This is a nice idea, but it's empty. There were widely reported ICE operations in Minnesota over the past few days, yet it's blank on the map. Seems like a fun vibe-code project, but not useful w/o data.
2,488 karma · joined October 18, 2010
“‘This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.’ Abraham Lincoln”
This makes logical sense, but I don’t buy it in practice. Most of the heavy data reads are handled by databases, which do optimize for this stuff. I just doubt that, in most software, a significant amount of software performance issues are a result of poor memory alignment of data structures.
We’re moving to a world where every program is containerized or sandboxed. There is no more real “sharing” of libraries, everything gets “statically linked” in a Docker image anyway.
You can glean information about your competitors’ usage and advertising, which can help you optimize your own app’s advertising spend.
Many utilities give an 8-9% interest rate on bonds, with very little risk (Comcast isn't going bankrupt soon). That said, there's no such thing as zero-risk arbitrage.
Inequality leads to power centers. Power centers lead to systemic corruption. Systemic corruption is a problem.
So yes, extreme inequality is itself a problem.
It's interesting that many languages avoid unicode and non-ASCII text, yet they make assumptions about file and directory structures about the underlying system. It's as if interpreting directory and file system structures is "okay", but interpreting file formats is not.
> In fact, it's one of the reasons it was a breaking release in the first place, and being able to put non-ASCII characters in strings and comments in my source code are a huge plus.
Sorry, but as a Python dev that went from 2 to 3, yes native unicode features are nice, but no, it was not worth breaking two decades of existing code.
The situation is clearly far worse than what you suggest. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, apparent computer performance was doubling roughly every two years. Your shiny new desktop was obsolete in 24 months.
Today, we're lucky to get a 15% gain in two years. The "one-trick ponies" help narrow the "apparent performance" gap, but by definition, are implemented out of desperation. They aren't enough to keep Moore's law alive (it's already dead), and their very existence is evidence of the death of Moore's law.
Before we thank ourselves for all the lives we "saved", we should remember all of those that died in the name of an unnecessary exercise in human greed and cruelty.
The performance gains from Moore's law have typically come from shrinking die size. That has ended, you can't juice more performance from general purpose CPUs. If general purpose processors no longer advance quickly enough, the only way to get performance gains is to build custom chips for common specific tasks. That's what we're seeing now with the M1. The M1 buys us a few more years of exponential-appearing performance gains, but it's a one-trick pony. You can turn code into an ASIC once, but after that, your performance is at the mercy of the foundry and physics.
The death of Moore's law has many consequences, the rise of ASICs and custom co-processor chips is just one of them.
Sadly, billionaires aren’t criminal by definition (no such laws), but the existence of billionaires sure does cut against the idea of a perfect market (in a “perfect” market there cannot be profits).
I’d expand this... It’s easy to make a profit when everyone is strapped for cash.
Elasticsearch is written in Java, and routinely uses 30GB+ of RAM. I suspect if it was written in Python, it would use an order of magnitude more.
As a "real python programmer" that is trying to manage a conversion from Python 2 to 3, I can confirm that there is no superiority complex. We feel whipped and beaten, forced to convert a code-base that has been deemed "legacy" in exchange for a few nice string manipulation features that we don't really need.
A "real python programmer" in 2020 is an abandoned class.
I'm no fan of Trump, but that's loading on too much. It's just bad instincts and leadership, no one could know how this would unfold.
Fact 2: When there is an unforeseen event, the developer did not consider what to do.
Fact 3: Developers often deal with other people's buggy code.
It's clear that exceptions aren't the perfect solution to anything, but given these 3 facts, exceptions are around to stay.
Yup. However, I suspect that Ubuntu gives a pretty permissive trademark license in their distribution.
This isn't a theoretical argument, the Android OS is open source, but the "Android" brand is a protected trademark. If you're a cell phone manufacturer, you can use the Android code freely, but if you want to put an Android sticker on your phone, you have to follow Google's rules.
Your argument is not really about intellectual property rights, and is more about property rights and capitalism generally. If you don't believe in property rights or investment, then sure, IP rights don't make sense either.
You're wrong. The constitution grounds copyright (and other IP rights), in utilitarianism. Meaning, if granting stronger protection promotes overall welfare, then that is justification.
The problem with utilitarianism is that it's very difficult to determine what is greater "overall welfare". By its nature, it's an empirical decision. Once you start invoking data (rather than basic rights), lots of people and companies will come out of the woodwork to promote their own data points.