HN user
It's not clear that he's being treated differently than other people would be in the same situation.
Empathy and benefit of the doubt for billionaires who vacation in Fiji and whose kids get a medevac flight to a major city when something goes wrong would look a bit more sane if those were commonly afforded to normal people as well. Which they aren't.
You're confused by the fact that people are fed up with various elites pushing for restrictive policies, then routinely bypassing and ignoring those policies when it comes to their personal lives? What is so confusing here?
Yeah, that's an annoying typo. Fixed.
This is silly. I for one is fully ready to return to the office. Sacrificing two hours of my life to commute five days a week is a small price for making my boss feel more in control. And what's a bit of traffic congestion and burnt gasoline when it's offset by AMAZING culture of our open office? We will fix global warming in some other way. I am at my peal performance when I work in a bazaar-like environment with people walking and talking around my tiny desk. I miss the corporate propaganda on the walls and free snacks full of sugar and preservatives. I miss the germs and viruses that made me stronger. Even if I get Delta variant and suffer serious health damage to sit in the office, it's a perfectly reasonable tradeoff. The pointless shitcode I write at home is just not the same as the pointless shitcode I write at the office. I can't put my finger at what's missing, but something definitely does.
Gaslighers gonna gaslight. You don't need a Ph.D. to see this "research" was guided by motivated reasoning rather than genuine desire to figure out what is going on.
More like "I'm tired of anticipating the inevitable, while being relentlessly gaslit about its probability". Whether or not edX is sold to a third party, the underlying problems are already in the system. It's the effect, not the cause.
This is an excellent question/framing. The security model used in the industry right now is insane and doomed to fail, and yet it is relentlessly pushed forth and defended.
ECS (which I have not used) sounds a lot like Traits. The name and core concepts for Traits were defined in 2003 in an ECOOP paper [1]. I think traits were first implemented by Squeak Smalltalk in 2005.
1983 Smlltalk-80: The Language and Its Implementation by Adele Goldberg and David Robson had pretty good example with none of this animal/mammal/dog crap. Not sure when the trend for giving awful examples like this really started, but I don't think it was "from the very beginning".
In all my experience with OOP, it's always been inheritance that is the root of all evil.
It's not, though, and the fact that people keep repeating this meme shows that most developers don't even bother thinking about issues they face beyond superficial blamesplaining.
The reason inheritance causes so many issues in languages like Java is because they are statically typed and also use classes as types[1]. Classes must be somewhere in the inheritance tree, hence you are forced into some place of that tree. To make things worse, Java has many keywords that restrict what inheritor of a class can do (private, final, etc).
Inheritance is much less troublesome in, say, Smalltalk, since the language is dynamically typed. If someone expects you to implement Foo, you can (almost always) just implement its relevant methods without explicitly extending the class. Thus, a whole host of annoying scenarios simply does not occur.
--
[1] BTW, this breaks one of the fundamental commandments of classic OOP: you should not depend on implementation details of an object, only on its message protocol. Obviously, it's impossible to be independent of implementation details if some library forces you to use a particular class.
Alan Kay spent the last 40 years educating people on OOP and system design. His talks and research papers are now widely available on the internet. There are free, modern and easy-to-use versions of Smalltalk. Anyone who still remains ignorant about fundamental ideas behind classic OOP and the paradigm's history is willfully ignorant.
After seeing how Twitter nuked Unity 2020 campaign[1] using "authenticity" as an excuse, and how that garnered zero attention from either tech or political media, I am hyper-skeptical of all claims regarding "authenticity". If you can't objectively demonstrate that something is inauthentic and just make claims based on authority/trust, how can anyone know that you're not simply trying to achieve a political goal of your own by spreading FUD?
[1] https://articlesofunity.org/2020/09/press-release-for-our-tw...
Why does every article on mis- and dis-information I see on HN these days starts with some primer that encourages the audience to assume that it's predominantly the product of the political right? In this case the primer takes the following form:
The utterance emerged in February 2019 from Fox & Friends presenter Pete Hegseth
This is in the first paragraph. Before the subject is properly introduced and defined, before the reader even begins processing what the article says about it, the author encourages the audience to think about how barbarous and primitive Fox News is, which is guaranteed to tint everything that follows.
This is a propaganda technique and it's becoming ubiquitous in modern writing.
This is a horseshit reply that tries to counter an observation about how something actually works with a contrived hypothetical about how something else could work in theory. It ignores the impact of how a medium is organized on the messaging that goes through that medium.
MDN should be a separate company. Personally, I'm no longer interested in supporting Mozilla in any capacity. Their management behaves in a way that's consistent with the idea that it's barely more than controlled opposition to Google's Chrome team.
That's assuming that those companies want outside developers to be knowledgeable. That's a questionable assumption. If anyone here remembers how old Microsoft used to operate and why people went to get MS-something certificates you know what I mean.
"Free" documentation is often designed to give you barely enough info to start using their products, but not much more. And we're kind of used to this by now. MDN, FreeBSD hanbook or the original set of Smalltalk books stand as exceptions and reminders what things could look like if motivations were different.
Nostalgia for the simplicity of the past ends up having ugly cultural implications. It's easy to say "let's go back to the time when things were simple"; it's a lot harder to say "folks in (e.g.) Israel shouldn't be able to type in their native language".
This is a ridiculous mischaracterization of what Jonathan Blow was talking about.
Here is the full presentation. Very much worth watching in its entirety and thinking about:
More often than not a problem that looks simple and has insane complexity once you dig a bit deeper is based on some faulty assumptions. Assumptions that either changed over time or never made sense to begin with. The wast majority of software systems out there are significantly simplifiable. However, not all developers are willing to analyze and question fundamental assumptions about systems they deal with. Most, in fact, are far more comfortable learning to jump through arbitrary hoops. They then brag about their "expertise" in the "domain" (which often doesn't even exist outside of software).
Could have something to do with literally all major sources of information in US showing ideologically-charged garbage in front of people who want to focus on other things in life.
The blue badge is one of the ways we help people distinguish the authenticity of accounts that are of high public interest.
This is gaslighting. That's not how blue checkmarks work in practice. They are a completely synthetic credibility token that is distributed by Twitter based on whose opinions it wants to boost. That is it.
If verified accounts were about authenticity, two things would be true:
1. Anyone would be able to verify their account after completing certain steps. There would probably be a fee, but no "high public interest" requirement (because it's an obviously gameable and subjective criteria).
2. Verification would never be revoked.
Smallish non Chinese or Taiwanese company producing a mechanical keyboard with replaceable keys, QMK firmware, LED's and you are most times at a price around this.
Like I said, LEDs seem pointless in this design.
Also, I don't know of many US-based keyboard manufacturers, but I know of these guys:
Their 10-keyless version inspired by Model M is $120 dollars. Yes, it's pretty barebone, but that's exactly my point.
Edit: https://www.wasdkeyboards.com
Assembled in US, $170.
I rarely use Discord these days, but when I need to link something next time, I'll use this service. (Discord still doesn't support hyperlinks.)
$285.00? Too expensive. It's not even a matter of whether I can afford something of this sort. I simply feel awful when I overpay for something that seems like a hipster product.
Cut out the USB hub and seemingly useless RGB LEDs, bring down the price a bit and maybe I'll bite.
I do appreciate features like N-key rollower and programmable firmware, as well as being assembled in US. Ambivalent about aluminum chassis. (I.e don't mind it, but wouldn't mind good plastic either.)
One of the most impressive languages you've never heard about.
Yes. Communication software that can be set up by anyone with some technical skill is bad. Communication software run by centralized corporations is good. No drama possible when your entire chat system can be nuked with a press of a button from some anonymous "moderator".
As for the remaining millions, only a tiny minority of them will even know this is a thing, let alone care enough to make the change or contact a developer who can do it. These are the folks who have hosted their wordpress site with GoDaddy because it was cheap and quick when they needed a site.
One company decides to do something stupid and you expect millions of website owners to scurry and add junk to their headers to create a "mitigation"? This is nuts.
This is a browser problem, not a website problem.
> You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum.
This is only slightly less true for books and optical media. You are never paying for the paper or plastic - even on the lowest margins that's at most 10% of it - , you're paying for the privilege of consuming what's on it.
When I pay for a book in a bookstore, part of the money goes towards maintaining the system that produces and distributes books. The system includes various parties, like printers, publishers, distributors, books stores and so on. It's far more than 10% and there is nothing wrong with paying for a reasonably working distributed system like that.
Replacing all of those companies with a single megacorp like Amazon or Apple is not going to result in the same system running cheaper. It will create an entirely different system. Over time that new system will shift to publish entirely different type of content, it will have an entirely different relationship with consumers and authors and it will have completely different effect on the society at large. Given what I see already, I seriously doubt those changes will skew towards the positive.
The reality is that most big tech companies want to get all the benefits of "going digital", while shifting all the costs or downsides of that move to the consumers. This is not accidental. This is a long-term strategy backed by an elaborate PR campaign. The campaign was so successful that most people aren't even aware of how bizarre the whole idea of "renting" digital content really is. You're "renting" something that can be effortlessly replicated ad infinitum.
How much of what you pay for "digital rentals" goes to creators and towards running the actual infrastructure to download/consume media? This is a questions a lot of companies don't want you to be thinking about.
More generally, it all comes down to the questions brilliantly formulated by Neal Postman:
https://strawdogs.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/neil-postmans-6-q...
The ordeal at our Capital proves there's a problem that needs to be monitored.
Unlike, say, nightly riots in Portland, that require neither monitoring nor federal response of any kind?
It would be one thing if posts like the one above honestly argued for some necessary level of general surveillance in good faith. It's entirely different story, however, when they sneakily imply a certain set of hyper-partisan assumptions.
If you can't demonstrate to me that surveillance of social media is politically neutral and aims at preventing harm, rather than suppressing speech through harassment, I'd rather have no surveillance of that kind at all.
Edit:
It's bizarre that despite all these "concerns" about social media there is no investigation (that I know of) into the origins of the whole QAnon degeneracy.
It's not "language speed", it's memory consumption per request that makes the biggest difference in practice.