simplotek

> For example, in Australia, the official recommendation is that healthy people under 30 not receive a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine (...)

It should be stressed that this guidance explicitly refers to a fourth dose of a vaccine. I feel it's disingenuous to use this example to try to refute the OP when the problem lies in people taking massive leaps of logic such as going from "it's ok to take 3 doses of a vaccine but the benefits of a fourth might not justify it" to "don't get vaccinated ever because you will die".

> since it enables a lot of cool tooling

What leads you to believe that the lack of alternatives leads to enabling "a lot of cool tooling"?

> and great new features are introduced quickly in the official implementation.

That has zero to do with existing only a single implementation, and everything to do with having developers working on unstable releases and a poor job thinking things though by writing stuff down both as proposals and specifications.

If there is a specification that was discussed and thought-through by competent individuals, nothing stops anyone in the world from reading the specs and implementing the same features.

> (...) such as Typescript

It seems you're oblivious to the fact that projects such as swc[1] exist, and have been adopted by projects such as deno.

[1] https://swc.rs/

> Elixir etc

I'm not familiar with Elixir nor am I in a googling mood. Nevertheless that was an awfully short list. Why is that?

> This simply isn't true. Only C/C++ people have ever cared about having multiple implementations and have to cling to the catastrophe that those two standards are because of it.

This comment is so blatantly wrong and detached from reality that it makes me wonder if it's just a good old fashioned troll.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any production programming language which does not have multiple independent implementations.

> Having two independent implementations is good for finding code depending on compiler bugs.

I'd go as far as to claim that having multiple independent implementations is a basic requirement for any programming language which has any aspirations of being production-ready.

> The Marriott have had some of their best earnings from the last 6 quarters.

This year was the first post-pandemic year where all restrictions were off and everyone not only returned to normal but also enthusiastically went on trips.

I recall that some European countries experienced long delays in airports due to the huge increase in demand for flights abroad. The Netherlands even saw Schipol announce they were forced to cut flights to be able to handle the load, in spite of being one of the largest airports in the world.

If a horeca business wasn't able to profit handsomely in 2022 then they better close doors.

You created this user account explicitly to downplay someone for running for their life with blurbs like "everyone gets death threats"?

> Doesn’t sound like a big market, and it has to compete with cargo planes (faster, more capacity than this Pathfinder 1 with only 4 tons) and helicopters (more nimble).

Some companies manage to be successful by tapping a market whose demand comes up rarely but is highly inelastic. We're talking about stuff like sea lifters that can handle ocean liners, or even mobile power stations.

I'm sure that some deep-pocketed organizations whose know-how focuses on subcontracting and commissioning work, like the UN, would willingly pay a premium to be able to transport large volumes of cargo throughout regions with little to no transportation infrastructure and where roadway traffic is a major volnerability. Being able to secure logistics without having to control routes or have to police anyone would be worth a small fortune.

> I asked this question, because I do have doubts they exist. Especially, any modern one.

It sounds like you don't do much, if any, professional work.

> These architectures were introduced around 20 years ago to address technical shortcomings of enterprise systems at that time.

No, not really, and your personal assertion completely misses the whole point of DDD or any software architectural style you mentioned.

The whole point is to keep software flexible and accommodating of change, and in the process reflect a set of very basic software design principles that avoid/eliminate problems such as circular dependencies or testability.

> Is any of the above a real pain in the project that you are building in 2022?

Again, you don't seem to have much if any professional experience. UI testing, or any type of testing involving UI work either directly or indirectly such as accessibility/localization or any end-to-end test in general, is still an unsolved problem and a bane of software engineers.

Nevertheless, your comment reads like a strawman. The main benefit, and the whole point, of layered architectures is to ensure the software architecture to simplify modifying/updating the bits that change very frequently and stabilize and minimize the need the fundamental bits that only rarely need to be touched. UIs tend to be the part of an application that is updated the most, thus it makes all the sense in the world to adopt a software architecture which handles UI as a separate external component which minimizes or eliminates both fan-in, and turns fan-out to be a non-issue by depending on abstract interfaces whose concrete implementations are injected. These are not dad's from the 1990s,these are fundamental software engineering concerns.

> Can anybody point an important and successful system (preferably open source) that is built following Hexagonal, Onion, or Clean architecture?

Most of the projects I ever workers with either started off as DD+Clean/Hexagonal architecture, or were refactored to comply with those architecture styles.

It's easy to understand why once you realize that those buzzwords are basically tags for a group of fundamental best practices that lead projects to become clear and easy to include changes.

> Encouraging worse security practices (dumping SSO for password logins) for an ideological goal that helps no one's privacy.

It hardly seems reasonable or rational to attack the mere thought of handing out all auth responsibilities to a shady monopoly with a track record of dubious practices and government tie-ins for being "an ideological goal that helps no one's privacy".

> I wonder what exactly they mean by this because JPEG-XL is a ISO standard.

I see there's some confusion. A specification might be formalized in an international standard, but implementations of said standard can and often are experimental.

You don't magically turn code production-ready by having a committee sign off on a document.

> Pretty sure that JPEG won the format war for the next JPEG, decades ago.

JPEG for lossy image formats, PNG for lossless.

> Do we know why they chose to remove it?

Phoenix had an article on why Google decided to remove JPEG-XL.

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Chrome-Dropping-JPEG-XL-Reason...

The official justification seems to be a) experimental nature of JPEG-XL, b) lack of demand, c) maintenance burden.

Take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't buy it.

> I doubt that countries bordering Russia are keen to have failed chaotic states with economic problems on their borders.

You're somehow ignoring that countries bordering Russia have already a failed chaotic state with economic problems on their border which also is systematically threatening with invasion, destruction, and genocide.

There are very good reasons why Baltic states are the highest per-capita providers of military and economic support to Ukraine.

> Why is "useful for illegal transactions" supposed to be a bad thing, when these illegal transactions are illegal for extremely dubious reasons?

Straw man based on a made-up quote. The article does not mention "useful for illegal transactions" anywhere. The article mentions legal transactions in only two occasions:

- "Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions"

- "Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions."

If you feel the need to refute what the ECB claimed, show where bitcoing is used in any significant extent for legal real-world transactions.

Not even El Salvador, with their push to adopt Bitcoin as the nation's official currency, Bitcoin transactions saw any significant uptake.

If you Google for it you'll get the gist of it. Wikipedia redirects "kitchen robot" to "food processor", and companies like Thermomix or Dúvida markets their products as "cooking robots" and "kitchen robots".

> From this point of view a music box is a "robot".

A blender is also called a kitchen robot, so it's not much of a stretch.

> You have one political representative group that has the appearance of being relatively aligned with your values, and another group that seems to be actively against many of your values.

To me that doesn't sound like it. As an outsider, republicans project an image of populist demagogues who thrive in bait-and-switch politics. I'd be surprised if the average American expected republicans to actually implement policies that go against what they've been always proposing.

> I find their explanation pretty reasonable. In 2020 and 2021 money used to be close to free, with interest rates near zero and VCs throwing money at anyone with a growth story.

You're trying to put words in their mouth. Nowhere in their rationale they mention funding or money or interest rates or revenue or results. They only argue that they decided to base their HR policies on a fad. To me this looks like an awfully cowardly way to justify their own decisions on a pseudo-force majeure. Bullshit through and through.

> What's the context behind this?

From the article:

> Right now, however, there is a ripple effect of uncertainty in our sector. Since the start of Q4, we’ve seen a dramatic shift in how every company’s performance is evaluated. Companies were once praised for growth at all costs. Very rapidly, market expectations have shifted. The emphasis now is on maximizing efficiency.

It sounds like they are cowardly using the Google/Amazon/Twitter workforce decimation campaign as a scapegoat to fire people.

> You're missing the point -- it was written and still exists,

No you're completely missing the point. If it exists and needs to be managed then anyone in their right mind migrates their cmake project to modern cmake.

Why? Because odds are any weird thing happening in legacy cmake projects happened because either cmake didn't supported things way back then or old timers made a mess for themselves, needlessly.

Maintaining code does not require you to keep messes around. You're expected to pay legacy debt, learn from mistakes, and right whatever wrongs you made. With cmake projects, this means modern cmake. No excuse.

> and still needs to either be maintained or re-written.

It's not a "or". No one forces you to not fix mistakes. You only keep them around if you wish to, and if that's your own personal decision then the responsibility of creating that problem is on you, not on the tooling.

I'm talking from experience. I've maintained a dozen or so legacy C++ projects, some of which with auto tools, qmake, and the deprecated imperative cmake style put together over a decade ago. Porting stuff to modern cmake is trivial. There is no excuse.

> The C++ folks often don't know what they're missing out on.

This assumption implies that C++ developers are all one-track wonders that lock themselves in a basement and have no contact with any other programming language or tooling.

> But the tooling is just insanely cumbersome (...)

It really isn't. Node.js with npm or yarn is a far greater mess than anything that happened in C++.

I'd say that 9 out of 10 times people complain about the C++ ecosystem, they are actually talking from a place of ignorance and at best are only complaining about the mess they needlessly dug themselves into.

Case in point: who in their right mind feels the need to bolt on a different scripting language to cmake, a build system that only rarely needs a damn if statement in the project? These guys are clearly deeply invested in making their lives far hard and worse than they need to be. I mean, where's the need?

If anything, this wave of contrarian bullshit targeting C++ only shows the high volume of inexperient and clueless developers who decided to skip learning the basics and instead thought it was a good idea o dive head-first into wheels reinvented very poorly, and from there in proceed to depict their own mess as representative of everyone else's experience.

> The question you should be asking yourself is "why? why does my C++ project need 18 programming languages to build and java needs an xml file, javascript some json, or rust a toml file".

But your C++ project never needed 18 languages.

If you feel it does, you need to take a step back and take a serious look at the mess you're making because you're making at least 17 mistakes.

Tell me, what exactly does your build need that is not met with the following:

project(foo LANGUAGES CXX)

add_executable(foo_exec ${SOURCE_FILES} )

target_link_libraries(foo_exec ${MY_TARGETS} )

> And in order to either maintain or upgrade, one needs to know both conventions.

No, not really. You only need to know the declarative, target-based modern cmake. Most of the ad-hoc nonsense done with legacy cmake is either features that since the 2.x days were added to cmake, or nonsense that should never have been written to start with.

> It's already bad enough that the developer needs to understand both target-based CMake and legacy CMake (...)

No. "Legacy cmake" has been made obsolete with the release of cmake 3.0, almost a decade ago. There is absolutely no excuse to use anything other than the declarative, target-based "modern cmake" style.

I'd go as far as claiming that 95% of all use cases boil down to simple straight-forward one-liners with modern cmake, with the remaining 5% corresponding to putting together custom cmake find modules, packaging, and deploying runtime dependencies.

> (...) now there need to be two more languages (slide 13) (...)

I'd argue that if anyone feels the need to write scripts to do something in cmake, they are already doing something awfully wrong to start with.

These initiatives are quite bluntly idiotic. CMake's scripting language is a collosal red herring. CMake's scripting language is good enough for all conceivable use cases, and if you feel the need to write scripts, let alone complex ones, then you're already doing something awfully wrong and you should just reach out to the documentation to learn how to do things properly.

> I don't understand this. The core problem with gender dysphoria is that you feel significant discomfort with your biological sex.

Indeed, and that's why you see people undergoing medical treatments to address that problem.

Why anyone in their right mind would be against people seeking medical treatments to address their health issues is beyond me.

> If it were possible to legitimately "re-educate" oneself to not feel this discomfort, that would be considerably cheaper, less invasive and less problematic overall than trying to change one's sex.

You're desperately trying to avoid the point.

I repeat. You can reeducate an impotent man to stop worrying about his erectile dysfunction. You can reeducate a man to stop bothering with being bald.

Why is that somehow not targeted by this authoritarian belief that you're entitled to force upon others to undergo reeducation camps to accept an outcome they don't want nor feel comfortable with?

Why is that only minorities vilified by certain religious conservative pressure groups should have no say in what they can and cannot do regarding their health and personal well-being?

> I saw this in the school I led, especially in young girls. One of them starts cutting, suddenly we have multiple girls cutting. One of them struggles with bulimia, suddenly the guidance counselor is reporting that she has an inordinate number of girls coming in for counselling about bulimia.

When you showcase suicides on TV you also have upticks in suicides. Same goes for mass shootings, copycat murderers, and even political protests.

When the 101 dalmatians movie was released, there was also an uptick in demand for dalmatians.

I fail to see how this means it's ok to fabricate diseases to downplay the effect that mass media has on people.

> This is probably going to get downvoted to oblivion, because nobody wants to confront the idea that we can _learn_ to want to be another gender. But I think there's some interesting parallels to be observed here, and discounting that based on "moral virtue" or "denying hate speech" or whatever i'll be attacked with is just moving the target.

I feel you're grossly misrepresenting the issue. It means nothing if you believe people can be re-educated to cease to identify as a specific gender or repress their sexuality throughout their whole lives. That's completely irrelevant. You can also argue that you can re-educated men to be ok with being impotent or be bald or not need glasses, but somehow the conservative side of society is perfectly ok with having whole industries devoted to pumping out erectile disfuncion pills to circumvent natural health issues.

So you have to ask yourself why do you feel it's ok to repress whole segments of society because they don't feel comfortable with who they are, while you are perfectly ok with other segments pulling nature's cheat codes to achieve the exact same thing.

This is exactly the point: the authoritarian motivation behind repressing minorities, and the hate speech that goes along with it.