vacuity

While the FSF's vision for the GPL is clear, the GPL itself is not so powerful that it is more than a "gift" that has some terms if you want to do certain things you are not obligated to do. It is like a grant that enforces some reasonable conditions so the money isn't just misappropriated. I wouldn't give that to a friend for their birthday, but I think it's reasonable that powerful organizations should not be free to do whatever they want. Not that the GPL is perfect for that use, but it's good.

You may be right. I made too strong of a statement; there is too much variability even if some good predictive features are used. I believe that it is not too difficult to identify groups where one group has significantly higher risk of being abusive than another group. In particular, people tend to be sexually abused by people close to them[0]. Especially in the context of family, there are probably some people who know and cover up the abuse. I don't believe that most people can hide their inner selves from everyone. For instance, I sometimes hear that celebrities who are rotten on the inside were actually known to be so for years by staff and some ordinary people. If we could conduct honest interviews of people, I imagine a lot of not-so-secrets would come out.

[0] https://womens-safety.com/blog/rapists-often-familiar-faces-...

No data, and I imagine there isn't much to say either way, since collecting the data is difficult at best.

I think part of the discrepancy is that you're talking about abusers you've "heard of by name". The other is that people like Weinstein and Epstein clearly have power, and by default the powerful are left to their own devices (of course their victims and many others around are aware, but don't speak up). I think that, knowing that, one can calibrate a more accurate predictor. I think, if one hangs around a crowd long enough, one can typically gauge who's who in that crowd.

I disagree. The link is at best one data point, when the comments provide a whole body of content. Of course, the bulk of the comments should be productive, then, in order for the thread to be productive.

While HN is not great on politics, I'm not aware of any decently large (or small!) community that is.

I assume you're talking about the "would you rather encounter a man or a bear?" thought experiment. I do think some people (presumably men) respond in disturbing ways to the women's responses that choose the bear. But I think choosing the bear is questionable at best, and involves ignorance and bad faith. I think, even if I'm wrong and the better answer is "the bear", there was more room for discussion and reflection so that the future answer is "the man". I guess such a simplistic hypothetical is not the best way to get mutually distrusting parties to come to an understanding.

Well, I was commenting on why I think the thread was flagged, not whether I think it should be. Also, the main content of an HN thread is typically in the comments, not the link.

I think this thread has not been so bad so far, but it is early.

The issue with moving topics elsewhere is that the most important part of a forum is the community. Forums are not interchangeable.

I don't think it's generally believed that a mentor has to come from outside. In fact, I think it's because mentors coming from close family is not prevalent that pushes these boys and men to find mentors elsewhere.

To be fair, no one person or even group defines "feminism", or "masculinity", or anything of the sort. It's a big cafeteria, and there's a lot of food to be flung around.

Abusers are not evenly distributed over all men, so the target group is not "men" but "men who we knew were probably sketchy anyways, and some we unfortunately didn't know about".

I agree in one sense, but in another, the extremes seen on Twitter are not where the madness ends. The Overton window shifts slowly.

I'm not sure if you're asking a rhetorical question, but I believe it's because (whether right or wrong) the linked thread is perceived as belonging to the "redpilled, conservative, traditional masculinity" subculture.

In the instance of your simulator, I think this is moreso due to the popular idea that people in tech tend to be autistic and the cultural desire to be part of the ingroup, rather than a snub at autistic people/men.

There is not an inherent ideology to psychology, and I'm not sure what you mean by statements such as "the idea of a health individual does not pay any idea to the shared whole" (not even judging; I actually don't know what you mean).

Not GP, and I don't use LLMs either, but I find software design far more fun than software engineering. Software engineering feels like I was put in a zoo with Lego pieces scattered by all the animals and I have to recreate the model in six hours.

How much does the door help? I think generally people don't follow hygiene to the point that particles anywhere in the bathroom won't get tracked out of the bathroom. Don't get me started on people who touch their phones while eating...

See my comment to @Capricorn2481 here[0]. You seem to be saying that unsafe code can be made correct so as to ensure soundness. This can be done by verifying invariants in unsafe code, but it is generally discouraged, as it tempts large unsafe blocks that could be partially safe code. Both you and @Capricorn2481 don't seem to make the distinction between "arbitrary safe code" and "my safe code within the module with unsafe", which is a crucial part of the idea of writing encapsulated unsafe. Technically, I believe unsafe code can still be made sound in the presence of arbitrary safe code, but it would have to tiptoe around violating memory safety, lowering its utility and performance substantially, if not completely.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46057382

As I said here[0], although I can't speak for what @Dylan16807 intends, invariants required by unsafe code are required exactly to the extent that some code can alter the invariants (the module boundary). In this sense, Rust's unsafe is just a particular example of encapsulation, where all notions of invariants in programming have the same essence.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46030407

I can't speak for everyone, or even the majority, but I know that oftentimes large projects focus on build times, undergoing refactorings as you describe, and their compile times are still high. To make up some numbers, maybe the fraction of projects that have unacceptable compile times could be reduced from 80% to 40% (at what effort?), but that 40% remainder probably includes many large, popular crates.

If the goal is to make a safe abstraction, which is what I'm talking about, proper use of visibility and safe code at the module boundary encapsulates the unsafe code soundly.

You seem to be talking either about improper encapsulation or unsafe that is intended to be exported and used unsafely. Or perhaps some method that is not sound according to the language.

I do not understand how you justify your claims. Should I link any number of instances where Rust team members admit to compile times being a major issue, one which prompts significant effort to improve? Perhaps you are right about 10x speedups, but then that clearly isn't enough, reading the room.

I also do not understand how you see hostility in my comment. For one thing, I did not downvote you. Rather, your original comment is dismissive, even if the article it replies to is dubious. For another, it would also be trivial to see that I am both highly supportive and informed about Rust. Your comments simply do not help, certainly not with the common perception of Rust fans as zealots.

Thank you for engaging. I'm having a good time talking with you.

Maybe I ought to read older texts more often...I do not fully understand what Butler means by terms such as "plain"! But that was a good read.

I do wonder which instances Butler imagines "sudden anger" to be useful in. I would think it rare that immediate action without consideration is good, but where it is good, I do not think the actor is acting in anger so much as he is acting in a justified instinct. It is probably more correct that the actor acts in anger when the action is bad. To be precise, I am talking about the actor's intention, whereas his action may turn out to be good or bad in that split-second. I don't believe that people should be judged on what occurs but only what they tried to do, while keeping in mind that "ideal intention" and "actual intention" are distinct (as good intentions pave the road to Hell!).

I do like how Butler described "deliberate anger" and its role in addressing wrongs committed unto people. I had to ponder what I myself meant when I brought up emotional-logic, because I have not understood it so well that I never confuse myself, but I suppose that is what Butler is describing: logic that addresses emotions, or allows emotions. In fact, if logic is not subservient to "cold-bloodedness", emotions are presumably a major component of the logic we perform every day, at some level or another.

I'm not religious, nor atheist or the like. I consider myself agnostic, but I think to be a proper agnostic one has to work to earn the title. Extending the notion of agnosticism to its logical conclusion, I find that we should all be agnostic in all matters: never professing knowledge to anything that we are ignorant of (which ultimately must be everything, because who knows anything nontrivial?). That's an extreme position, and would require a dense discussion, but it can be moderated to suit the circumstances. It suffices to say that, on momentous matters such as God, we must be ignorant. This doesn't preclude positing axioms, accepting them on faith, and performing logic, however. Indeed, we all require faith in some way or another. Anyways, I've found that freeing myself of the expectation of believing a certain way has helped me better appreciate all manner of religious, spiritual, mystic, etc. schools of thoughts. God is the greatest of the unknowable things, so any way we discuss Him shines light on some mode of life.

Rust certainly takes after C++, but it's not the same. It's more like C++ if it was made today. For instance, Rust's destructive move semantics are the better default. (However, Rust making everything moveable by default is a bit of a drawback.) I don't understand your point about std::shared_ptr, std::mutex, and the immutability/mutability model. These are not C++ constructs; they are general programming constructs that C++ has an implementation of. Rust does not claim to have some innovative take on reference counting or locking. However, Rust's borrowing is an improvement (by default) on managing shared mutable state. Rust is not Carbon, or whatever new C++ variant is out there; it is a backwards-incompatible language that offers better ways to do many of the things C++ is used for.

> Okay, what's your take on why exactly Rust compiles slowly?

It's not "my take". https://www.pingcap.com/blog/rust-compilation-model-calamity... is a good resource on this.

> Refactor your build.

People do this, and at best it works for some people. This kind of messaging towards people who bring up a valid criticism of Rust does not help.

Thanks for the laugh!

While unsafe is always a risk in Rust, measuring the risk is not nearly as straightforward as counting lines of code. In particular, Rust focuses on encapsulating unsafe code behind safe wrappers that prevent misuse, so the better measure is determining which crates don't do this, and to what extent they can be easily patched to do so.

You don't have to call unwrap()...Rust provides alternatives, which are very prominent.

Mutable shared state is literally the nature of contention. It's true that locking is the mediocre default, but "avoid locks" is not a silver bullet. Alternatives have their own tradeoffs. If you "carefully design" a solution, it's probably because you're not just using an alternative but actually taking care to optimize, and because you have a specific use case (which you described).

Seeing this comment from Kent Overstreet was hysterical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46029555. He's not even criticizing Rust, nor is he the author, but still...

But yes, this sure is a nice and sane thread.