Worse yet, despite publishing seventeen blog posts between filing the issue and finally responding to it, he has the gall to open with "Sorry I missed your replies (life gets busy)".
I don't see how OpenSSL can recover from it's 3.0 disaster. They would basically have to write off the past few years of development work and start over from version 1.1.1
The blog author seems like a real piece of work. He ghosts the WolfSSL maintainer for over 160 days and when asked to open a new, more specific issue, he instead chooses to write a blog post denigrating the project. The WolfSSL maintainer was nothing but courteous and helpful throughout the entire exchange.
>...they aren't really interested in RFC compliance.
Yeah, well "feld" can't claim to be "interested in RFC compliance" either when he ghosts the issue for months and chooses to write blog posts instead of opening a new issue. Good grief.
If this is what the FreeBSD community is like, I want nothing to do with them.
“If you break the law, then you go to jail” is not “you broke the law, you are going to jail”. I didn’t judge the entire FreeBSD community based on this blog post.
I'm not "playing a game". "Feld" purports to be a FreeBSD ports committer. Someone with commit rights on a major project would know how to properly file issues and work with other maintainers. But "feld" doesn't seem to know how to do that. Perhaps "feld" had a bad day, or maybe him and the rest of the FreeBSD ports contributors/maintainers just operate in this way, I don't know.
>Where did they say you did?
They said it in the part where you got all confused and responded to me.
> I don't think it's fair to judge the whole FreeBSD community by one person.
So they just like, gave us a fun fact, right?
Conversely, I was also apparently just speculating:
> Probably where you said
So many things are possible when we don't want to be found wrong. Including pretending that figurative speech only exists when it's convenient.
Otherwise, I really don't see what would be so hard in understanding why throwing an "if" at the start would still lead to people taking what you said the way they did.
For the record, contrary to your assertion, even your example is affected by this:
> If you break the law, then you go to jail
If you posted this (and even only just this) under a random thread, people would think you're accusing someone (whoever the given thread is most about) to be somehow guilty of some untold crimes and/or that some chatbot got loose. I hope you can appreciate how people would be absolutely correct to think that way.
A CPU produced after a certain date is not guaranteed to have the every ISA extension, e.g. SVE for Arm chips. Hence things like the microarchitecure levels for x86-64.
I don't understand if your comment is ironic. Intel is notorious for equipping different processors produced in the same period with different features. Sometimes even among different cores on the same chip. Sometimes later products have less features enabled (see e.g. AVX512 for Alder Lake).
More aggressive optimization is necessarily going to be more error prone. In particular, the fact that -O3 is "the path less traveled" means that a higher number of latent bugs exist. That said, if code breaks under -O3, then either it needs to be fixed or a bug report needs to be filed.
Yes, Wolfram Language (WL) -- aka Mathematica -- introduced `Tabular` in 2025. It is a new data structure with a constellation of related functions (like `ToTabular`, `PivotToColumns`, etc.) Using it is 10÷100 times faster than using WL's older `Dataset` structure. (In my experience. With both didactic and real life data of 1_000÷100_000 rows and 10÷100 columns.)
"They didn't showing up to practice. If they did show up to practice, they weren't practicing hard. If they did practice hard, they didn't have the commitment and drive to win. Trust us, we did everything right, it's the players (we chose) who let everyone down."
Yeah, this sounds like a coaching staff trying to prove that they don't need high-end talent bailing them out, only to find out otherwise.
Sounds a little like victim blaming. You had a proven formula which includes people whos job it is to make critical assessments, change 1 variable, then blame the variables you didn't change when the experiment goes poorly?
It seems like you have misunderstood the author of the article.
The point of the MacArthur Foundation is basically to launder the MacArthur name in the eyes of the public. So that when people see "MacArthur" they associate it with prestige and — more importantly — the excellence of its recipients, not its sleazy origin. Hence why recipients are only chosen when they have proven that their names are useful for the MacArthur Foundation.
In your example, the MacArthur Foundation wouldn't be giving out scholarships to high performing students, they'd be giving money to people like Donald Knuth. In other words, people who have already shown that they didn't need the money to be successful and don't really need the money to continue performing at a high level. Of course, it isn't a complete waste, but it doesn't go towards developing the next Donald Knuth. The MacArthur Foundation isn't "promoting excellence", it's "celebrating" the excellence in which it took absolutely no risk in developing. As the author says "The enterprise is not merely silly, but snooty: an exercise in invidious distinction for its own sake."
Cars aren't getting cheaper, car maintenance has become absurdly expensive (compared to what it was), auto insurance is set to get far more expensive, and making your entire lifestyle dependent on the existence of cheap gasoline is not a great strategy. A lot of people will simply be priced out of driving.
>It's not pro- public transit and better urban planning that bothers me. It's the anti-car "lobby".
Personal car commuting gets in the way of vital freight trucking. The highway system wasn't built to facilitate people going to work or traveling to see their grandma, it was build to move goods.
>I will always choose smaller to mid sized cities, and possibly even rural at some point in the future,...
The more remote your living is, the more everyone else is subsidizing your existence. For instance, rural roads, rural hospitals, rural electrification, rural broadband, rural airports, etc. It's one thing for the people who already live there or genuinely need to live out there, it's another thing for people to choose to live out there for "personal reasons".
> The more remote your living is, the more everyone else is subsidizing your existence.
This is an uncritical viewpoint, you're simply describing a society. It doesn't matter where you live, you're soaking up the labor and capital of the wider net of people. That's what it is to have a civilization, and ours is so deeply interconnected that all relationships are inherently reciprocal. The trivially measurable flow of money doesn't say anything of substance as it's a second order abstraction, only that the mechanisms and pipelines by which money move are situated in cities. It's not urban labor and urban resources that builds, maintains and operates that infrastructure or the social fabric that it serves and is served by.
> It's one thing for the people who already live there or genuinely need to live out there, it's another thing for people to choose to live out there for "personal reasons".
On the contrary, the negative health effects of cities are empirically measurable[1][2][3]. We should be striving at all times as human beings to move past having them at all, and should look to building towards healthier, lower density living and encourage it for anyone who is capable of doing so. We cannot fall into the trap of building, encouraging and valuing objectively worse living conditions in the name of efficiency, the entire point of this whole system is to lead better lives, not to make the numbers go up.
