They never said that they had to use c because go is not a systems language, so your assertion looks wrong. They wanted to avoid using unsafe.
In c everything is unsafe by the way, so it makes it less of a systems language?
No Go isn't a systems language because for one you don't have direct control over memory if you need it. For instance Go doesn't even have the volatile keyword which is essential in many cases when interfacing with hardware. The paper you linked laments this as well.
> GPLv2 and v3 gave hobbyists, students, and anti-corporate hackers a means to feel as though their work resists the evil empire of the software industry, while in fact serving it up with unpaid work product.
I got linux and the GNU userland for free. I used it to learn and it got me a job.
Of course I contribute to GPL projects.
It's not unpaid work, it's paid in code.
It's funny that he chose mongodb as an example. They require a contributor to sign the CLA and give all ownership of the code to mongodb. This is effectively unpaid work, more than the GPL.
These new unfree licenses are the most restrictive the VC friendly lawyers can think of to maintain an usurped "open source" moniker while trying to push clients to buy commercial licenses.
I mean, the chemical waste from photovoltaic production is also still poison for 10,000+ years - lots of heavy metals and other nasty shit there. But we don't seem to be quite so afraid of it...
Obviously nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's still safer for the planet than the massive amounts of gasses emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. As opposed to radioactive casks, these gasses cannot be contained deep, deep under ground forever, they can only be released to change our environment in ways neither we nor the nature are prepared to deal with.
I'd rather manage nuclear waste in a remote site for 10000 years than needing to build up a permanent desalination effort to keep mankind supplied with drinkable water.
Don't forget that there are already nuclear waste sites that are managed by the government. It's just a small operational cost for today's governments.
There doesn't seem to be a believe that governments will be around for 10000 years to keep this managed securely. But honestly, if society deteriorates to the point it can no longer organize a government, a few highly radioactive spots on earth are not going to be a huge deal.
Nuclear waste facilities also have nice economies of scale in the sense that a single site's incremental cost of storing an additional ton of nuclear waste is negligible. So unlike global warming, you're not saddling the future generations up with a massive bill.
What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it?
Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.
It's the first of its generation and is quite a failure on many aspects.
It's not representative of all the nuclear reactors in France, far from it.
Thus it is
quite insignificant.
In many ways Germany's renewable infrastructure was first of its kind, because Germany paid for the entire industry to get kickstarted.
Just like semiconductors needed ridiculously overpaid government contracts to get started at the beginning of Silicon Valley, solar needed a massive government funded effort to kick start the beginnings of the industry.
And unlike nuclear, which never got cheaper as we built more, solar is plummeting in price on a consistent schedule.
And whether or not it is a first of kind, the estimated for the FOAK build were wildly off and inaccurate, whereas with solar, Germany knew exactly the amount of financial risk they were taking by buying high.
> It's the first of its generation and is quite a failure on many aspects. It's not representative of all the nuclear reactors in France, far from it.
It's the only new one, based on designs of early 90s and earlier. The others are mostly all old and many with completely outdated designs from the 70s. Many wouldn't survive the crash of a larger airbus or boeing aircraft.
That's the problem. Nuclear reactors are huge undertakings and obviously producing only one is going to be incredibly expensive, just like building only one wind turbine of a design. That's why countries should cooperate to build more continuously and more efficiently.
To stay in France, it's a bit as if you said the cathedrals construction was a total failure basing your judgment on the Beauvais cathedral which also suffered of the second system effect.
Oracle has been free riding red hat with unbreakable Linux, for years.
Then red hat got bought for 30 billions.
When you are confident about you ability to outsmart the competition and keep your customers, you don't have to use those new semi-open licenses. They are a legal risk for anyone who copies or reuses the code.
However when deploying server binaries it's a substancial advantage. End users like them. Ops like them.