msbarnett

> When really English is far closer to a language with morphological future tense than it is to Japanese.

I really don’t agree, as a speaker of both languages.

There’s a lot of western-exceptionalism invested in the notion that Japanese somehow has an exceptional paucity of ability to express future events that’s categorically different than English, when in reality the situations are quite quite close to one another.

It’s not that English doesn’t have a future tense in a casual/non-strictly-morphological sense of “tense” — it’s that by that casual definition really Japanese is in almost the same boat, and we should stop playing this “invent arbitrary ways to claim the inscrutable Japanese mind speaks without the ability to use a future tense but English is different because I Say So” game.

Yeah, but we're just trying to be consistent: when people say "Japanese has no future tense", they mean a morphological tense, and it's equally true that English has no morphological future tense either.

Both languages, of course, still have other mechanisms for doing this, either via specifying the point in time "She's buying that tomorrow", or via auxillary words (is going to buy, kaeru tsumori desu).

Those are modal auxiliaries. If English had a true future morphological tense, there would be some inflection to the word "go" itself that would mean "go-but-in-the-future"

> You have no authority over someone else's body. It sucks, but it's reality.

This is obviously untrue: the state can lock up and kill you, is currently asserting its right to restrict people from having abortions performed on them, and has been increasingly aggressive about attack peoples' right to undergo hormone replacement therapy, among many many other examples. Mandatory vaccination has very much been something the state has historically exercised its powers to enforce, quite successfully in the case of smallpox.

We're extremely inconsistent about what authority we exercise over others' bodies, generally, but we're a very far cry from never exercising it or acting as if doing so were simply beyond the pale.

The jobs graph also doesn't match DevJobsScanner's results: https://www.devjobsscanner.com/blog/top-8-most-demanded-lang...

Where is IEEE finding all these jobs hiring for "shell"?

All of the M1/Pro/Max/Ultra shared the same fundamental core design. Presumably the same will be true of the M2 series.

As someone else here said, fab nodes are more like Lego blocks than a printer’s dpi – moving a design to a new node means rebuilding it in terms of the new node’s building blocks, not just “shrinking the design”.

So if the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra are intended to follow the same “reuse the cores (possibly rearranged) with more GPU blocks/cache etc” it seems unlikely. But if the make a design break within the M2 series then it’s possible?

I’d expect Apple to follow their historical behavior and lead with the next A-series phone processor on the new node first. M1 Pro/Max/Ultra chips have huge surface areas – since process defect rates are driven down over time, it makes sense to start with your smallest chips first, so that you can get good yield out of your big chips once the defect rate is lower.

High DPI screens are a godsend when you are reading text on them all day, I’ll never go back to a 1080p screen. And I’d hardly say a MacBook Pro is suffering in the battery life department for the choice.

Besides, the claim was comparable at half the cost. We’re not now going to shift the goal posts by playing “not comparable but I like it better”. It’s comparable or it isn’t.

> Well, I spent my twenties (in the 80's) in school, or working for 30K or 36K/year.

Ballpark the 80's as 1985 and that works out to 82,604.83 to 99,125.80, for the curious. What most people would consider an excellent salary in their 20s, probably (software engineers in the current market excepted, perhaps).

Do you have any conception of how much TCAM would be required to individually route 14 billion IP addresses? And even beyond that what else would be involved to route things fast enough at that granularity.

A top end router today can handle ~million routes. You’re talking a four orders of magnitude increase.

> No OS hosted repo can keep up with rust and it's particular selection of bleeding edge types.

Seems empirically false https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/rust/

If your distro is unwilling to update a package with a single backwards-compatible minor version bump every 6 weeks, that’s a cultural issue, not a technical one. The “stability“ Debian imagines it gets from shipping a years-old compiler version instead of keeping up-to-date with non-breaking compiler updates is entirely mythical.

Pick a less sclerotic distro next time.

Objective-C was doing sufficiently-fast UI updates for it to run well on iPhones 10 years ago, while relying on objc_msgsend, which is _much_ slower than a virtual function call or even a Qt signal.

You wouldn't want to use ObjC's message sending OR Qt's signalling mechanism in a tight inner loop – hell, you probably don't want to deal with the indirection of the vtable incurred by a virtual function in a tight inner loop. But all of these are more than fast enough for interactive UI work.

My distro gets updated software when it's available; sounds like your beef is with your distro insisting that the entire world should work on its timelines instead of vice-versa.

> The status of C as the lingua franca of today's computing makes it worthwhile to write tools for it, so there are many tools being written.

The vast, vast majority of programmers aren’t doing their computing by writing C anymore. It’s been the better part of 20 years since you could plausibly call it the Lingua Franca of computing.

When you view a commit on GitHub, you can attach a comment to any given line of it. It looks basically like a comment left on a line of code in a PR, except tied to a commit instead of a PR.

> If O(3) people want to design a new language, how should they incorporate the "optimizations that other languages have had for 30 years" into that language that will satisfy the internet's peanut gallery?

Generally this is done by building the language on an existing compiler backend, and the ability to do this is in fact why the backend/frontend distinction in compilers was created to begin with.

> Go is the most successful language released in the last 20 to 30 years, so if this is meant as a critique I can't see how it's valid.

False dichotomy. A language can both be popular and have left very obvious optimizations on the table for years.

* Completes construction of the building shell. Next step is all of the electrical, sewage, HVAC and related infrastructure to build the clean rooms inside, and then only once that is done, start bringing in fab equipment.

So it’s quite a ways away from being operational.

TBH I'm surprised that even works in Python – modifying a collection you're in the middle of iterating seems like a bad habit to get into in any language.

edit: in fact, if you specifically use a deque in Python the way you are in Rust, Python will throw a "RuntimeError: deque mutated during iteration". This is just a bad approach in any language, honestly.

> Yeah, and you used it in a way that made it sound derogatory.

> "Creole bullshit"

They didn't write that it sounds like "creole bullshit", they wrote that it sounds like "investor creole language bullshit" ie) bullshit in an investor creole language ie) investors saying bullshit in a language consisting of words which mean one thing in English but which have a different meaning in the language the investors are speaking.

You've clearly totally misinterpreted the original post due to an unfamiliarity with the linguistics term "creole language", a term which does not even derive from the Creole peoples of Louisiana (although both the people and the term share a common French root).

Basically the whole episode revolves around one character's emotional difficulties and Will feeling a bit ignored by their mutual friend who is in town, all while Will's mother has suddenly left town the night before after giving a hasty, extremely vague and obviously fake excuse to her sons & other characters – read through the lens of "it's supposed to be Will's birthday" it makes all his close friends and his mother seem insanely cruel to be completely ignoring his birthday when in fact that wasn't what the writers were going for, they just didn't realize the visual date matched a line of dialog from a prior season.

I don't disagree but that says to me that a lot of the "Rust is hard" narrative is actually "low-level systems programming is hard", eg) domain complexity is being misattributed to the language.

> terse codewords for the well-know arguments.

half-assed gestures to lazy forum-warrior tropes, would be a more accurate description.

Creole language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language

> Perhaps the math is not working out?

Bad sign for a company betting it all on "the metaverse".

What solution? Meta's entire proposal is "stop making the adjustment and let dealing with the accumulated error be some future person's problem".

"Let's just kick the can down the road" isn't solving anything.

27, not 37

> Every six months is simply too often. If it was switched to an adjustment made every 2-10 decades with at least a decade to update the file then the problem would be greatly lessened.

You seem confused. It doesn't happen every 6 months, it gets announced 6 months in advance – since we know there won't be one this year, it will have only happened twice total in the 10 years prior to December this year.

That's hardly an enormous and constant disruption – turning it in to a multi-minute disruption "every 10 decades" would likely be more concentratedly disruptive, leading to more calls to put it off to avoid the immediate pain, leading to ever-more accumulated error.

Spreading the pain out into a leap second every few years feels like a much better and more sustainable solution. This keeps processes in-use and up-to-date rather than long-forgotten-and-everyone-who-knew-them-is-dead.

> Some states have rule to report COVID death like this

The claim was specifically about CDC reporting rules, not the rules of how individual states report statistics themselves (which the CDC has no control over).

> If you choose a license which explicitly says you're not waiving your patents, it insinuates that you are holding some, and they are used in the project.

Not anymore than the BSD-no-nuclear clause insinuates that there's a version somewhere that is suitable for being run in the control system of nuclear power plants, it doesn't.

CC0 just makes it clear what is in-scope for the license – copyright, not patents, because it's intended as a formalization of public domain and that is not something that can be formalized re: patents – unlike BSD or GPLv2, which implicitly are about copyright but never actually come out and say so (and if you were looking to screw someone over with some patent you hold, you're better off with something that doesn't even mention it, like GPLv2, rather than prompting the lawyers to explicitly ask about patents because the license reminds them that they're not covered)

> If a license has never been considered an implicit waiver, it seems overkill to say that "a license that says nothing about rights is materially better than a license that explicitly does not waive rights," no?

Yes, and I suspect a lawyer for a sufficiently-malicious GPLv2 dev looking to submarine an org could probably even take it further – because the FSF felt it was necessary to create GPLv3 in order to explicitly grant patent rights to GPLv3 licensors of the code, choosing to continue to use GPLv2 like my client the malicious-submarine-dev did, instead of relicensing in GPLv3, was done precisely in order to signal that they are expressly choosing to grant a copyright license but not a patent license to users.

Singling out CC0 seems arbitrary – if Fedora wants patent certainty, they should be sticking to things like GPLv3 and Apache

> Last I checked (few months ago) the CDC in the US was still counting COVID deaths as any deceased with active COVID infection.

This is not at all an accurate summary of the CDC’s Cause of Death reporting guidelines for Covid-19: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

If you die in a car accident with Covid-19 in your system, the UCOD is massive trauma from car accident, not “Covid-19”. The CDC reporting guidelines make it clear that Covid only rises to the level of UCOD if it meets the criteria of “ (a) the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death”