Since you seem to enjoy this kind of writing I'd love to get your feedback on something I've written a while back about branchless partitioning [1]. Despite it being content wise the most work to create of the things I've written about the topic, it found much less attention than other things I've written. So far I've wondered if it was maybe too technical? Would love to get an honest opinion.
Just finished reading your linked article. I found it interesting and I experienced similar excitement from the results as mentioned up-thread. There were some new things I learned, too.
I wouldn't say your article is too technical; it does go a bit deeper into details, but new concepts are explained well and at a level I found suitable for myself. Having said that, several times I felt that the text was a bit verbose. Using more succinct phrasing needs, of course, a lot of additional effort, but… I guess it's a kind of an optimization as well. :)
Seeing this thread pains me. I recall reading the Foreigner series by C. J. Cherryh and in it they had an alien politician mention cars in passing, stating that it would be stupid to give their citizens this selfish way of transportation and rather invested in train infrastructure. And boy does it seem stupid looking back. Something like 30% by area of US cities are taken up by parking space and it get's so much worse once think about what a city would look like if built for people and not cars.
What about noise? So far all we have gotten is companies trying to build planes that still are very loud and produce audible booms all the way along their travel path. Pitched to the empathetic heros that are billionaires. And to sway public opinion they fly test planes at slightly over mach one in specific weather and altitude setting that avoids having the sonic booms reach the ground. While marketing and selling the idea of not mach 1.1 but mach 2-3 supersonics. Which is AFAIK completely impossible without the boom issue, even if made less bad - but arguably still bad - by fancy wing shapes. So all I see is selfish people trying to build something at expense of everyone else, including the environment.
Flying it the high limits of the atmosphere reduces sonic boom intensity due to both the extremely low density of the air and the distance from the ground. Ultimately, sonic boom is a sign of wasted energy, so if (big if) we can make aircraft that conform to the required aerodynamic ideals for efficient hypersonic flight, they will be relatively quiet.
Just like with regular air travel, though, I would expect a few decades of practical application for specialized service before it was commodified to be really useful for large amounts of passengers.
I think the concern is for the frothing masses of earthbound unfortunates, not the passengers hurtling gloriously towards destiny miles above the troublesome surface of the planet.
I agree, my rule of thumb is > 1k LoC is best built with statically typed languages. For 20 line programs that I don't plan to maintain for a long time, I'd hardly ever reach for Rust over Python.
https://www.project2025.observer/ it's not just aimless senile guy doing stupid things. Project 2025 is very much real and his handlers are fast tracking it.
It might sound a little extreme at first, but if you think it through I think it's the conclusion one has to reach when extrapolating from ones own experience to similar animals. Sure a cricket and I have not too much in common, but a orangutan and I, a dog, a pig?
I still love this "hoax" the Yes Men managed to pull off [1] in it they appear as representatives for Dow Chemical on BBC and claim that the company will now after 20 years take full responsibility for the largest chemical accident in history that killed ~18k people and impacted many more, making the victims right. Only for the real company to back peddle and say "no no no, that's a hoax we will not do that.".
I don't think the tools are the issue here, they are tools you can do good and bad jobs with all of them. What is lacking are the right incentives. The tech market has never been as anti-competitive as it is today. Let's repeal DMCA 1201 and go from there.
IMO for that to make sense the license would have to be infectious and even then you run into the anything but trivial and gameable issue of splitting royalties among the tree of dependencies. Redis itself uses other open source libraries and so on. It's a tricky problem but it shouldn't stop us from trying, any amount of no strings attached funding for open source is better than what we have today. Personally I'd like to see it solved by diverting some amount of tax payer money to open source project maintainers, via some hopefully non conflicted government agency that ascertains what projects are more funding worthy than others.
[1] https://github.com/Voultapher/sort-research-rs/blob/main/wri...
reply