germandiago

I am not suggesting cutting down pensions. My own parents are pensionists... so that you get an idea.

I am giving an objective explanation in all honesty: Spain needs a pensions reform probably at some point bc it is 40% of the expenses in the yearly budget, with a deficit and a demographic deficit. This will explode.

If it can be taken from elsewhere, better.

But you know how much are pensions in Spain and know our pension system in detail (it is literally a Poncy system...)? They are often higher than people working!

Whether we like it or not, we need to reform or collapse in the future. I wish it could be taken from elsewhere, but 40% is a lot...

There is a lot of useless expenses in public work in our "federal system" (comunidades autónomas).

The main problem comes from under maintenance. I am spanish, we have known this for years.

15 or 20 years ago when I took the train it worked well.

Now there are more trains and they increased the traffic like by 70% if I am not wrong and the budget for railway infrastructure by only 17% and it seems to not scale well enough, for whatever reason I do not know all the details.

There are a lot of railway tracks that are not in good state so speed must be lowered. There are incideents and delays routinely, all the time.

This did not happen until like 10 years ago and it has gotten worse and worse since then, not only in high speed trains.

The roads is a mess also: 52% of infrastructure for roads has bad or very bad defects in it.

The thing is that we have a record in government incomings and the services, ALL of them (healthcare, roads, infrastructure...) slowly collapsing.Part of the money is not going to the right places. I think that nearly 40% of the budget goes for retired people. We have 9.5 million pensionists in Spain.

We have to change that system and rationalize government spending and welfare or eventually everything will collapse.

The great theft.

Well, actually it would be, more literally "do not get into it".

Preconditions cannot be checked at compile time in all cases.

Particularly a line depending on who you are.

This is not different from any political power or belief, which shapes mind and action.

In fact, in the absence of religion, the hole is filled with political power.

There is no void. If you leave a void, someone will fill it, after all. Bc there will still be social organization among us.

As there would be if you worship money or communism or any other belief that is not a religion also for which wars or oppression has been caused.

Any intervention to protect adults with laws infantilize.

The cause is clear in my mind: the world outside is what it is. If you cannot take good decisions (whatever that is for you) and you need someone to get protrcted and you soend your day whining about your own problems bc the world is not perfect, then you did not become an adult, ever.

There are extreme cases: for example you cannot say aperson in a country with no weapons is infantilized bc the complain for being abused by an armed gang. Something like that is legit.

But for many things I see around I just see people complaining instead of changing strategy, solve a problem, change their choice or just plain skip things they do not want. Instrad of that they demand some kind of protection.

For a very narrow set of exceptions I would agree. For the rest, we sre just adults, we should know what to do.

You could say natalism as opposed to maltusianism, or that is not a thing? One with a worse outcome IMHO given the aging of population and low birth rate.

Industry: agree.

Addiction: true, many things can be addictive, I think this is in big part a matter of education but there are some things that are more addictive than others also.

As for better option than prostitution. I would say this is kind of prostitution is some way.

So in the absence of religion, there is no racism, no interests and no wars?

You seem to suggest that banning religion would end up wars or human nature.

And yes, noone should force everyone else, but not only om religious stuff. Sometimes there has been non-religious truths to which people are forced and that collides ireemediably with other thinkings.

I am not sure why one philosophical thinking should be better than other just bc it does not contain religion.

In fact, I consider a big part of most religious a compilation of wise advice about human nature. You can believe it or not, take it or not, that is a choice, but when not taken into fanatism I do not think it is harmful.

Again, that is not anreason to force a position to others. But there are a handful of things that are very controversial.

My workflow leans on AI for some tasks: review what I wrote, drop me a one-off script (this one is the generative exception), and so on.Or even initial scaffolding.

For the rest I do not. I do not place AI-generated code anywhere.

You lose all control AND UNDERSTANDING.

When things go wrong it gets very messy.

I will keep doing this, I think it works well, I emjoy programming and I think it is productive.

For testimg I tend to write randomized testing, which takes a bit of design but oncr you have it, well, it os test-generatove and increases the quality of checks.

I did not see a single bold claim of these discoveries or those "self-building models" that Claude and others have internally with a proof of their existence.

So yes, I am also skeptical. I think these companies are more intoncartelizing and colluding via propaganda than delivering stuff. They do deliver some, but very far from their promises.

These companies dangerously mimic behaviors I usually attribute to politicians.

BSD is the future. Wishful thinking. Nothing bad about it, but chances are low.

Ss for AI slop. There is lots, but I do not think Linus will tolerate a heavy quality degradation and policies will be set up to strike a good balance.

Consumers should punish these behaviors fiercely.

I find deeply stupid to buy a tv that can potentially spy you but I am pretty sure they do it with phones also...

Every day I want to keep tech more fenced and far from me and only use it for what I need.

1984 purposes.

Just in case slop is not strong enough.

Thank you. I was tempted to press but I was afraid of making a mess. I won't.

> I don't think "volubility"

Indeed I got it wrong bc I translated from spanish and it seems to be a false friend. The word I meant is "malleable".

> The actual reason is much simpler. The industry is built on a handful of game engines

This is a strong reason, but then why in other areas they consider it over C++ for greenfield but it hardly happens in games?

> Axum and Actix are phenomenal web frameworks

Compared to what? I see ASP.NET Core and Quarkus very competitive. The virtual threads in Java are great, paired with structured concurrency IMHO.

If I have to go microservice or API, I would choose FastAPI for fastest delivery and if I have to rewrite, Go, unless it is massive scale and scaling horizontally becomes a headache I would not consider Rust/C++ for this.

All the backend, etc. for the company I have been working for is C++ for the fast parts but all tools around are Python (with NiceGUI and Flask mostly).

I think the combination is quite powerful, btw.

> Rust is great for rapid protoyping, IMO

If you have to iterate a lot the shape of your code... no, it is not any good at this...

> Rapid prototyping is almost a meme at this point

> People did this a lot when rust was not as popular but there are plenty of very good rust programmers now who understand the language and can make programs that are significantly more performance for a marginal development cost.

Why isn't the game industry moving to it then? Bc it just cannot compete at volubility with C++, among other things. Yes, you can have skilled people, but the borrow checker is still there and that is an anti-change-me-fast fact of life. I think things like sending batches of info to the GPU in casted ways, alignment, etc. all go against safety naturally but this is fundamentally what needs to be done anyway when transfering data to the GPU, so adding a layer of safety for the sake of doing it to notice that your data-oriented pipeline has to suddenly change its shape would mean repeating work...

Namely, Rust is just not good at this. Rust is good if you can replicate a safe layer that is very reusable every time (when interacting with unsafe) or when you do not need unsafe at all or hardly, where you can take advantage of its safety fully.

Also, there are certain very tweaked data structures such as Boost.MultiIndex or linked lists with intrusive hooks and others that are not easy at all in Rust and they do have value in some situations. I had some of this in some telecommunication systems before.

Give me something like boost.multiindex for Rust, and maybe I could think of trying some experiments.

I think C++ is an excellent choice due to its volubility actually. Bc when I want safety, I mostly have it (but I have done a lot of C++, admittedly).

They strike different balances.

Rust is absolute performance, similar to C++. Go is deliver fast and get a very good performance to effort ratio.

> Even with coding agents

Because of coding agents? :D

> Not every piece of software needs a hundred contributors

I see it more as a piece of software being feasible to be maintained over time: if it is only me, it is more likely to end up dying soon, if it attracts adoption, it just gets better, more battle-tested, etc. independently of the economic factor.

I recall (could be wrong, talk from the top of my head), VLC also did it years ago.

> and you wanted to share it, you could, without any expectation of usage, merely that it might help just one extra person out there

Related: how do you think you can attract more people, by setting a restrictive copyleft that some people will use in their spare time or by attracting even corporations with money that will end up committing to a repo that is used in half of the world?

Note that I am talking about adoption bc thanks to adoption things just do not get rotten. If you make a piece of software and set a license that noone wants to touch, you will see it stall and die in front of your face.

Do not take me wrong, I mean, I think it is fair to contribute back, collaborating, sponsoring and so on. But it is a fact of life that if you make certain choices you make adoption more difficult with all the consequences it entails.

I do know what the original spirit of such licenses is. I was talking about real side-effects these choices have.