jshen

Then why aren't Europeans using them?

Good call out, India is likely the most viable option.

It's not clear that anything will be kneecapped. You need more than a desire to not use these products, you also need a viable alternative. Using products from China or Russia probably isn't deemed viable if the concern is politics, which leads to a need for Europe or Canada to build alternatives. They have not been good at this for a long time, maybe that will change, but it's not clear that it will.

Which dynamically typed languages perform like a statically typed language?

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure that's what that role was intended to do.

yes, but they typically hire a singular CEO to drive a cohesive vision and strategy with the check that they can fire the CEO at anytime.

Right, and it's TBD if that will turn out to be more or less effective. I'm hopeful, but more voices isn't always better.

It depends what the alternative is. A vacuum is worse for example.

It's been winning for a while

If we want the fediverse to take off we need a solution to the "LOT of traffic" issue.

You're showing it's expensive to get a lot of views on a video, or as you say, it's not expensive if you get a small amount of views.

I want the fediverse and open web to be viable, and we need a solution to hosting high view count videos.

The other issue is that it's expensive. You can put a video on youtube for free and they carry the cost and cover it with advertising. If you self-host and your videos get a LOT of traffic it gets expensive quickly.

I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic. The demands for power by AI is immediate and extremely large. We can't bring nuclear online fast enough so it will likely keep co2 output high.

Assuming you are right, when would you expect the rate of atmospheric co2 increases to start to decline?

Co2 levels are the best metric for progress, and progress would be a steady lowering of the rate of increase. We are not seeing that, and AI's power hunger is likely to make it worse despite all of the positive things you mentioned.

I don't see any progress in terms of the rate of increase in atmospheric co2 over time.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Your example is infinitesimally small, climate change is not. But you didn't answer the question either, what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

We're splitting hairs, but that still leaves the question, "what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.

Trends change. There is still no hard evidence that static types are net positive outside of performance.

People say this all the time, but I've never seen any data proving it's true. Should be rather easy too, I'm at a big company and different teams use different languages. The strictly typed languages do to have fewer defects, and those teams don't ship features any faster than the teams using loosely typed languages.

What I've experienced is that other factors make the biggest difference. Teams that write good tests, have good testing environments, good code review processes, good automation, etc tend to have fewer defects and higher velocity. Choice of programming language makes little to no difference.

I think there are two reasons.

1) Some books have images, charts, tables, etc. The screen size makes a big difference for these.

2) The format of the "book". Reading a PDF for example is much better on a bigger screen.

Yes, no major disagreement here. You can also point to the Us debt/deficit as another major storm cloud on the horizon. Trump is the worst offender on that, but far from the only one.

Glad you agree with me! The person I originally replied to said, "these economic problems are ENTIRELY the result of bad policies"

I questioned the use of ENTIRELY in this sentence, "these economic problems are ENTIRELY the result of bad policies", that is not partisan.

You aren't trying to have a conversation. Have a good day, I have better things to do.

I'm as anti-trump as anyone. He's doing tremendous harm to our economy and our society. Your anger is making you see things that aren't there. All I did was question the assumption that our economic problems are ENTIRELY the result of bad policy. Some how you jumped to some very wrong conclusions based on that tiny shred of information which wasn't even about Trump.

Debt cycles would be one example that's not a policy decision. https://youtu.be/SoKr0QVCLPA?si=kKcXNetb-kAPr1S8

Edit: having said that, "these economic problems are ENTIRELY the result of bad policies". That's a very bold claim, which warrants some strong evidence. No one has provided any strong evidence that it's ENTIRELY from bad policies.

Debt cycles would be one. https://youtu.be/SoKr0QVCLPA?si=kKcXNetb-kAPr1S8

Those are bad things. It doesn't mean there aren't other contributors to our economic challenges.

Those are bad things. It doesn't mean there aren't other contributors to our economic challenges.

I don't believe it's entirely the result of bad policies, but you also left if vague. Which bad policies are entirely causing this in your opinion?