Silently ignoring errors by leaving out some boilerplate doesn't really seem like an active/forced decision, or a selling point over the languages it disparages ("[...] hellscape doesn't make errors disappear, it just hides them"). Then that the correct path is the one of more resistance seems poor design, in my surface-level opinion.
It is a decision though, and one you have to consciously make for each and every occurrence. You can't just hope some catch block will eventually handle it...
I may be missing something, but I don't see how just forgetting to handle/propagate the error (and, say, causing data corruption by continuing with whatever empty/partial return value the function happens to give) would be a conscious decision.
Even when it is intentional, like writing some quick/dirty code and planning on handling errors properly later, I'd imagine it's difficult to grep for instances of unchecked errors in the way you can with `.unwrap()` - though tooling should help.
Earth, 2026. Silently shifting through the mysterious dimensional plans, Cthulhu just jumped in. Thinking it could unleash new level of despair and frights on the mere mortal souls inhabiting this world, it was anticipating it's own jubilation. Throwing a glance omnivision on it however, all sense of joy suddenly vanished from its monstrous mind and to its own surprise, despair was invading it as it was contemplating situations far more awful than what it had ever devised. All self inflicted by small almost-thoughtless meat bags. Shifting back, it tried to convince itself this never happened and in the same time, promise itself to never land again on this desolated place.
To be fair, that’s the recommended way to put out an alkali metal fire. At least according to my grandfather who helped write safety regulations for nuclear subs whose reactors were cooled by liquid sodium.
Not really something I’d want to try out in practice, seems like a fire in a nuclear reactor under the ocean, where the source of the fire explodes on contact with water, is a less-than-ideal situation.
Probably more likely to run into a Shoggoth than Cthulhu in the Antarctic, or maybe an Elder Thing if any are still around. Rl'yeh is a bit further north.
This may be a more accurate analogy... "The Porsche you rented at $200/mo now only allows you a maximum of 100km of travel. You will be automatically charged extra when you go over that."
Yeah, if I go to a petrol station with 50€, but only get a tenth of the amount of petrol I got last week, I may think that the price has in fact changed.
On top of being worth less, the subscriber discounts are gone.
The old plans were $0.033/request for Pro, $0.026/request for Pro+ and $0.04/request for pay-as-you-go. That discount is now gone. They even still advertise "5x the number of requests" for Pro+ over Pro.
I referred to the swapping of cars to a far inferior model than you paid for.
However I do also pay for milage (KM), and extending the rental period does often* NOT extend the milage range. Eg 1 month=1000 KM, 2 months=1000 KM, so you need to split the rental periods yourself and do all that hassle, or pay extra.
(*May of course vary depending on the rental company)
It’s technically true that the plan prices haven’t changed, it’s just the value you get from those plans has plummeted. It’s classic deceptive sales language.
There's no record for the agent to be on - it's always just a bunch of characters that look plausible because of the immense amount of compute we've put behind these, and you were unlucky.
LLMs get things wrong is what we're forever being told.
And the explanation/confession - that's just more 'bunch of characters' providing rationalisation, not confession.
reply