What do you mean HN-specific? I don't understand how cars got to require permanent cellular connections in the first place while Bluetooth would've been enough
I was referring to the fact that a very small sliver of the population would be interested in running their own relay server, or even figuring out what that means. They just want to press a button and have the car turn on.
> moving off of them because they find that making the common case worse is not a trade off that most of their users want.
Until you have companies trying to intervene.
If Universities are publicly funded by the government, and those companies do stuff like spying on, or silencing public officials, then why should the government finance those companies?
I think its nuts that the EU has seen spying, access from services taken away, yet continues to fund those foreign companies.
Are the Open Source alternatives worse? Would change suck even if the alternatives were better? It doesn't matter really. It makes no sense to pay to keep your bad deal running.
USA does corruption and also does threatening if you try to not use their companies. I've read an interview to a mexican minister who basically got direct threats from the USA ambassador when the government decided to stop using windows.
Unfortunately part of it is that it likely goes both ways. For example illegal subsidies to Airbus. And US companies still buy Airbus. I think all of these go into the calculus of the decisions to purchase though. It’s likely you value open source much higher than they do based on your own principles.
Funny line-- but I think it's important to highlight how the Brits were able to find value and unlock a history in objects that other cultures stopped caring about.
While people like to say they "stole" things, there's no evidence they ever took something that others actually cared about or took the least interest in protecting. The Elgin marbles were just flopped around a field and no locals seemed to care at all. Some of the items were purchased directly from their owner at a price negotiated with a willing seller.
I think the British museum is proof of how scholarship and gentle care can preserve our past and create something that people love to visit and learn about.
Such a kind British museum offering to maintain these artifacts to the point of denying return to the origin countries when requested. Clearly this is for the preservation of our past and the benefit of humanity.
Absent any proof that the objects were truly stolen, I don't feel any need to return something to someone in some country who suddenly finds an interest in getting something back. What does ownership mean to you?
Let's say you come to my country and buy a souvenir. Can I decide, hundreds of years later, that you must be forced to give it back?
And why do borders matter? The argument seems to be that housing an object on one side of an arbitrary political line is morally superior to putting it on display on the other side of some invisible line. Somehow someone born to the right parents is a morally superior curator compared to someone born into the wrong parents.
> Funny line-- but I think it's important to highlight how the Brits were able to find value and unlock a history in objects that other cultures stopped caring about.
Do you really think they stopped caring about? Bold claim to say this applies for every culture and artifact over there.
Or is it maybe that pillaging, which destroys what's left behind, and then having no good way to take things back other than defeating the British Naval Empire makes maintaining your own history hard?
I can't fathom how crazy it gets to model once you try to consider compilers, architectures, timings, temperatures, bit-flips & ECCs, cache misses, pseudo and "truly" random devices, threads, other processes, system load, I/O errors, networking.
To me it seems mandatory to work with some abstraction underneath that allows factoring a lot of different cases into a smaller set of possibilities that needs to be analysed.
It's also how we manage to think in a world where tiny little details do give you a likely insignificantly different world-state to think about.
My 2022 GPU has 24GB of ram. It's like 50% more than what is similarly affordable today. It's fucked up and I'd rather slow down my spending and see the whole market go down than get scammed by hype.
And that will result in even more resources being allocated into the "big spenders". We are for a long time, in a death spiral for the whole PC field. If it was not crypto mining (multiple times), then it was HDD mining, then it was pandemic, and now its AI.
What used to be a stable market, that was predictable, has become ultra expensive. And now the whole SSD / DDR pricing are going to hurt even more.
Worst of all is, that a lot of resources are now going to enterprise hardware. So even if the AI bubble goes down, its not like the market will be flooded with cheap NVMEs or cheaper DDR sticks, as that production will have gone into 2.5" U.3 drives and LPDDR memory or the likes.
> What was wrong was the developer assumption, not the use of unwrap.
How many times can you truly prove that an `unwrap()` is correct and that you also need that performance edge?
Ignoring the performance aspect that often comes from a hat-trick, to prove such a thing you need to be wary of the inner workings of a call giving you a `Return`. That knowledge is only valid at the time of writing your `unwrap()`, but won't necessarily hold later.
Also, aren't you implicitly forcing whoever changes the function to check for every smartass dev that decided to `unwrap` at their callsite? That's bonkers.
I doubt that this unwrap was added for performance reasons; I suspect it was rather added because the developer temporarily didn't want to deal with what they thought was an unlikely error case while they were working on something else; and no other system recognized that the unwrap was left in and flagged it before it was deployed on production servers.
If I were Cloudflare I would immediately audit the codebase for all uses of unwrap (or similar rust panic idioms like expect), ensure that they are either removed or clearly documented as to why it's worth crashing the program there, and then add a linter to their CI system that will fire if anyone tries to check in a new commit with unwrap in it.
Panics are for unexpected error conditions, like your caller passed you garbage. Results are for expected errors, like your caller passed you something but it's your job to tell if it's garbage.
So the point of unwrap() is not to prove anything. Like an assertion it indicates a precondition of the function that the implementer cannot uphold. That's not to say unwrap() can't be used incorrectly. Just that it's a valid thing to do in your code.
> Currently, they seem to favor xml-rs which only implements a subset of XML.
Which seems to be a sane decision given the XML language allows for data blow-ups[^0]. I'm not sure what specific subset of XML `xml-rs` implements, but to me it seems insane to fully implement XML because of this.
reply