wireprotocol

They could also say "We are scientists doing cool stuff, discovering things, and having fun. Maybe it will be useful someday but we aren't really focusing on that."

Why are you attributing some kind of cynical motive?

What law permits this now; or are you proposing a new law? If so, how would it work?

If 20+ years of school is what you want, go for it. But a lot of people want to move on sooner, and so we should use the first 12 years of education efficiently. High schools don't get to just pass the buck onto the college system for all the kids that they failed to educate. And students who don't use their HS opportunities well shouldn't have the excuse that they will just get a HS do-over in college (at taxpayer expense).

Your central assumption is that four more years without a job is the only way to learn whatever you need (abstract, practical, whatever). I just disagree.

Efficient processes measure outputs/results, like what people actually learn or accomplish after all that time.

But many people in this thread are measuring inputs, like, just put in four more years of time and money and that must be good for everyone, right?

Would you go to a 50-year-old with a high-school diploma and tell them they only have high-school level thinking? Of course not. Colleges do not have a monopoly on your ability to learn. Many people read a lot of books, for instance, without a teacher telling them to.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of ways to get through college without getting past a high-school level of thinking.

I'm not saying people shouldn't learn abstract thinking. I'm just saying "get it over with".

> Everyone would have a much broader education including a specialty.

No. People inclined towards that kind of thing would go to college anyway.

Compelling others to also go to college won't have those positive results unless the high school already failed them, in which case college is just a "sorry four years of your life were wasted, let's have a do-over".

But it seems like the better answer is to fix broken high schools.

True, but it's not for everyone and not without its own costs and complications. That's why I said "possibly". The main point is that nothing is really free, it's costing time, opportunities, etc.

I think the idea is a good one in some ways. But I can also imagine some bad outcomes, like dragging things out a long time, and being responsible to two masters.

Maybe we should bring the baseline in high schools up? Maybe people should leave high school more prepared?

Otherwise, you'll just be saying the same thing about the same students after college: they're unprepared.

No. Time box your time to get prepared, and do it.

Also, there is no such thing as free. Every year costs a year of your life, possibly disrupting your chances to have biological children.

This is all just leading to college becoming four more years of high school. Everyone needs to go. Everyone needs a degree to "get a job".

It all seems like a giant plan to prevent people from starting their adult lives.

If you need to just get some generic "good job", then the answer is to learn what you need in the first twelve years of school. I think that's enough time.

If you want to heavily specialize, research, or otherwise go deeper; then go to university.

Our policies should encourage following these practices. To start off, we need to fight grade inflation in high school so that it's a real signal for employers. Moving the problem of certification to college will just move the grade inflation problem there, not solve it. Then employers will want to see more credentials from a masters program or something.

Don't you see? If everyone has a degree, it offers no advantage. The lower performers just end up with more debt.

> I know of many people...

Visible benefits; invisible costs. Great politics.

Who you don't see are the people outside looking in that want an apartment but can't find one, or can't afford one, or need to sign a new lease at a very high rent.

Rent control doesn't unequivocally help current renters. It also keeps them stuck in one place for a long time, even when it's not a great fit for them.

And pretty much every economist says rent control raises rents and lowers quality overall, hurting those trying to move in.

A new rent control law changes the market. If the tenant leaves, they will need to sign a new lease, and the leasor will build in extra rent because they are worried they won't be able to raise it enough later.

In other words, it scares all the landlords at once, and they all raise prices a little because of it.

> Turnabout is fair play.

The biggest myth is that this kind of stuff actually helps the less-powerful. In reality, it just means they are hurt twice: government artificially suppressing supply, and government manipulating prices which has bad side effects for mamy even if its good for a few.

Also, in reality, the powerful often don't get hurt, and arbitrary market manipulations just introduce new ways for them to get an advantage somehow.

Thank you!

It seems these data are mostly counted in dollars of damage or dollars of relief, which is a proxy for the severity.

Would it be correct to say there is still some question about whether dollars are a good measure of severity?

EDIT: As I am browsing the data, it's hard to disentangle actual weather events from things like lava, fires, unsound building decisions, and just the politics of money moving around.

But it is a concern for bringing Ada into more domains, which seemed like the point of the article.

EDIT: on a second read, it's not clear whether the article is saying we should use Ada the next time we are building a rocket, or the next time we are building an OS.

There is some overlap in the use cases between Ada-in-the-mainstream (which seems to be what the article is suggesting) and Rust. The existence of Rust will make it even harder for Ada to break out of its existing domains.

Both seem to have good ecosystems, but quite different. Ada has more high-assurance tooling and practices. Rust has more in terms of packaging and general-purpose high level libraries.

With Ada, it's pretty hard to shake the feeling that it's not as welcoming. Either you are building a spacecraft, or "what are you doing here?". Not that anyone actually says that, and in my limited experience playing with the language, everyone seemed nice. It's just a feeling that's hard to escape. I wish it weren't so, because I think Ada has a lot going for it and it could be good in more donains.

One kind of cool thing is that it's designed to get by without so many heap allocations, and it does some interesting things to allow/encourage more stack allocations. It also has more sophisticated runtime checks, like contracts, that are kind of between a unit test and a compile-time check.

Rust is great at managing complexity. I keep holding out hope that Ada can somehow give us some simplicity back while still making useful software.

What you say is probably true, but it raises the question: why always guns? Surely there are other ways to cause death and terror.

I wonder if it's because it fits into a narrative? An isolated incident is more easily dismissed or forgotten.

Getting back to the main topic, climate change has become a narrative, too, not just an isolated phenomena. Hurricanes, even if mostly random, become part of a larger story.

I just finished reading 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and it got me thinking a lot about narratives. Maybe people naturally have a strong desire to be part of a narrative. Perhaps the hero, perhaps a minor character in a big drama; or, if necessary, the villian.

If homicides are down by a single person, it would take an awful lot of littering and vandalism before I said crime went up.

I agree that all crime is something to be concerned about, and that minor crimes are easier to sweep under the rug with creative record keeping. But let's also keep in mind what's really important.

> Weather disasters are getting more severe. It is objectively, quantitatively true that weather disasters are getting more frequent and more severe.

Source? What definitions are being used for severity? How is the sample of events selected? Is there a statistically-significant effect or might it be random variation?

No, what you see on the news is whatever sells news. If murder is commonplace, then it's not news. If murder is rare, each event becomes a media storm.

Read The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker. Violence has consistently been on a long downward trend. There may be spikes localized by time or space, but it's doubtful we are reversing the trend on any long timescale or large area.

Police can change some classifications here or there, but it's kind of hard to reclassify homicides.

A disturbing, compelling, and influential book. But do you still see it as relevant today, aside from understanding history?

I read a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court when I was around 12. It was fun and fantastical, but perhaps I didn't absorb any deeper meaning because I was too young. I'm curious what makes it top your list?

On Being the Right Size:

https://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html

Only 90 years old, but it came to mind and it was close enough that I needed to check the date.

That's a bad comparison to make. Epstein, by all accounts, actually hurt, abused, and enslaved real people. That is always worse than political activism, even if you find the politics highly objectionable, and even if the activism reached very far due to money.

There are still people discovering prices, and they are still getting paid somehow, probably by first-mover advantage.

Are we sure that the right model is to just watch these first-movers and do what they do?

At some point, someone (or a collective) needs to make a decision about how capital is allocated among different firms.

Traditional money managers may not be the right way to do that, but we should be clear that decisions are still being made somehow.

I guess it's not the investors plowing money into the first index fund they find. And it's not the index fund, because they don't do a lot of management.

So I guess it's a handful of hedge funds that set prices?

A closed hearing from only a single party is not due process.

Then, the subject of the order must fight (at great expense) to regain their rights, which is a de facto presumption of guilt.

No hearing. No charges. No grand jury. No due process.

Due process might be a 30-day order to confiscate guns. If they can't get a grand jury indictment or involuntary commitment to a mental institution in those 30 days, the gun owner gets their guns back automatically and can't be subject to another red flag for 10 years.

Same with Extreme Risk Protection Orders, a.k.a. red flag laws.

EDIT: looks like red flag laws were already listed by the parent comment. Somehow I must have read right past it.

But how many want to link the Go runtime into their program? Maybe they just don't want it there, or maybe they already have other runtimes linked in their program and don't want one more, or maybe they have runtime version conflicts, etc.

Also, such interfaces generally require more copying around of structures to match the format the language is expecting. With rust, it can use plain C structs directly without translation.