HN user
John is a biblical name. Not naming your kid that because it’s also occasionally used as slang, is pants-on-head stupid. There’s also nothing wrong with Charlie.
Dick/Richard is the only one here I agree with. That is extremely commonly used slang, so it makes sense.
This is so out of touch. If you want people to simply roll their eyes and ignore your words completely, keep on espousing arguments like that.
Alexa, Siri and co. do have legitimate use cases for people, even if they may not be useful for -you-.
So do it the old fashioned way: socialize and network with people at industry events. Ageism is another issue that isn’t quite so easy to solve. Doesn’t that depend on the area more than anything?
Networking like that is how I found my job without a degree in computer science.
Or you know, they could be protesting HK law being totally subverted with the new extradition bill.
This comment is extremely pro-China.
It’s so strange to me how vaping is seen as this miraculous thing and any criticism is seen as being a hater.
10 years is not nearly long enough to measure long term health effects, sorry. Being “safer than cigs” isn’t worth anything at all.
Because every other website uses that or the down arrow. It can be not only objects seen in real life but also icons consistent with other sites.
Anecdotally I’ve never seen a floppy disk in real life.
Random or ambiguous icons without text is a huge UX failure. You can’t assume people will know what it means aside from very obvious ones like the floppy disk save icon.
This is not a dichotomy. We can have a tech sector that’s also compliant with laws like GDPR.
Secure until the government asks.
The point is that many state colleges provide ample education. Some provide very good education depending on what areas they specialize in.
USC (South Carolina) is #1 for international business, for example. As I recall we also had good engineering programs. I can't speak for the CS department, but I do know some very smart professors are there, since some of my friends did research there.
USC was the only college I applied to, and I had zero doubts that I'd ever get in (since I didn't go in for IB/business).
Now, networking is a totally different animal. Of course a lot of universities can't match the kind of networking that happens at Ivy leagues. For most people I don't think this is really an issue though as long as you go to a "good"ish university.
Or perhaps we can look into alternate systems that don't reward excruciating studying and working systems. Perhaps standardized testing like the SAT is fundamentally flawed and we need to figure out better assessment systems.
South Korea has the 10th highest suicide rate in the world.
Note that this is also inflated due to an abnormally high elderly suicide rate due to some systemic factors.
Although lower than the rate for the elderly, grade school and college students in Korea have a higher than average suicide rate.
One example alternative would be de-emphasizing the utmost need for a degree, and emphasizing trades as an alternative. Not everyone should need a degree, and from an academia standpoint it makes having a college degree relatively worthless and slowly turns universities into degree mills.
Remote working in the same or similar timezones is nice, and no, not everyone needs to work in the same office.
but few people who are actually willing to step up and do work. That's the limiting factor on getting stuff done.
That's why waiting is also an option. Feel free to excuse it however, but removing i18n here was a pretty big mistake on the rust team's part. For what? Rust 2018? I didn't contribute to the website, but I also didn't force anyone to change it either.
There are a lot of people willing to get extremely mad about the website online
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. It's rare to see actual i18n for open source projects, and it's absurd to see it get removed arbitrarily when it does exist. I believe the Rust team is capable of delivering much better quality updates, hence my writing here. I'm also sick and tired of i18n being considered an afterthought by people who do have the resources to accomplish it to at least a basic degree.
Also, just because something is open source doesn't mean "well why don't you just go do it then" is a valid argument. It isn't.
The code itself and libraries being English is not a new concept.
Materials and knowledge about the language leads to more people potentially discovering it. I can far more easily persuade someone to use Rust, if I share the website with them in their native language.
Consider the reality that not every nation is advanced in English like Sweden or other European nations.
Anyway, the old site did have i18n, meaning that they did care about it. Not only did they care about i18n, they also had more niche languages, which is quite rare for an open source project. The alternative is basically saying "just learn English in order to read about Rust and why you may or may not want to use it". I find this unacceptable.
So it's very puzzling to me that the new website entirely ditched i18n–it's incongruous to what I perceive the quality of the rust team is capable of.
I simply think we need to be honest about the language that we use. The truth is, instead of "nobody was happy", "nobody made i18n a priority" is far more accurate. Calling it a "lie" is perhaps too strong, but that's essentially what it is, intentional or not.
If nobody was happy about it, why was it deployed? That brings us to even more questions. Nothing presented thus far portrayed the decision to update in a better light, in fact it's only made my opinion of it worse.
I am used to websites having little to no i18n, but it's a complete mistake to actively remove existing i18n. For what? Rust 2018? A better looking landing page? Honestly now I'm just skeptical about the organizational structures that lead to this decision being approved.
Thank you for explaining it. I now finally understand why it was deployed with removed functionality.
That said, that is a completely idiotic reason to remove something like i18n. Unbelievable.
I wish I could say I don't understand how this got approved by multiple people, but the sad reality is that nobody makes internationalization a priority. It's completely normal to not have the other languages I use to not be supported, but I guess it stings to actively have it be removed.
Go's page is for programmers; Rust's new page is for non-programmers. I think it's a mistake that you have to click "Get Started", then read through installation instructions, to finally see what Rust code looks like. It's all backwards. A short snippet (or two) should be front and center.
Crystal lang is another very good example: https://crystal-lang.org/.
Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"? First I was "yelling" and now this...
My "different idea" is keeping the ability of non-English speakers to use the website and learn about Rust. I (and most people, I think) would not prefer a prettier site to one that has support for 10+ languages. Do you not agree?
My "position" is one of someone that heavily uses a language other than English. I very much enjoyed the old Rust site, because it meant I could actually show it to people around me, because their native language was supported. This isn't a tradeoff so much as a dealbreaker. What tradeoff was there for pushing the new website deployment too early?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an update that made the website prettier but removed i18n for no reason. Why? Was there a fiscal incentive to immediately replace the website before any translations could be done?
So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?
That's not really the truth though, is it? If nobody was happy, then the new site wouldn't have been deployed. Or by "nobody was happy", did you mean "nobody really cared, because English is their primary language, thus they aren't affected at all"?
The new website is very pretty. I don't understand why the deployment could not have waited until the translations were completed. Even just translating 4-5 widely used languages would've sufficed, although still not ideal compared to the old website.
Even if people wanted to visit the old website, it's buried at the bottom of the new one, practically invisible.
So raising a point on a random internet post is now considered "yelling"? Interesting. Also, I called "that reason" dumb. Perhaps you're personally involved with the project, but please try to read things as they are instead of taking offense unnecessarily.
Counterargument: How about one doesn't remove stuff like i18n in updates? Or what about simply delaying the deployment until the i18n and other features are done? Or is removing support for other languages considered acceptable if the new, English only, website looks very pretty? [tone is of light sarcasm]
Counterargument #2: just because something is open source doesn't mean you can go "well, just open a ticket or do it yourself". No, how about people in general update things properly (or at the very least, don't remove translations)? I'm perfectly allowed to criticize removing important functionality like i18n. It was there, now it isn't, and I didn't make the choice to remove it. It's not my job to do other people's jobs for them just because I exercised my ability to criticize something. Otherwise I would be working on GUIs/UX for open source linux projects until I die. [tone is of exasperation in open source software development]
This implies the old site wasn't nice. Which is not true. The old site isn't as pretty as the new one for sure, but it wasn't a bad site. It was straightforward.
Personally I don't like that the new website doesn't even display rust's syntax (what it looks like) on the homepage anymore.
That's a very dumb reason to ditch i18n. Waiting before it finalized wasn't an option?
The new site has a link to the old one at the bottom. My opinion isn't factoring into it.
However, losing i18n is pretty bad. These are the old languages that were offered:
Deutsch, English, Español, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Italiano, 日本語, 한국어, Polski, Português, Русский, Svenska, Tiếng việt, 简体中文
However, as someone who regularly studies and works with a non-English language I can tell you i18n is pretty darn important. More important than a very pretty site that people can't read.
Per my own opinion, a FAQ is also a great idea. Especially for a new language that's trying to gain more adoption. Entirely removing it instead of reworking it into the new design before deploying mystifies me.
I'm confused as to why they redesigned the website but removed prior functionality.
A few weeks ago people pointed out that the internationalization also suffered due to this. Edit: by suffered, I mean "was removed entirely". I just checked and couldn't find a way to change the locale, nor could I manually set it e.g. by appending /de-DE, etc.
If the new design requires a link to the old design to access removed functionality, is it really ready to launch?
---
edit; these were the languages offered: Deutsch, English, Español, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Italiano, 日本語, 한국어, Polski, Português, Русский, Svenska, Tiếng việt, 简体中文
Now if I want to refer to someone about Rust in Korean I have to link to prev.rust-lang.org, which is weird.
We have enough land in most part of the world that if we lost, say, 10,000 - 100,000 acres a decade due to meltdown, we'd still be pretty okay
This is completely untenable. Perhaps you're okay with it if it occurs far from where you live, thus not affecting you, but it sure does affect other people. And the surrounding areas. It's not comparable at all with the other forms of energy production in that list aside from fossil fuels which are an even worse danger.
we know how to engineer around systems failures.
We don't really know how to fix human-related errors, such as hubris, pride, laziness, shame, and so on. So many things are completely obvious in hindsight, but we continue to make similar mistakes now.
It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else
It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected.
Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. "net less of life" isn't really a good statistic because living things are also affected.
It's an astoundingly unintelligent "analogy" at best. Discussing nuclear meltdowns and what caused them is always relevant, whether or not it happened today or 70 years ago.
Talking about it is still important, especially because like most things, human bureaucracy and politics played into it. Having more intelligent designs does not solve human stupidity, laziness, pride, etc.
And even if nuclear safety is much better today, the consequences of failing are still grotesque. In the case of other meltdowns, the surrounding areas are still affected, even today. Doesn't matter whether it melted down today or 100 years ago, those areas are still toxic.
I think nuclear is our only real solution moving forward, but we need to honestly talk about the incidents that occurred, and fix the issues that went wrong with it. You don't get that by covering things up.
Your list is totally disingenuous. Are you actually comparing the environmental issues associated with creating a solar panel, to a nuclear facility melting down and making the entire surrounding area uninhabitable and unusable for centuries? Not to mention causing a huge uptick in cancer in the the surrounding areas as well?
I think nuclear is our only real option moving forward (due to wildly increasing energy consumption) but we need to look at these things honestly. Any damage caused by solar or hydro is wildly incomparable to more nuclear meltdowns or current fossil fuel emissions.
How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown? ...? It's measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event.
I've known about chernobyl, tmi, fukushima, etc, but I was totally surprised to read about this one.
Although you are correct and GP was mistaken in their definition, `reflect` fits better here.
Definition of reflect
transitive verb 1 : to prevent passage of and cause to change direction
// a mirror reflects light
---
Definition of deflect
transitive verb : to turn (something) aside especially from a straight course or fixed direction
// armor that deflects bullets, deflecting a question
---
With deflect, something is simply being diverted, whereas with reflect, it's more intentionally being aimed somewhere. This is the nuance I feel innately, although at this point we're splitting hairs I think.