really have to trust it, I can see that it's working.
Maybe you have 5 relevant calendar events but it lists 3 and calls it a day. That is from my experience far bigger type of problem with AI. Hallucination by omission
That's exactly what big tech executives and AI bros don't get: It would be useful to use AI for the grudgy but verifiable sub-steps of such a task, e.g. have it help with the email search, and have it suggest a reminder. Or even better, suggest creating a reminder when receiving/reading the email. But leave the user in control, and provide evidence and transparency. Instead, many companies put their bets on the long-shot, do-it-all assistent AI, but technology is just not there yet, or maybe never will even.
I could definitely imagine using a system where I could type in Spotlight "that message about early release from school", hit enter, and have the e-mail or SMS or Signal message or whatever show up in front of me. Boring, non-sexy "better search" style "AI" which is actually useful but doesn't appeal to investors.
Did you go into Siri and join the waitlist for Apple Intelligence?
If not, you’re still using spotlight so the behavior is 100% expected.
Yes, Apple could do a better job making it more obvious but then again Apple Intelligence is Beta so I can see why they require a positive action right now to enable it.
I had better success with earlier versions. For me Siri has regressed so much and had become so unreliable, that having to constantly repeat or rephrase or delete whatever nonsense it was doing was so frustrating, I stopped using it years ago.
Its quite the paradox when Apple is pushing Apple Intelligence so hard, yet their assistant that's been around for 15 years can't do even basic things now.
And this right here is why I think Apple should have renamed the new stuff to something else. Go into Settings/Siri, enable Apple Intelligence (you will probably have to join the waitlist), give it a day or two to re-index and then try.
I think you will be astonished at the difference in behavior. It's night and day.
I remember chatting to some people behind Siri (it was an acquisition), and there was a feeling it was better before Apple nerfed and neglected it. Which is very Apple.
It does as long as you've typed something that doesn't match an app. "Safari" and enter will open Safari. "What is safari" and enter will ask Siri the question and show the answer.
Maybe you could set up an Alfred workflow for that using a special hotkey? And then you could use Karabiner-Elements to invoke that when you double-tap Cmd.
That doesn't really make sense here. This whole issue is about the more expensive options. "Consumers are all about minimizing spend" right, and that's why they have a cheap option with ads. That's fine. I don't approve of advertising, especially in paid products, but they tell you exactly what they're selling. But they also have a more expensive option with "no ads." And guess what, that's a lie!
Why do I buy the cheapest oven possible? Because I have little defense against oven manufacturers doing the same thing Disney is doing with its higher-end subscriptions, and giving me expensive crap. I'm often happy to pay more for quality. But that's becoming more and more difficult as reputational signals get hacked. When I sort by price and buy the cheapest option, it's not because I prefer price to quality. It's because I have no way to judge or discover the quality of the more expensive options. For all I know, they're just as bad, or worse. So I choose the cheapest option because there's nothing else that distinguishes them.
The gas analogy is a good one, because those fuckheads also shove advertising in your face when you're already giving them money for a product.
The issue isn't your ability to cancel individual services. The issue is the increasing difficulty of living life as part of society without constantly having advertising shoved down our throats.
All that matters is the actual agreement. The agreement says there's an exception where "streaming rights or other limitations require certain Content to play with ads," and that "no ads" and "ad-free" tiers can contain "limited promotional content," with some examples of what "limited promotional content" might include, but no actual restrictions on it.
That's extremely broad. They won't show you ads, unless "other limitations require" them to? Would "our internal agreement between our streaming division and our content division requires ads" qualify? What would qualify as "promotional content" and in what sense is it "limited"?
This reads to me as "we can show ads anywhere we feel like it even if you paid us not to have ads." The only actual limitation will be their desire not to piss off paying subscribers.
Here's a little example of code disappearing due to a read of uninitialized memory:
clang 23.1.0 -O3 targeting ARMv8 deletes both branches of the if. Not only that, it deletes the code to return from the function. The very last instruction of the function is `bl puts`, meaning that after puts returns, it will start executing whatever function happened to come after this one in memory. That's probably a good thing in context, because that's likely to crash or infinite loop and make it clear that something went badly wrong, but the failure could easily be something more subtle that just disables some random seeding while otherwise executing normally.reply