mikebenfield

You can have your single family home. I don't want one, and you shouldn't be able to dictate what kind of housing I live in.

You could just support new housing development and sane urban planning. Then maybe Austin will still be a pleasant and semi-affordable place to live in 10 or 20 years. Lots of moderately wealthy people moving in could be, in some ways, a boon for Austin, if you don't do everything exactly wrong.

(The alternative is to refuse to build new housing or do any reasonable urban planning out of resentment towards newcomers, and then watch in frustration as traffic becomes even worse, housing prices continue to skyrocket, and you have rapidly rising homelessness and crime. The same way most cities in California handled this situation.)

> Did you ever check out a book from the school library?

Uh, yeah. All the time actually.

Given the scale of wasteful packaging and other materials people dispose of without a thought, a DVD seems like basically nothing.

"Terminal level" doesn't mean the highest level.

But the alternative isn’t none at all. The alternative is putting them somewhere better.

You weren’t worried about traffic when people built who knows how many thousands of single family homes many miles from anything people might actually want to go to, making traffic in many US cities a complete disaster. And now that people are considering a mode of development that’s just slightly more sane - a little less car centric and a little more dense… suddenly this is what’s going to somehow push the traffic over the edge. It’s so precisely backwards it’s honestly funny.

Most of us understand this perfectly well. But there’s not a lot we can do about it.

Rust supports reference counting, but it’s a stretch to say it encourages it. I don’t use Rc or Arc all that often.

You're literally the one who made the analogy of "open source" to trademarks, and now you're trying to shoot down my explanation of why your analogy doesn't work by saying trademark status is irrelevant... Good grief.

The comparison to "free lunch" doesn't really make sense. The phrase "free lunch" has been used for what it transparently means since forever.

Nobody used the term "open source" before it was deliberately invented. There was plenty of software in the 80s and 90s that we could retroactively call "open source," but nobody used that phrase at the time. The phrase "open source" was specifically created in 1998 because the term then in common use, "free software," was too generic and people were confused about what it meant. So a new term was created for the express purpose to have a term with no prior meaning so that a specific meaning could be assigned to it.

You seem to think that because "open source" is a phrase you see a lot, it's a generic phrase that was always used informally and grew out of natural language. But that's not the case. It's a term of art that was artificially created with a specific meaning.

> Apparently recursion takes up more memory space than nested for loops

Recursion uses space on the call stack. The concern is not so much that you'll be using more memory, it's that the call stack has a fixed size and you might blow past that size, which will cause your program to terminate.

The comparison between recursion and "nested for loops" seems a bit off - generally it's recursion vs a single loop.

Whether it's best to avoid recursion depends on many factors. In any case, even when I do want to use iteration, it's often easiest to first formulate the algorithm as a recursive one, and then change it to use iteration.

I don't understand why you think this is a good counterexample. Google is still trademarked. If I make a search engine and say, "You can use my search engine to Google things," I'm probably in the wrong both legally and ethically.

But "open source" is also a made up name, just like Cheerios. Nobody was using the term "open source" before it was deliberately created in Palo Alto. The fact that you thought you knew what it meant without being given a definition, and what you thought was incorrect, might be considered a weakness of the term. But it doesn't change the nature of the name.

"Open source" is not a term that developed naturally through normal language development. It's a term of art specifically created to have a particular meaning.

Your argument is roughly equivalent to this one: "I can call this random cereal Cheerios, because language evolves and neither you nor General Mills decides how people use language."

The "dogmatic definition" of open source is what has been used for decades. Applying it to something that doesn't meet that definition invites confusion.

If a project wants to do something different, and develop an "open project" under some terms that aren't open source, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't call it something it's not.

They are definitely not doing much hiring.

But they also laid off plenty of young and new people...

Here's one of the things that honestly surprised me about the Python 2 -> 3 debacle. I witnessed people in 2020 starting new Python projects and deliberately choosing Python 2. For no real reason. They were fully aware that Python 3 existed, but they just sort of arbitrarily chose to use Python 2. This was about 12 years after Python 3 was originally released, it was after Python 2 was sunset, and none of the dependencies of these projects required Python 2.

It honestly makes me feel a little nihilistic about versioning and upgrades. I know there were many legitimate technical challenges for many people in moving from Python 2 to 3. But I now feel that versioning is always going to be bumpy, regardless of the technical issues, because a substantial number of users will make strange decisions.

This certainly doesn’t appear to be designed to spite Republicans. It appears to be a legitimate attempt to reduce gun violence (even if you don’t believe it will be effective), which is a serious problem in the US.

Contrast that with the topic of the article at hand, which is a solution for a non-problem and serves no purpose.

Like what? Name some. What things are done by liberals just to spite Republicans?

Actually, yes, there seems to be. The Republican political playbook seems to be mostly getting their based riled up about meaningless culture war nonsense. Here they can present themselves as fighting to get lazy liberal remote government workers back to the office rather than wasting tax money at home. It fits right into their style.

> I won't watch videos on a certain topic or from a specific channel for a few weeks and then Youtube thinks I never want to see it ever again

For me it's kind of the converse issue. I watch 2 or 3 videos on a topic and then YouTube thinks I'm obsessed with that topic and nothing else.

Normally the tools people use don’t dictate the license they must use for their code.

Since that feature isn’t available on an actual board, it would really hamper your development as a player to use it when playing online.

There are two big factors that make housing in a given area expensive.

Yes, one is that a lot of people want to live there. That one's inevitable though. Some places are more desirable to live than others. I don't want to live in a small town with nothing to do.

The other factor is when a city refuses to build sufficient housing. This one is not inevitable. It usually comes about due to entrenched interest in the value of existing housing. For instance, north San Jose has built no new housing in a decade, despite a well known housing crisis.

Branch prediction is pretty fundamental to CPU performance; unless we want much slower CPUs it’s necessary.

Although it’s interesting to think about how software could help with branch prediction, the simple answer about the kernel thing is that software is the wrong place in the architecture for branch prediction to happen. Maybe there’s some crazy alternative way things could be done, but in anything like the current computing model branch prediction has to happen in hardware.

Honestly I think we’ve already gone really far in this direction, maybe too far. Short term, commitment-free relationships are the norm. Alternative relationship structures like polyamory are pretty common and generate little controversy. Divorce rates are high.

If at any point your setup was configured so that emails sent at odd hours bothered you, that’s on you. Email was always meant to be asynchronous. The sender should never have to wonder if it’s a good time for you.

This is a remarkably bad idea. No, the differences between students will definitely not “average out” at this scale. And how do you expect to handle poorly performing schools as a whole? Do you not expect the quality of teachers there to just plummet?