CodeMage

Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but to me this sounds like they're saying the V8 creates one thread per execution context. I've been working with V8 for months now and this doesn't make any sense to me.

Can someone clarify whether I simply misunderstood the phrasing?

The whole point is that the fight for protection of workers' rights needs some sort of organization. Traditionally, that has been called a "union", but if the problem you're pointing out is that the name has too many bad connotations, feel free to propose another one.

FWIW, it looks like most of the "good unions" are careful to call themselves "guilds".

Sorry, I misinterpreted your reply. My comment was a reply to a comment about lowering the bar and I thought you were arguing that same point.

>I'm just saying that those kids are as screwed now as they have ever been, and that this particular misfortune will not play in their favor in the future, as employers, government, and nongovernment institutions will be just as unsympathetic then as they are now.

I completely agree with that assessment.

Yes, that's why there are "poor kids roaming the street like packs of feral dogs" in the first place, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. That's the big problem.

So let's not pretend that lowering the bar is what's going to make those kids catch a whiff of good fortune. The US system grinds people like that into dirt and that won't change with a single decision, be that decision to add a school year or to lower the bar.

You don't have to lower the bar. There are other options. There is no fundamental law of physics that says a generation has to graduate at age X, so we -- the society -- should be perfectly able to delay that process for a year, instead of lowering the bar.

That said, there's something deeply wrong either with the society as a whole or with the HN audience if you read "poor kids roam the street like packs of feral dogs asking for money for food" and you say that the biggest long term problem is the lowering of the bar because kids skipped school.

Thanks, I was worried I would find HN readers to be largely in agreement with it and I'm glad I was wrong about that.

I also find that "we need to want these things" is the key problem with the article. I agree with your conclusions, but I think you've understated the case a bit.

I believe that all of this has happened the way it happened because we live in a society -- and a system -- that has been steadily lowering the value we place on human life.

When I moved to United States in 2013, what shocked me the most was the incredible number of homeless people in Seattle. This is an immensely wealthy, developed country, arguably the most powerful in "the first world". And yet, two of the "five most homeless cities in the world"[1] are in this country.

One of the big problems with the lockdown measures in several parts of the US was "what about homeless kids who depend on their schools". Do you people understand what that sounds like?

So yes, the problem is capitalism. No, not "crony capitalism" or any other variation of No True Scotsman defense of capitalism[2]. This is what you get when you build your whole system around the optimization of one variable -- profit -- and put essentially religious faith into the unproven idea that the Invisible Hand of the Market will make everything work.

Marc ends his essay by saying "instead of attacking my ideas, conceive your own". He's essentially asking people to express their disagreement in a way that validates his ideology. Sadly, the answer to his question about what we should build isn't anything he or the rest of the elites would like to hear.

What we need to build is awareness. What we need to build are societal "firewalls" against the ubiquitous propaganda[3] that inundates our society. What we need to build is a movement.

EDIT: Fixed some formatting problems that I didn't notice initially.

---

[1]: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e56c...

[2]: It's usually the same people who won't accept that "real socialism hasn't been implemented yet" as an answer that deflect critique of capitalism by saying "Oh, that is not capitalism, that's crony capitalism."

[3]: The US doesn't have state propaganda like North Korea or China, and that leads people to believe it's free of propaganda. It's not.

"Spomenica" is much less used. I'm a native speaker -- born and raised in Belgrade -- and I've only heard it in very specialized and rare occasions, so I'm having a hard time translating it correctly. In the context I've heard it used, it's an award or recognition, usually in the form of a scroll or a medal.

I like the authors use of the native word "spomenik" to talk about this specific style, but it's definitely just the author's artistic choice.

Unfortunately, they mismanaged Mark II so badly that I lost all faith in Mycroft in general.

My mom and dad are 73 years old and I don't give a damn about someone's tin-foil-hattery about "fighting the war on viruses 20 years from now", if I can keep them from dying. Go read some first-person accounts from people living in Italy, not just the ones about the roadblocks and forms you have to fill out, but also the ones from people who couldn't even say goodbye to their loved ones who died or the ones from HCWs about the collapse of their hospitals.

All of us who are pissed off about the lockdowns should hold on to that anger and express it fully after we have to stop worrying about our parents and grandparents being left for dead.

> It's not right to vilify these people while we give a free pass to everyone else doing equally unethical things.

If "A and not B" is not right, you can conclude that we should stop A, or that we should start B. You interpreted it as the former, I interpreted it as the latter. I guess we have different biases.

Regardless of whether the goal posts have moved or have always been in the same place, I'm not sure which of your questions remains unanswered. If it's "who is this 'we' you speak of", the answer is "look around you". If the majority were truly intolerant of the behavior OP describes, then we would have a lot more social unrest than we do.

Except we're not really limited to only two options. Rationing might be an unpopular option, but it works just fine.

And the argument is correct. You cannot keep teaching people unlimited greed and profiteering is okay because "it's free market" and then expect them to behave ethically. You have to change what is acceptable and tolerated. The current situation is an excellent starting point, but we shouldn't stop here.

Sadly, it's dismissed out of hand as a "people problem" and "irrelevant". It really deserves more attention.

First of all, if you're looking for programmers to maintain a VB6 app, you really should factor into the economics of that endeavor the fact that most people don't want to code in VB6.

Second, no matter how potentially beneficial the pair programming approach is, there is a question of psychology in play. There are people who are introverted enough that the constant company required for pair programming will wear them down and cause them to quit or change teams. Dismissing it as a "people issue" and misrepresenting it as being unable or unwilling to be a team player is an oversimplification.

EDIT: Is there something wrong with std::error_code? I don't care about my points, but I'm worried I might have missed something I should know.

Prefixing this by saying I'm not making an assumption about who you're siding with, but offering my opinion on the argument you're using.

> The standard approval process sounds like most merge review processes on any engineering team. There's a sort of assumed good-faith for this process. The fact that 2 coworkers were fine with your change doesn't mean it was made in good-faith and was within the bounds of normal types of changes.

Other people have already argued about whether what she added to the extension is in line with the purpose of the extension and whether it was within her purview.

Regardless of that, I would like to point out that we're not hearing that these two coworkers -- or anyone else involved in the process -- have been fired. Only Spiers. If the concern is really about the security and the trust, why is one person singled out?

Yes. Why is this so controversial? Why are we okay with profits being more important than ethics?

Can anyone explain this? It goes against all I thought I knew about online payments and credit cards.

Many people have pointed out that C++17 has std::optional. While that's true, I don't think it'll deprecate raw pointers. I'll try to explain why.

Here's an example you can paste, compile and run:

  #include <iostream>
  #include <memory>

  struct foo
  {
    int thingamajig;
  };
  
  void borrow_optional_foo(foo * borrowed)
  {
    if (borrowed != nullptr)
    {
      borrowed->thingamajig = 42;
    }
  }

  int main()
  {
    std::unique_ptr<foo> owned = std::make_unique<foo>();
    owned->thingamajig = 17;
    std::cout << owned->thingamajig << std::endl;
    borrow_optional_foo(owned.get());
    std::cout << owned->thingamajig << std::endl;
    return 0;
  }

  17
  42

  #include <iostream>
  #include <functional>
  #include <memory>
  #include <optional>

  struct foo
  {
    int thingamajig;
  };
  
  void borrow_optional_foo(std::optional<std::reference_wrapper<foo>> borrowed)
  {
    if (borrowed)
    {
      borrowed->get().thingamajig = 42;
    }
  }

  int main()
  {
    std::unique_ptr<foo> owned = std::make_unique<foo>();
    owned->thingamajig = 17;
    std::cout << owned->thingamajig << std::endl;
    borrow_optional_foo(std::make_optional(std::ref(*(owned.get()))));
    std::cout << owned->thingamajig << std::endl;
    return 0;
  }

On the other hand, using it is absolutely atrocious: you have to write borrowed->get().thingamajig as opposed to borrowed->thingamajig, and std::make_optional(std::ref(*(owned.get()))) as opposed to owned.get()

Does it work? Absolutely. Is it crystal clear? Indisputably so. Will it deprecate raw pointers? I really, really doubt it, but that's just my opinion.

  std::unique_ptr<foo> m_foo;

In summary, * will never be deprecated until C++ has support for something along the lines of Rust's borrowing and lifetimes.