omginternets

Oh wow, Kagi is a little gem -- thanks for introducing me to it!

> I hate the /s they've adopted. [...] I dislike the implication sarcasm cannot be conveyed via text.

I suspect autism is overrepresented in the Reddit population.

It’s quite common for redditors to consider anything short of far-left as being far-right.

Out of curiosity, what was this fringe opinion? I think this is the elephant in the room when it comes to Reddit: it’s been captured by a certain kind of radical ideologue.

> socio-political platform with so much slime in between the subs that I find useful.

That’s putting it nicely! I’m increasingly seeing it as a breeding ground for fringe-left radicalization.

Have you found any generalizable methods for finding non-Reddit communities for niche interests?

I’ve felt it too. I can’t fight the feeling that it happens to attract a certain kind of mentally ill person. Specifically, the preponderance of anxious, neurotic persons, often with a persecution complex and a militant ideology, is enormous. The result is a climate of unbridled vitriol and outright hate for whatever group they hold responsible for their woes.

It increasingly feels like Reddit is a breeding ground for various types of extremism (usually left-leaning, with some notable exceptions).

I have a sneaking suspicion the author’s next article will be something along the lines of “people who are worse engineers than me keep getting promoted, and it’s not fair”.

How did this manifest, exactly?

Perhaps the EU might consider defending the sovereignty of its constituent states? That might even put a dent in Euroskepticism.

I will never understand your particular brand of whataboutism.

For once I disagree with the EFF. This is a national sovereignty issue masquerading as a freedom issue.

Perhaps, but I suspect this is part of the rationale behind the law.

The impact of spotlights on nocturnal life are also significant.

I vaguely recall that in vivo neural oscillations also exhibit fractal structure (in some cases at least).

The premise of this discussion is that another HN user has observed that companies routinely rely on people forgetting to unsubscribe. Again, the idea is that this is part of the core business model.

As I've already mentioned, we agree that personal responsibility is important. I believe we can also agree that some people are unable to be fully responsible for reasons that escape them (depression, severe ADHD, other more pressing responsibilities like children who aren't doing well, etc.)

I think it takes a special kind of misanthropy to suggest that it's fine for companies to base their business model on the fact that such people will pay for a service they aren't using. I am not arguing for legislature or anything of the sort, but I still think it's unambiguously unethical.

It is, in the most literal sense, exploitative.

As stated in another comment in this thread, there seem to be fundamental limits at play.

Knowingly optimizing your business to maximize my chances of forgetting, or making it difficult to unsubscribe, is absolutely unethical.

Can you elaborate on the specific meanings of “resource” and “reserve”? This has piqued my interest.

Detectors detect, they don’t prevent. All detectors suffer misses.

Firstly, thank you for the collection of links. Believe it or not, I've been researching this on the side, and there are a few interesting discussions in there I had missed!

>I've softened my position on this and have a grudging respect for where Rust wound up

>I never would have imagined it could even work -- and still don't know that I think the result quite pays for itself.

I concur. There are at least two big reasons to love Rust: type-checking and low overhead. I happen to work in a field where I don't need the latter, but would probably benefit from the former.

(And, I am critically dependent on preemptive concurrency, which not only means that it has to work well, but also that I'm sensitive to ergonomics in this domain.)

I mean, Rust libraries can use `unsafe`...

You might (rightly!) respond that you can exclude dependencies that use `unsafe`, but then you've just displaced the problem to "now I need to find new libraries". Point being, it's going to be a schlep either way. There will always be a schlep.

Which schleps you want to deal with, and how you want to deal them is the trade-off space that different programming languages position themselves within.

As I said in another comment, Rust is great, but there's a reason it's not universal. That reason is not that people are ignorant, stupid or lack the incentive to avoid schlep. It is instead that sometimes, dealing with Rust is harder than dealing with the rest of the damn problem.

In my case, I have noticed that Go is a good solution when Rust is not. I now have two arrows in my quiver. Neither is my favorite. I think this is the right attitude, personally.

>Doesn't that mean precisely that Rust is easier than Go?

I suppose that boils down to whether you find it easier to wrangle Rust-isms or track down runtime bugs/panics. In many cases, I'd rather wrangle Rust-isms. In some cases (and they're not rare), I'd rather wrangle Go's runtime errors.

What makes some Rust people insufferable (not you, friend!) is that they think everything is about the language and toolchain, and they lose sight of the tremendous relevance of the application.

There's a reason not everybody is switching to Rust, and it's not because they're ignorant or stupid.

I'm a relative newcomer to Rust, and yes, this tracks with my experience. I know the "Go is simple" meme is overused, but it really is a remarkably small language. For all the amazing engineering that has gone into Rust, the price you pay is that you have to think and track a lot of stuff.

Surely it's unethical to take advantage of people, even the irresponsible ones? There's a significant minority of people out there who struggle with this kind of thing because of circumstances beyond their control. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were saying "they deserve it".

It's not "personal responsibility" or "ethical business". It's both.

My friend, did you jump to conclusions here? ;)

Okay, but I'm not advocating that. My point is that they're being weasels. They're setting the stage so that they can work on things that anyone with a moderately flexible would view would qualify as "weapons", while hiding behind "it's not technically a gun or a missile".

I'm with you. I think weapons are important. I don't like double-speak, though.

How long until enemy soldiers wear camouflage? How long until decoy targets are set up? How long until the enemy tries to blend in with the civilian population? How long until they start wearing body armor? How long until they start looking at EXIF data on Facebook pictures and mortaring those GPS coordinates?

Yes, war is a game of cat and mouse. Notice how no exploit or countermeasure is definitive.

By what measure is China an open economy? That flies in the face of their long history of currency manipulation and explicit protectionist policy.

I don't think anyone seriously considers Russia as an emerging superpower. There's a difference between being an international player and being a superpower.

"Don't be evil" => What's evil?

"Don't build weapons" => What's a weapon?