cjhopman

I don't understand how so many people can discuss this as though it's not some random gmail account that made the comment.

There is none. The comment is from some random gmail account, it doesn't mean anything.

tsets are described in more detail here: https://buck2.build/docs/rule_authors/transitive_sets/. Bazel's depsets were one of the influences on their design. To users, they will seem fairly similar and would be used for solving similar problems, there's some differences in the details of the APIs.

I'm not well-versed on the internal implementation details of bazel's depsets, but one interesting thing about tsets that may further differentiate them is how they are integrated into the core, specifically that we try hard to never flatten them there. The main two places this comes up are: (1) when an action consumes a tset projection, the edges on the DICE graph (our incremental computation edges) only represent the direct tset roots that the action depends on, not the flattened full list of artifacts it represents and (2) when we compute the input digest merkle tree for uploading an actions inputs to RE, that generally doesn't require flattening the tset as we cache the merkle trees for each tset projection node and can efficiently merge them.

It is insane that that is allowed. I'm not sure if it is more or less insane that there are Tesla fans that would defend that.

But you don't understand. Car analysts since the early 90s have been saying that electric cars would become profitable and become a serious chunk of the market by 2020 because they all knew that musk was going to come along and show us how great electric cars are and save the world.

This is actually pretty much the dumbest argument if you take just a moment to think about it.

Imagine some drug that costs $100 million to develop and that the most it can earn in the market is $70 million at a price of $1000. Okay, but then the government thinks it's really important to provide, so it's going to subsidize the development to the tune of $40 million. The drug company could then spend $60 million for development and earn $70 million. Over the typical drug development and sales lifetime, that's actually a quite mediocre return, but let's not worry about that.

But wait, the government paid 40% of the development cost. Why the fuck should that company be able to charge $1000, they should only be able to charge 60% of that, they should charge $600. Well, then they are fucked because they are right back at the same equation for whether it is profitable to work on that drug.

In general, with a moment's thought, any intelligent person will realize that expecting discounts on products based on how much the development was subsidized by the government completely obviates the entire point of subsidies.

Good question. Also what's the price of an equivalent dose of Cheerios?

That's bullshit. Companies have "whole letter"s for pretty much everything they do. Gilead had a "whole letter" when they said they'd provide 1.5 million doses for free. Was that also loaded with crap and the "$0" price excessive?

Also, wtf is with your blatant misquote of even this biased article. It's 14 of the first 41 have no connection.

Anyone who reads this, be aware, it's total nonsense. It's ridiculous fear mongering, "omg, if it's not from eating bats, it must be from a lab!!!".

Well, they weren't. But conspiracy theories are rarely about what things are or what happened and more about incredulity about what things aren't.

Haven't looked at their build, but it's almost certainly the case that they are generating some sort of rust binding from the typescript code and the compilation times are actually from needing to recompile rust.

Sure and an argument could be made that the specific things happening in this situation are wrong. That's not the argument that I replied to. I replied to a flippant argument that it is always wrong to charge different people different amounts.

I just went to what I considered a clear counterexample, though it does have problems that it is rare (though local coffee shops and bakeries, for example, fairly regularly will provide things for free to those in need within the store exactly like they would for regular customers).

Is it wrong for universities to provide financial aid to those in need?

Would it be wrong for a city to provide subsidized public transportation? subsidized school lunches?

You can come up with other harder to decide examples. A really good one would be whether it's wrong to charge tourists and locals different amounts. On the one side, this feels unfair to the tourists, why should they have to pay more? Generally, I lean to unfair things being wrong. But, the consequences of charging them the same are, to me, much worse, especially as the means of the two become further and further apart.

Why? Would it be wrong for a restaurant to provide meals for free to those in need?

From the article: Steven Brust: "Ask what's more important, human rights, or property rights. If they say property rights are a human right, they're on the right."

Right, these sorts of surveys typically have 5 answers: strong negative, negative, neutral, positive, strong positive.

Yeah, every single remark from the DNC in that article was absolutely ridiculous. All zero of them.

Your stats are just totally made up aren't they?

In 2017, 1% of households had all sockets using LED and 71% had not a single socket using LED. 11% still had all sockets using incandescent. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31112

That's only the case as long as complying with California's emissions laws is not too much harder than what they would otherwise have to comply with. That's a complicated analysis, it's kinda got a bit of prisoner's dilemma to it. As long as companies are following CA's restrictive emissions laws, there's little incentive for other areas to make their own laws more restrictive. If companies started to ignore CA's laws (and not sold there or sold different versions) you should expect other states to start to pass more and more restrictive laws.

They won't, and that puts the lie to all these people saying it's no big deal and they don't have to go to work if they don't want to.

Well first, you don't seem to understand how herd immunity works. That 70% you quote is only a useful number when there isn't an active epidemic. With an active epidemic you get significant overshoot.

If we dropped all mitigation efforts, you should expect this to infect something like 95+% of people before effectively dying out. The amount of overshoot is going to depend on how widespread the infection is.

Second, you can develop immunity without the bad effects of actually getting the disease (ya know, like a fucking vaccine). Saying that we need xx% of people to develop immunity doesn't mean that we need xx% of people to get this deadly disease.

I'm curious what your response to the Cambridge Analytica stuff was? Open APIs to build your own experience are like 100 times worse than that, at least the APIs that CA used were limited (such that they didn't provide enough info to actually recreate FB) and required CA to sign a developer agreement with FB to restrict how they could be used.

This is typical academic code. The response is utterly embarrassing for the software engineering profession.

This is the only time I've ever actually been embarrassed to be part of this profession. Maybe other cases i can just say it's limited to this other subgroup that doesn't include me...

That definition is rather too broad. It makes basically everything spyware which dilutes the word too much to be useful.

It's not just industry-wide that people say Glassdoor is wrong, it's individual companies. The last I looked at Glassdoor for companies where I knew the pay scales, the averages from Glassdoor were way too low.

Or think about it for a moment and realize that it would be True with either precedence if interpreted as expected.

Or read the very first part of the linked page that shows:

  >>> (True == False) is False
  True
  >>> True == (False is False)
  True

Any serious analysis would find that the fate of Elon Musk has nothing to do with your likelihood of dying on Mars.

WTF, you're just spreading nonsense. Take a look at this image and see if you can tell just looking at it which of them is tsla and at what time musk commented: https://imgur.com/OwwKVyf that includes every one of the stocks you mentioned and there is one clear outlier. No other stock has a clear change at that time, and the behavior of the one stock is clearly different than the rest.

I do not doubt you could perform this same analysis limited to tech companies and get the same result (though comparing tesla to these tech companies is rather irrationally aspirational).

> Musk is a phd

Wow. That's impressive considering he was only in a phd program for two days (and that it wasn't even a physics program).