bin0

You hit the nail on the head here. The canadians are doing the same thing the American Congress did recently: pulling in the big bad zuck for a stern talking-to. Notice that they passed no laws. It's televised political theater of the kind we have seen ever since C-Span showed up.

So? Maybe canada's laws say they can compel Zuck to show up, but America's certainly don't. Those are the ones that matter, as Facebook is based in America and Zuck is currently in America.

> the correct amount of federalization... may be significantly greater than seemed

Wrong. This is why the Constitution enumerates a few, very specific powers and says that the rest are reserved to the states and to the people.

> Radical minimization of the federal power was the design of the Articles of Confederation

Wrong. Congress couldn't even regulate foreign trade; there was no federal power. When the federal government cannot represent the nation as a whole to foreign powers, there is no true federal government. We moved to a Constitution with minimum federal power because that solution didn't work.

Depends. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Facebook runs servers in America (not canada). A canadian accesses their site and uses it. Is Facebook now "doing business" in canada? The problem with internet companies is that the rules are different: I no longer need any kind of physical presence to do business there (though servers are often necessary, but that's buying something not selling from a physical location).

The real question is: can you re-write it in assembly and make it self-hosting?

I hope you realize how dystopian that sounds. Do we need a Ministry of Truth?

I would argue reducing federal control is step one. Local governments may want to take more power instead. Take Texas: many cities have become stark-blue due to immigration from south of the border. If they wish to pass certain policies, let them. If the rural areas wish to pass different policies, let them.

America was consciously designed with these divisions in mind. By federalizing the minimum number of things, we reduce the number of things on which we must agree.

The question is not "do they have the right", but rather should they be prevented via the government. Seeing as a coal plant (the other likely option) has impacts all its own, I think not. It is the lesser of two evils, if not a perfect good.

I agree with that assessment. My experience has been reading a good bit into it. I considered learning it a few months ago, but wanted to focus on things that people were currently hiring for. Maybe at some point I will learn more, but I am a bit too broke right now to spend that much time on something that doesn't pay. I don't say that to be disparaging, it goes back to my point about it being immature and not having many engineers or companies using it.

It announced "intent to acquire", and did not say.

For what it's worth, I really hope people don't pay if they can avoid it. Guy I know consults for a company which recently got ransomware. They had insurance, payed $1.5 million, got their files back. FBI came in and figured out it was the north koreans. This is happening more and more often, and will increase as we continue sanctions pressure.

This is a classic prisoners' dilemma: if no one payed, every one would be better off, but it is very hard to be that one guy or company who loses all his files for the "greater good".

Your parent comment has a point about performance; I don't see why he is downvoted. Crystal is cool, but it is still immature in terms of ecosystem, the language could change, limited library support, and most importantly, not many great engineers. Particularly not outside of the valley.

Performance is a concern for many people, and this is somewhat overlooked because of the number of people here who work for companies where scaling is the primary concern. I think this is what he meant by people outside of VC-backed startups. I know of multiple companies that have had outrageous cloud-hosting bills and have had to hire fancy consultants to fix it.

> Accent is defined based on where you grew up from age 10-12.

Not so. Maybe this is true in many cases, but I personally know of at least one outlier: a relative who grew up in West Virginia, lost her accent to work in radio and news, and when older re-married to a man from Texas with a heavy accent and developed one herself.

It is also the case that many people slip back into accents as they age.

I have an old relative who has the classic, very thick Boston accent. It is always fun to have her say, "park the car in the Harvard Yard", and she is willing to humor us. You are correct that most younger people don't, though some have a less significant one. Accents are disappearing among the young, which is somewhat sad, albeit inevitable. Newscasters never have an accent, most characters do not (and when they do, it's a "difference" of some sort), and people move around too much for them to survive. A Texas accent used to be John Wayne, now it is used on comedy shows to represent the "uneducated, fat, cousin-marrying red-neck bumpkin". At least we have recording technology now, so future generations can hear them.

From what I have heard, these flaws mostly affect Intel because they are the largest CPU manufacturer. They also dominate the datacenter and cloud-compute industries for now, which are by far the highest value targets.

But as an Intel consumer, I am not happy. My understanding is that more stuff can be fixed in microcode, but I suppose a bug could show up which was not practically fixable. If that happened, I would certainly sue or join a class-action lawsuit. Probably the class-action route, because even if I didn't get any thing, I would be just mad enough at Intel to want them to suffer.

Of course, we do have consumer protection agencies; it is possible that they would step if Intel had sold what would effectively be a defective product.

Git isn't really designed for cryptographic security, is it? I have heard that Linus wants it mostly secure so people can verify the integrity of linux source code, but it's not its core competency, so to speak. Though I suppose a project the size of the linux kernel could be a serious target for a collision attack.

Regardless, it's switching to SHA-256: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28159071/why-doesnt-git-...

He may not have phrased it perfectly, but his point is good. Picture this: you are hired to do a contract job. The tooling today is arguably better than 20 years ago. You bill by the hour, and take fewer hours.

Now, extend that to salaried positions. There is a certain amount of work that must happen. Tooling improves, devs become more idle, management consultant fires one (over time).

This has been somewhat negated only because the role of computers has been growing quickly and outpacing the growth in efficiency. That will change at some point. As you said, there won't be a case where swathes of people are suddenly out of work, it will be gradual.

A guy I know is an economist and does consulting for factories to optimize production. He has talked about how some areas these days have removed large groups of humans and replaced them with single humans observing machines. Eventually, development could reach a similar place.