robot_no_421

You've only got two bakeries where you live? One 400km away and one down your block? You've never found a new restaurant online? You've never looked at reviews on yelp?

Idk what to tell you. Based on your example (only search results for bakeries are 400km away), the problem is where you live, not the internet.

Wow, only location, huh? Doesn't matter if their product is actually good? And I guess if there are two bakeries in the same location (happens every day in these places called "cities"), I will just pick randomly then.

If you really think bakers don't benefit from using computers, then you're just not thinking very hard. I always look up the reviews of the bakeries I go to if I'm buying a cake or something. I wouldn't risk buying something at a bakery without checking online if it's worth it or not.

>If websites mattered, then small businesses wouldn't have the crappiest websites ever.

If websites DIDNT matter, these small businesses would not have websites at all. I'm not saying you need a good website. You just need any website for discovery. Your example actually supports my arguement - why would small businesses be wasting time with websites unless it helped them?

You're picking exceptions to the rule and claiming that those exceptions invalidate the whole rule. Sure some bakeries are just better than others, a good bakery with no website will do better than a bad bakery with a website.

But all things considered, having an online presence always helps your business. A fantastic bakery with a website will get more customers than a fantastic bakery with no website.

Even if those people aren't using computers at their job (and I even disagree with that), they still use computers. A baker with a computer and internet access has access to more recipes than a baker without a computer. A baker with a website and an online presence is finding more customers than a baker who only exists in the real world.

As a matter of fact, the new boiler my plumber (who has a webpage and I found online, mind you) recently installed has computer chips and circuits. My plumber seems very technically literate and knowledgeable about the tech as well.

Police offices are now using AI to catch people. Even before, they were using computers in criminology for DNA samples.

So all of the professions you listed use computers all the time for their job. Both directly and indirectly. A baker without internet, a plumber with no computer knowledge, a police office stuck using analog tools are all worse off than their tech savvy counterparts.

Depend on them for retirement, given that most of their wealth is tied up in their busted real estate market.

Why does having a large population matter? If you look at the top 10 countries in terms of population (China, India, US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico), most of those places are not exactly heavyweights on the international scene.

There are so many factors that contribute more to economic and political success than sheer population. I would even say that a large population is a bad thing in many cases. India would be better off with fewer people. Their infrastructure can't handle their density, they don't have enough jobs for their educated workers, there's a lot of sectarianism conflict between various religions and casts, etc.

High population + low GDP per capita is probably the worst situation a country can be in IMO. So it's not enough for China to have a billion people—those people have to be doing something productive for the economy.

You should be measuring that population as a % of their total population. Not sure why you're comparing absolute numbers.

China has triple the young people we do, but quadruple the old people that depend on the young people.

China is facing severe demographic issues for the next 20-30 years due to their terribly short sighted one-child policy and their poor immigration rates. Literally the opposite of what you're saying. Where on earth did you get your facts from?

>If the CEO of a gambling company said, "Gambling is good." Do you think that would be more or less effective propaganda that if the CEO paid someone else, let's say someone in a white lab coat, to say the same?

Difference is that a the guy in the lab coat has to conduct experiments on it, get them peer reviewed, publish a paper on it, and lay out all the assumptions and methodologies before it's actually "science". So it's not as simple as getting a guy in a lab coat to say it. Especially when all the other guys in lab coats are saying "that guy is lying and his methodology is garbage".

I'm simply of the opinion that a single blog post isn't enough info for you to make a judgement call on whether a rewrite or a port is a good idea or not.

Criticizing an article without even pointing out any specific criticisms (saying their technical reasons are "weak" isn't actually pointing out a flaw in their explanation, it's just you voicing your personal opinion) just seems to me like people are disagreeing out of habit or principle rather than that they actually have a reason why this company is making a bad decision.

Again, it's a blog post to announce their decision and explain their thought process. It wasn't a blog post meant to persuade lossolo that this port is required. For all you know, the decision making in the backroom might have been much more argumentative and demanding of a justification than what was written in a blog post.

And yes, people who hate on Rust on principle do rub me the wrong way. The pendulum has swung too far the other way; there are more annoying people complaining about Rust these days than annoying people rewriting things in Rust.

Right, that's why my first sentence was "everyone should be skeptical of every source"....

But if I'm forced to trust someone (and most of us are on a daily basis), I'd rather trust the guys whose whole job revolves around the principle of "we require evidence and repeatable results before we believe you" than pretty much every other profession.

Completely separate from my above point, I'd also say that I do believe scientists are on average more trustworthy than other career workers at a personal level. It's a profession that tends to attract people concerned with objective truth and rational logic. Just like how politics tends to attract those who want to work with people and the police force attracts people who are comfortable with violence. At least from my personal, anecdotal view.

Everyone should be skeptical of all sources.

But out of the myriad of various opinions coming from politicians, CEOs, propagandists, flat out out idiots, and everything else in between, scientists are arguably the class of truth sayers you should be least skeptical of.

So while the title is technically true and I agree with the premise of the article, the article itself is wholly unnecessary at best and damaging at worst. Until we begin to be more skeptical in general and learn to distrust all the other mouthpieces vomiting lies every day, let's trust the scientists.

>"so what if you think a for-profit company is making an extraneous decision and wasting the time of their employees?"

Yea exactly, so what? Are you a share holder? Are you an employee? Do you even have evidence that what you're saying is in fact true? Do you even know what you're talking about?

>you don't need to be a language fanboi

Ah I see, you're one of those Rust haters. Nothing I said here had anything to do with Rust. They could have been porting to any other language and I'd say the exact same thing.

>superficially changing languages to meet the trend is wasteful/ harmful/ dangerous/ stupid in nearly all cases

In other words, only when the high and mighty serf agrees with a company's decisions is it a good idea. He doesn't even need to know anything about the company, he already knows from his omniscient powers when a company decision is the right or wrong one.

>Well, you need to justify your new cost to the rest of the company/other people.

I mean, do they really? They already got the green-light to port to Rust; so the people whose opinions actually matter, the people responsible for the health of that company, have already been convinced.

So what if you think their justification is weak? Do you believe the company is worse off because they're switching to Rust? Do you even have all the information to make that judgement call? Do you honestly even care?

Article was not written to convince skeptical contrarians, it was written to explain their decisions. I doubt they care that you aren't convinced of their choices when you have no skin in their game.

If you read their article clearly laying our their reasons for their decision to migrate to Rust and your take away was "I disagree with their reasons, they really did it for a different reason", idk what to tell you. You're basically turning a statement they made into an argument they aren't making.

I'm not even sure what kind of point you're trying to convey here. What you're describing is called "fraud" and is super illegal. If someone leaves their door unlocked, you could also enter their house and steal tens of thousands of dollars from them. Your point is...?

Yes, and no. Don't ask me rhetorical questions if you don't want a rhetorical answer.

You're not modeling or predicting anything though. That's like saying "what if I built a bridge that failed on the first day? A computer would need several days to calculate all the forces that led to the failure, but my bridge failed just fine without any computer help".

Well... yes. But try building a bridge that doesn't break.

Or to keep with your scenario, try to predict exactly where and how your stick will break before you break it. You can't.

The reason why you can't spend it at the store is because the store doesn't accept it. The reason why the store doesn't accept it is because of the aforementioned scaling and complexity issues.

Can't you just take good advice without getting so defensive? It's not a life or death matter.

Cryptocurrency almost solves this, but the scaling issues and high knowledge barrier to entry is still holding this idea back.

Anybody feel like this is ironically going to accelerate the decline of twitter?

I'm never, EVER making a twitter account. However publishers still communicate with me via tweets I could see. Now that I need an account to view tweets, publishers just have a smaller audience.

I'll just see the screenshots on reddit anyway :)

Ok, but do you actually enjoy using CMake, or do you accept how horribly complex it is because it lets you do some esoteric thing you want to do?

Every tool has limitations, sure. But I think you're disagreeing about something I didn't even say. I didn't say cargo can replace CMake. I said that cargo is really a pleasure to use when it's the tool you need. If you had the choice to either build with CMake or cargo, I promise you that you'd rather use cargo if possible.

Building most C/C++ projects seems pretty miserable no matter what build process you're using. CMake seems like a huge mental burden in itself. Cargo just does its job and gets out of the way.

I cannot overemphasize how enjoyable it is to work with cargo when I'm coding in Rust; I think it's one of the major reasons why Rust took off. As complicated as Rust is, it's a breeze to not only build projects but also add existing projects as dependencies.

Another way to tell is to try to read things or look at a clock/numbers in your dream. Often time the information will not make sense, and will change if you look away and back.

I've done this myself once or twice in a dream and I actually was able to tell I was dreaming but the shock of my realization woke me up.

It's not really that hard of a problem. You just use a different allocator (like the author did in this article). In fact, you can even write your own allocator with unsafe if you want (jemalloc is already using a lot of unsafe in the code anyway, you need to use it to build any real allocator).

'unsafe' doesn't equal 'don't use'. I'll admit that unsafe Rust has a lot of rough and unergonomic features compared to C, but it's conceptually and algorithmically just as easy (or hard) in Rust to build an allocator as it is in C and C++.

You also still get the help of the borrow checker in unsafe rust, so there are even some advantages.

If you want to check for overflow, then you can use the methods that explicitly check for overflow:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.u32.html#method.chec...

So this is not an issue at all.

It's still fun once you learn how to solve it. But fun in a different way.

You're treating it as a puzzle to solve. But once you learn how to solve it, it ceases to be a puzzle and it becomes a really fun fidget toy. Seeing how fast you can solve it is enjoyable and gives your fingers some great dexterity exercise. I have one on my desk and when I want to take a break from coding I'll scramble it up and fidget around with it for a bit.

Obviously not because the intent and the message behind those words would be clear. They would be choosing those words because they want to discriminate against non-believers by branding them as inferior.

There is no good faith argument to be had in why a religion would choose "heathen" as a description of a non-believer unless they mean it in a negative way. The message itself is clearly bad and the chosen language reflects it.

That's not the same as me calling a pregnant person a "pregnant woman" or someone else calling them a "uterus having pregnant person". The meaning in both cases is a biological female human who is carrying a baby in pregnancy. You can find people who will get offended by either phrase, but why? I don't get it. Neither phrase is meant to be disparaging or trivializing towards other people. If you hear "pregnant woman" you should assume that "woman" is meant in a biological sense and not a gender sense.

This seems to be a big hullabaloo about nothing. Language is a tool for communicating meaning; as long as the other person is understanding what you're saying then it's not that big a deal how the message was delivered. People get so offended over nothing. If some people don't want to use the words "mother" and "brestfeeding", so be it. I personally still use those terms because they feel right to me, and I don't plan on changing. But it doesn't bother me that other people are making the change.

If we just learned to communicate with each other and understand intent instead of getting so micro-aggrieved over how language is semantically used, we'd all be better off.