Most of the instability is related to compiled modules. Hopefully they'll be updated to support v4.0.0 shortly.
1,392 karma · joined January 20, 2013
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Potentially
Technologies: JavaScript, C, Rust, Ruby, Postgres, Cassandra
Resume: http://www.hydrocodedesign.com/public/Resume.pdf
Website: http://hydrocodedesign.com
Github: https://www.github.com/thehydroimpulse
Email: dnfagnan(at)gmail.com
Highly experienced JavaScript developer as well as C and Rust skills. Looking to solve hard problems and/or create awesome products.
Also have experience with distributed systems and concurrent programming.
If you don't have a hard limit in terms of your buffer or memory allocations (and have an unlimited upper-bound) you'll be in trouble sooner or later. I'd argue that it would be a far more robust principle to institute an upper-bound than trying to catch OOM errors.
Take a look at the X-Carve [0] for a cheaper alternative.
There's also the Othermill [1].
[0]: https://www.inventables.com/technologies/x-carve [1]: https://othermachine.co/othermill/features/
It might be more expensive than the status-quo. It depends on the details of such a system.
To add to your point about people working not to survive but to thrive: re-education, or education would be a more realistic possibility. Currently, going back to school at 30 or 40 years old when you've held low wage jobs is really hard.
A family member of mine, after a divorce that ended her up with nothing, was able to raise her 6 kids, upgrade her high school and get a university degree, all without a job. This is simply not possible with the safety nets currently available (welfare helped but definitely wasn't enough). This was only possible because of her family taking a second mortgage to buy a house that she "rented" and a line of credit for food and necessities.
The amount of people that will have to be re-educated to find a job will only increase. This would only be a positive for the workforce.
I think the difference would be in the efficiency and simplicity of such a system. Currently, the U.S. spends over a trillion dollars on state and federal welfare programs (spread across 126+ programs). However, the government spends it quite poorly and in many indirect ways. Giving them a cheque would certainly be better.
You're right in that it could actually be more expensive. I'm not sure what my stand on the subject would be in that case. Even with my libertarian beliefs, (and there are good arguments that basic income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism) I have to keep in mind of the realities related to the surging amount of poverty and that it's unsustainable.
When large quantities of manual labor jobs or easily automated jobs are replaced, basic income, I think, would push that class of folks to a livable standard. Not much, but just enough. You'll have more people transitioning off the streets and into normal lives.
(Even as a libertarian, I say this, which at first, might be at odds with the philosophy but there are good arguments that make it perfectly compatible.)
It would cost considerably less and thus higher taxation would be less of a concern (as a way to stifle more money from the rich to the poor).
It's a trend to try and take from the rich and give to the poor. If you truly want more distributed income across the people (I wouldn't call it income equality because that's impossible.) then you'll find instituting more taxation does little to fix that. Most of the 1%'s wealth doesn't come from their income. There's a reason many CEOs take $1/year as salary.
The entitlement system is absolutely broken. I'm all for a smaller government, but if we could replace the broken system with some sort of basic income (and that idea seems quite contrary with my political beliefs), I doubt it'd cost more than what's currently being paid out -- and it might actually be better.
1. It's still extremely expensive to get a degree or post-secondary education of some sort. Student loans are the only realistic option for many people.
Still related to the first point, proper education is more important than just education. Many people are still trying to go after what they "love" instead of the supply and demand of the marketplace.
2. It's never been easier to have an opportunity to start a business. Succeeding is still challenging.
4. Largely inaccessible to the low income class and a group of the middle class. You need excess money to invest, which increasingly people don't have.
While it's true that many of these things are easier to start, there are still significant problems that have to be overcome. Many of these have deeper issues.
I've actually had the same issues happen in GameCenter Live. Lots of glitches, laggy, and the quality was horrible, the actual game was much smaller than the full screen.
One annoying issue was when I wanted to watch the game well after it had started, or even after it ended but didn't want to know the score. I always had to put my hand over sections that showed the score until I pressed the "Hide score" button and then always quickly forcing it to start from the beginning instead of mid way through so I wouldn't see the score.
A significant challenge is not necessarily live streaming the game, but the production. Most of the productions are ran by regional or national TV cable. They certainly don't want to encourage moving off of cable. Rogers (i.e., Sportsnet), who own exclusive NHL broadcasting rights in Canada (with exception to a few NHL clubs and some regional restrictions), are running NHL's Game Center Live in Canada. I don't know if the technology/provider of live stream is the same as the american version (non-Sportsnet) but because they own all national rights, there are no blackouts.
The U.S., version of GameCenter Live is pretty restrictive to geoblocking.
I don't think the roadblocks are in the licensing agreements that are preventing widespread live streaming.
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2015/8/4/9094733/its-time-f...
NHL is also toying with more tracking technologies [1] that could make for a pretty cool experience while watching the game live (The cost of pucks with tracking chips were ~$200 each, which is obviously too expensive for how pucks are used currently.)
- Snowden
Moreover, the idea that generics allows junior devs enough rope to "hang themselves" is preposterous. There are more than one type of generic system out there, we don't need to replicate C++ templates here.
Let's not fool ourselves here. There's a difference between "we just haven't figured it out yet" and "generics doesn't fit into the vision of Go". The former attitude is perfectly acceptable. The latter is really annoying and misleading because Go does use generics -- internally.
Luckily they got McDavid, so that kinda evens things out.
Currently integrates with Salesforce and Stripe to automatically break down metrics per employee and for a team. A tool that individual sales reps and managers alike can benefit from.
(We just ended up getting the rejection email, although it doesn't change anything)
BASE jumping, while even more dangerous with many outcomes resulting in death, is something I'm considering on trying in the future.
I don't really do it because of the risk. Sure, I love the adrenaline rush and I love doing extreme things, but that's not the core reason. I know many people who have lost a half dozen really good friends each throughout their lives. That is absolutely devastating. Every time there's a fatality, it spreads through the community rather quickly.
I do it because the experience is like no other, being able to fly through the sky (I mean, how can this view[0] not be attractive). It's also an extremely social sport. You get to form close relationships with total strangers rather quickly.
I could also die driving everyday, the odds say I'd have a better chance at dying in a car than skydiving. So there's always the logical route based on historical evidence.
For example, going through line by line leads to a slew of text that doesn't really provide that much value. I feel you could cut a few paragraphs with a simpler method of explanation with perhaps more code (and explain through comments), visuals (ascii diagrams of the scopes), or something.
I also feel the analogy towards lifetimes relating to segment of lines of code might confuse users.
> Rust knows how to connect the scopes of variables that are pointing to the same thing, as well as how to know the scope of things that are more than just stack-allocated memory.
Too many 'things', knowing Rust I obviously know what you're trying to say but I could imagine it being hard to grok for new comers. However, I don't really have a suggestion on how to explain it better.
After that, you show some code and try to explain it in paragraph form after that. I think it might be easier to just place those explanations inline with the code. That way you can skip the "at line 7, it does this" type of thing.
Referencing the implementation details of the stack and heap, it seems like too many details that are not really needed at that time. Perhaps a difference between the stack vs heap, but which memory address a variable is located doesn't really convey anything useful.
Anyways, I like the where things are headed, but as you said, writing is hard. I've tried writing introductions to lifetimes and ownership and, well, I just gave up. Trying to convey that stuff after you've learned it to people who haven't is hard.
It will also take a long time to become proficient at it. If you want to build one in a few years, and you have the drive and motivation, it could be done, but there's no guarantees. It's traditionally best left to those who are best at it.
That's what co-founders are for.