foofie

Basically they've overspecified their datastructures and we're now paying the price

I strongly disagree, and I'm perplexed how anyone can describe fundamental traits such as object lifetimes of fundamental infrastructure such as standard data structures of being over specified.

Just imagine the shit show it would be if upgrading your compiler broke your code because std::set started leading your code to throw exceptions because they sneaked a major breaking change such as moving objects that should not be moved.

It's also perplexing how breaking backward compatibility is depicted as a perfectly acceptable thing to do to a major programming language while completely ignoring the ability to release code as a third-party library. If the new implementation of a std::set alternative is any good, people would be lining up around the block to adopt it. I mean,it's already a standard practice in game development to use custom data structure implementations with custom allocators. Why is this not an option, but breaking half of the world's code suddenly is?

Money quotes:

From 2021-23, FMS sales averaged $55.9 billion per year, a 21.9 percent increase over the 2020-22 average of $45.8 billion per year.

Followed by:

Poland was the single largest FMS customer in fiscal 2023, with over $30 billion in transfers.

I wonder if the article boils down to "Poland bought $30B of military equipment all of a sudden".

The world is feeling so free.

A significant portion of these transfers went to Ukraine. Thanks to them, is managing to resist Russia's 3-day invasion for the second years and counting.

Given Putin's repeated threat of nuclear Armageddon and annexing west Europe up to Lisbon, undoubtedly the world feels free thanks to its ability to oppose these imperialist ambitions of a few tin-pot dictators.

Feels kind of gross to include the nieces observation that he had been stressed as some kind of counterpoint to the statement in the title.

You're grossly misrepresenting what the nieces actually said.

The article is quite unequivocal: the quote in the article is literally "stressed and depressed".

Why did you opted to omit the reference to depression? Do you think direct statements from his family should be ignored but your personal baseless assertions should take center stage?

In addition to that, here's what his own brother had to say about the apparent suicide:

“He was suffering from PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of being subjected to the hostile work environment at Boeing, which we believe led to his death,” the brother said.

Why is this fact glanced over?

You have two options: -highly accomplished and highly experienced engineers were actually too stupid (...)

You're making quite clear you are the type of person who is extremely quick to accuse everyone and anyone of being incompetent in the absence of evidence or in spite of evidence.

You do not need to Google too hard to find tons of open-source benchmarks of real world servers showing off performance gains from switching to HTTP/2 and HTTP/3.

But here you are, claiming everyone is incompetent and that their work was bad. In spite of all the evidence.

It's clear that you have nothing relevant to say about the topic and no evidence to even suggest your beliefs have a leg to stand on.

You wrote a wall of text about a link, but you failed to paste a single link.

Enough.

Your error in thinking is that you assume that they really wanted to build something better instead of building something new that would propel their careers.

How do you explain that some HTTP/2 server implementations handle an order of magnitude more connections than their HTTP/1.1 implementations? Is this something you downplay as accidental benefits of doing something to propel their career?

https://http2benchmark.org/

You should talk less about conspiratorial accusations you are making up on the spot and more about hard data.

(...) they will just turn around and say your real world data is not valid or that they need peer-reviewed article in Science.

This sounds like a bullshit conspiratorial excuse. If you have real world data and you aren't afraid of having peers looking through it, nothing prevents you from presenting it to peers.

So where is that data?

Instead, you just have vague unsupported unbelievable claims made by random people in the internet, as if that's any way to decide over policy, and any faint doubt raised over that claim is faced with conspiratorial remarks complemented by statements on how everyone around OP is incompetent except him.

I will go as far as to claim OP's assertion is unbelievable, to the point of sounding like bullshit. It's entirely unbelievable that people designing protocols for a multinational corporation whose bread and butter is stuff done over TCP connections were oblivious to how TCP works, and the most incompetent of them would bother to design the first major revision of HTTP. Unbelievable.

But hey, some random guy online said something, so it must be true!

Eminent domain is not cheap to use given the fair market value compensation and the almost guaranteed legal fights.

I don't understand what point you tried to make.

Fair market value is what you expect to pay anyway, and the point of eminent domain is not to fleece property owners.

Legal disputes are also not a problem, and quite expectable. It's part of the checks and balances of not having corrupt government officials just steal property to hand it over to the highest bidder.

The key factor is political will. Government officials need to fight to get this sort of project through, and be able to invest their time and effort to navigate political chicanery.

What do you consider a budget phone needs to cost?

Spending $300 on a phone is not something anyone anywhere in the world does if they are on a budget. In some corners of the world, $300 is close to a monthly wage. How out of touch can someone be to claim this price tag is something someone spends when they are on a budget?

The reason why Chinese manufacturers like Huawei are gobbling the smartphone market in particular and the telecommunication sector in general is that they understand what "budget" means. Their product line targets budget-minded consumers, with plenty of models that cost less than $150. You can get low-end models for around $50. What could possibly suggest anyone that "budget" implies a price tag that's 6 times greater than that?

But I can't help but think of one "technology" that could make a scheme like this MUCH more effective.

I think this is one of those things that drive home the point that there are fundamental differences between physics and engineering.

The article states that the thermal silos are heated with excess energy from the power grid. This alone tells you right from the start that efficiency is not the primary requirement.

Sand is inert, doesn't decompose or degrade, is readily available, is easy to work with, and has no moving parts. You can make it work in a silo, or digging a well to fill it with sand. In fact, geothermal heat pumps are already used extensively in residential buildings to regulate temperature. You just have to drill a hole in the ground that's deep enough, run a water pipe through it to heat/cool the water, and run that water through your building to heat/cool the environment. The nifty trick of Polar Night Energy is that they introduce the extra step of actively heating the thermal source with cheap energy supplied by the electrical power grid.

This sort of argument is like complaining that a Formula 1 car is far more efficient than a Volkswagen Golf. Yes it is,but that's a mute point.

FTA:

They’ll start at $199 for the Moto G 5G and $299 for the Moto G Power 5G.

How in the world can a $200 phone possibly be dubbed a "budget phone"? It costs as much as a low end laptop.

If there is one industry that is the most resistant to change, it's the construction industry. There are still people who have been roofing for 50 years and refuse to change a single thing they do and learned 50 years ago.

I think your comment is misguided and lacks reflection. Change for the sake of change is never good because by definition there is no upside. Construction technology is also expected to be reliable and have long service life, and traditional techniques ensure that by the fact that the are tried and true.

The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move.

I think that most jurisdictions already have the legal tools they need to put the public good in front of special interest groups, in the form of eminent domain laws.

It's just that the policial will is just not there.

(...) and they still got it.

I don't see the point of your comment. You're presenting an anecdotal case where someone who took some precautions which are known for not being 100% effective against airborne diseases ended up contracting an airborne disease.

It makes as much sense as ranting about wearing seatbelts because you can put together an anecdotal case of someone who got hurt in a car accident in spite of wearing one.

What's the point of that sort of argument, really?

Maybe our medical professionals should be wearing PPPS[1] at all times, hmm?

I'll bite your fallacy.

Scabies are prevented by avoiding direct skin-on-skin contact. Wearing latex gloves is already effective, as is routinely changing clothing and bedding.

Is any of this something you feel is outlandish for a health professional working on hospitals and retirement homes?

Great article. I think it would benefit from a sentence or paragraph on Amdahl's law to help drive the point home about potential performance improvements of serial code, which I would classify synchronization as one type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

The natural way to define a member variable is (...)

No, that's not right at all. Your example is only a declaration of an incomplete type. You cannot do anything with it except.... Define a pointer to the incomplete type, and use that to keep the type definition hidden.

That technique is called pointer to implementation - pimpl. The thing you're complaining about?

The existence of .h files

C or C++ don't specify or require .h files. The languages don't even specify any file extension.

What C and C++ specify is the concepts of declaration and definition, and require only one definition across all translation units. Thus it's customary to simply have a single source for declarations to ensure they all stay consistent in spite of their usages, and those declarations are used once by wrapping them in include guards.

I don't think this can escalate more from Russia's side. They already invaded neighbouring countries, and not only are they keeping their war machine running but they are also threatening more countries while shifting their economy to a war economy.

At this point, either Russia voluntarily stops it's invasion and leaves Ukraine or inevitably NATO will have to step in. Whether it's before or after Russia invaded a NATO member is still to be determined.

As Russia is all-in, the only option on the table that prevents NATO from stepping in is to support Ukraine and supply them with the necessary and sufficient equipment to drive out Russia. If there's no political consensus to deliver what's needed, it's only a matter of time before Europe's armies are deployed.

I'd hate to find myself fighting a war, but any military engagement that replays Adolf Hitler's brand of imperialistic agenda over Europe in particular and the world in general, whether it focuses on Ukraine or Taiwan, is an extreme sacrifice worth pursuing.

Most liberal democracies only exist today because of the sacrifice from those living in liberal democracies in the 1930s and 1940s. We cannot back down when it's our turn to protect fundamental values.

This is a bit cynical isn't it (...)

No, it's called security.

Let's put it this way: there have been FLOSS projects whose maintainers intentionally pushed compromised code to unsuspecting end users. See for example the colors attack.

What leads you to believe that good intentions are enough?

This sounds like a carbon copy of the project tree layout specified in C++'s pitchfork conventions.

https://github.com/vector-of-bool/pitchfork

As other said, he doesn't just want to give 10%, he wants you to give 5%.

Another way of framing this is that the co-founder wants OP to just grant him control of the company by switching from the original 50-50 arrangement to a 45-55 arrangement.

Pointing out Elon Musk's claims regarding free speech and the shit show he's been forcing upon Twitter, not to mention his temper tantrum directed at marketing teams for ditching post-Musk Twitter due to fears their ads could showcase alongside unsavoury content like racist posts and extremism in general, should be enough to figure out the worth of Elon Musk's word and the consequences of Elon Musk's judgement calls.

OpenAI clearly rejected Elon Musk's advances and kept him out. Isn't it working already in its current form?

First Sam vs. the board, now Elon vs. everyone

Elon Musk is renowned for being an attention seeker and doing these stunts as a proxy to relevance. It's touring Texas borders wearing a hat backwards, it's messing with Ukraine's access to starlink alongside making statements on geopolitics, it's pretending that he discovered railway and the technology for digging holes in the ground as a silver bullet for transportation problems, it's making bullshit statements on cave rescue submarines followed by attacking actual cave rescuers who pointed out the absurdity of it of being pedophiles... Etc etc etc.

I think it makes no sense at all to evaluate the future of an organization based on what stunts Elon Musk is pulling. There must be better metrics.

(...) because the most experienced are needed to fire fight and to keep things running.

By that account the most experienced started out as the least experienced who built a mess, accrued more technical debt, and built up their experience keeping their ball of mud from crumbling.

They are also more resistent to change because this underlines all the crap they did. It's their baby, and their reputation is pinned on how successful it is.

New is not necessarily better, but old and stable also doesn't mean fine engineering.

So how did they manage to add 1,998,000 more lines of node in the next 10 years (...)

Does LinkedIn have the same features it had a decade ago?

Search is far more powerful. It also shifted to add an entirely new social media dimension to it.

God knows what features were made available to recruiters and marketers.

The hard part of a web app is not the stuff you see; it's the stuff you don't even know is there.

What do you mean "bad faith"? Can you elaborate?