Fromthe mouth of CockraochDB's CTO: ‶So if we were starting at this point in time, I would take a hard look at Rust, and I imagine that we would pick it instead of C++.″
It was a joke, to capture the sentiment here in HN. Rust is awesome, and most people know it. My point was that people will focus more often on which language is used, rather than the technical design, performance, etc...
Right, meaning, no, the CTO would not be "surprised" that C++ was a candidate for a high performance system. C++ is the defacto, and Rust would be a "new" option.
> However, modern HN just feels so deeply cynical, angry, and negative with much less of the entrepreneurial tech optimism of the older posts
Isn't that a direct reflection of the current state of the tech world? Since the 00's, it has morphed from a rather hacker-friendly, digital far-west into a locked-down plutocracy dominated by a handful of gigantic corporations, whose end-goal are quite often to squeeze every single last bit of personal information or other valuable commodity they can out of, typically, misinformed users.
E.g., despite all the folklore, I feel much better toward 00's ‶Linux is cancer″ MS and their Windows 2000 than toward 2020's ‶We <3 Linux″ MS that just spy on me through Windows 10 and put ads in my start menu.
Similarly, I prefer the 90's ‶we're making expensive and original computers″ Apple to the 2020's ‶we will scan all the photos on your device″ Apple.
And it's not to single these two out, they're just the first examples I'm thinking of. All in all, I just believe the whole digital world is much more hostile now than it used to be, which would, at least partially, account for the growing apathy, cynicism and defiance in the community – it's hard to feel any different when every other week brings a new personal data leak, spyware scandal or privacy-infringement affair, be it corporate- or state-sponsored.
At the same time, you can't expect Wiki editors to be expert in all cutting-edge domain of knowledge to be able to determine which academics are or aren't notable.
Both of those do not consistently work across a large organisation (1k+ users) without perfectly homogenous hardware. That means they're effectively unusable.
Jitsi was awful. So it’s a combo. Zoom wouldn’t be where it is if it was Jitsi. I used Jitsi from 2018-2020. So many problems with it. You won’t find anywhere close to the polarizing views of the actual usability or Jitsi compared to Zoom or any other better app in any niche.
Zoom certainly invested millions in marketing before and during the pandemic. Airports were plastered with zoom advertisement. I truly believe marketing and a simple ordering process account for a huge part of zoom's success, not features or UX.
Waste isn't the issue with big folders; filesystem performance (especially NTFS, which is to say Windows users, which is to say ~90% of users) degrades pretty horribly when folders have tens of thousands of files. Even on Linux filesystems, having a folder with a 100,000 files in it was having issues.
FWIW on ext4 I benchmarked adding millions of files to a folder and compared with `xx/...` and `x/x/x/x/...` and found the performance to be basically identical between the options and didn't degrade with the file count.
The one thing that I did find is that deleting folders with many files was very slow. I guess that path wasn't well optimized. However even then you could deleted hundreds of files a second so for regular mail usage it likely isn't a major issue.
I agree that these names are kind of meh, but they stand for things that will mostly be chosen on their technical merit, and that you don't have to sell to your friends/mom/gf/brother/etc; so it does not really matter.
Right, good point. It is a quality of uniqueness for searchability and marketability. On top of my head I can only think of a couple of counterexamples: Windows and Messenger, but your point is still very valid.
I guess in practice, for search purposes, we will see some kind of suffix attached to the name, Element Chat or similar.
Algorithms stability. As precision decreases when magnitude rises, many tricks are used in sci. comp. to scale everything into ranges where computations won't diverge due to a lack of precision.
