I don't personally believe it's ever been true that users want the same UI styling across apps. When given the option to customize the colors or layout of an app, users will do that. People want their applications to follow common UI patterns, but applications should have some kind of personality to them, otherwise they just look like Microsoft or Apple products
If you follow common UI patterns, your app will look like Apple or MS app, and there's nothing wrong with that. For a long laundry list of reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41368184
DACH would be: (D)eutschland (A)ustria (C)onfederatio (H)elvetica...
This acronym manages to use three different languages, german for Deutschland, english for Austria (which is Österreich) and the latin name for Switzerland...
Don't ask me, it is very dubious to use this DACH hodgepodge term here, as definitely mentalities are different: the state of IT is in no way identical between these three countries.
Also, Dach stands for "roof" in German, I guess that's why they like it. maybe
The German social contract for a long time was that the working class gets low wages, which keeps German exports competitive and combined with the large internal market, prices low. In return for making the owning class wealthy, workers also get a relatively good social support system and job security.
I'm not sure this model ever applied to A & CH, and might be starting to collapse in D as well.
Low salaries to me indicates they believe it is a Germanic ideal to pay subpar wages for highly skilled engineers? I don't think it's a mentality thing, personally, I think it just speaks to the weakness of the European economy for the last 20ish years
Lots of people in this thread talking about low salaries in tech in the EU, but maybe it’s the case the US is the outlier? And not even the US as a whole, more like SV?
Are there any other countries where tech engineers are among the best paid workers?
I don't think Silicon Valley has really been the standard bearer for software engineering jobs in at least 5 years, I'd reckon as far as 10 years. The pandemic also has hollowed them out as well. You can find high paying software engineering jobs in plenty of low cost of living states these days. That city has very sharp problems that it is failing to solve and when given a choice, many people choose not to live/move there
Between 1998 and 2020 its IT industry grew to a sizeable share of economy. By 2010, the average salary in IT was 10x the average salary. Moreover, the industry worked mostly within the global economy. with many Belarusian firms subcontracting to FAANG, German powerhouses or growing into big successes in the mobile industry.
Unlike in Armenia or Georgia, the Belarusian IT industry was never a major tax contributor, but its internal spending power was enormous and it transformed the country into a much more livable place.
Since August 9, 2020 this all collapsed. Out of slighly less than 9mln population, 300,000 left the country out of fear of prosecution. Many of them -- from that same IT industry that once defined the bright future of the country.
honestly if you include other costs e.g. for acceptable health insurance, having children, eating reasonable healthy, general quality of live things etc. the sallies often aren't bad at all
Sure if you are one of the best of the best and are willing to take high risk for high reward and in general give up QoL/Work live Balance then especially in SV you have better chances to make a lot of money.
But for most skilled engineers they can get their money worth in the EU, through depending on their priorities and goals in live.
Like to put it in context to have a similar quality of live in US I think I would need to earn around 50% more before tax and that is even through US has much less tax. Through that 50% more also would allow me more flexibility for reducing my QoL at the current time, invest it and long time have more money (or much less if you mess up). So again a question of priorities.
Quality of life is pretty high in the US for salaried workers (health insurance is good at these jobs usually). Work/life balance depends on the company. If you work in a low CoL city, life is very nice (compared to larger, more expensive cities like SF and NYC)
Depends. If you want to live a good life you stay in the EU. If you have the will and ability to do great things professionally (not many do) then in most industries you need to move to the US to do it. There’s just not enough high-risk capital here for exciting projects to be done. I suspect comes from market size. Financiers won’t take high risk without high reward, and the reward is not here.
Please think about context. GP thinks, there was a weak European economy, esspecially about Germany in the last 20 years. This was not the case and even during the current struggle in Germany (not German swiss), more people from the US move here
I meant that the European economy is not growing; Germany has had 0 or negative GDP growth for about a year now. People move from the US to Europe for a lot of reasons, not necessarily because of economic opportunities. I think the most common kind of expat I see is someone who works remotely for a US-based company and enjoys the relatively lower cost of living in Europe. This is not an indication of strong European growth, it's an indication of the buying power of the dollar compared to the Euro
Kind of low-key hilarious that someone thought this was a serious enough issue to actually submit that code. I wonder if there is a written spec that helps to judge which integers should be considered "problematic" and which ones aren't.
Maybe they just didn't want the checker to flag itself.
I remember there was a similar check inside Google, where any file containing the words "DO NOT SUBMIT" will cause the presubmit check to fail. Naturally the presubmit checker needs to look for that string, but it couldn't trivially include the string as-is because that would prevent the presubmit checker from being submitted.
(Motivation for something like this is that if you inserted some extra logging statements or similar for debugging, you would add "DO NOT SUBMIT" in nearby comments, so that you will remember to remove them later).
It's also fun if you want to include that string in a template file so that users of the template don't forget to fill in the template before submitting.
The actual diff in question [1] does show that there have been multiple cases where such "magic" numbers did appear in rustc, so that the lint is meant to catch any such known cases to reduce possibly resulting complaints in advance, no matter you like them or not. (This is also why the list is not as exhaustive, as it needn't to be.)
And now I can't unrememeber and feel totally compelled to a) translate them and b) use them in my code somewhere.
Cannot help but think this is a deliberate pun, to get cynic's imagination going ... did they do this to poke fun at the PC brigade asking for it, or were they actually seriously believing it would make users look the other way ? Either option is funny.
(practically, used only "F0015601D" ... as IPv6 link-local address. No, wasn't a honeypot service)
if your coworker says 'ana over in sales is a babe' they're almost certainly commenting on her appearance, not just mentioning her gender. even if they don't explicitly mention her b16 b00b5, you may reasonably wonder if they're judging you on the same basis, and in particular whether you'd have a better yearly peer evaluation if you were a dowdy man instead of a dowdy woman
if they instead say 'leslie over in sales is a dood' they're just being explicit about his gender, perhaps because someone thought he was female
i'm not endorsing any value judgments for or against these statements, just explaining what other people's thinking (factually) is which leads to the kind of value judgments that lead to policies against putting b00b135 in your source code
i suspect cafed00d was included as a (possibly counterproductive) gesture to allay equity concerns like yours rather than because of any serious concern that a cafed00d constant would cause anyone any concern on its own
It's probably based on the Hexspeak Wikipedia page [1], which contains 7 "babe" constants and only 2 "d00d" constants. So we already had much more "babe" magic constants to start with, I wonder why... ;-)
A lot of my posts are mildly cryptic and meant to be humorous, but I’ll just put this out here seriously. I think anyone who originates an identifier like DEADBABE is a sick pup.
No wonder the compile times are so slow. Rustc comes with built-in content moderation!
Anyway I think they forgot a few, like 173406926 (// Intentionally written in decimal rather than hex).
Seems like they just checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexspeak. Kind of a weak effort, overall.
Really? Current mainstream political shibboleths are more important than for example their stance on module versioning or on whether C code should have a right to exist?
it seems likely that the degree of importance they accord to current mainstream political shibboleths is informative about the community's value system and decision-making process, and therefore how it will change its policy on module versioning and c code in the next few years
probably some people will think it's encouraging information, and others will think it's discouraging information, but either way it's important information
So someone using "0xCAFEBABE" or whatever, do you really think women take it personally, or what is the problem here? If I were to use it, there would be no target, and I doubt in most common uses there are any, so it does not make much sense to me.
I’ve never liked those hex words, especially the sexually connoted ones, but at the same time I find the existence of code checking for them very cringy.
Because every word and every combination of hexadecimal characters is "potentially offensive", and because those prone to taking offense are perfectly capable of finding it anywhere that they want to anyway?
> Because every word and every combination of hexadecimal characters is "potentially offensive"
No they are not. There are plenty of harmless combinations, like 0x1235679a or other with English words like 0xcafebad0.
Offensive was a bit of a strong word here, I was mostly paraphrasing the dictionary. However in male-dominated field, using an objectifying word targeting 50% of the world population is definitely in poor taste.
Most important of all, it looks unprofessional. It don't think it would look professional for HR to put jokes in our salary sheets, and I think the same applies to company code.
after the parent kills the children that were sending the commands to the slaves, it needs to wait to reap the zombies, because there's no garbage collection for the dead children. otherwise the process table might fill up from all the forking, like with a fork bomb. then stonith failover will nuke the server, unless it's on the blacklist of dummy servers
i wrote the stonith daemon in racket scheme because guile was too slow and was sometimes missing a heartbeat
Yes. Once I used Rust's Command in a wrong way, and after terminating a child it has turned into a zombie. I had to forcefully kill it manually each time this happened. It had to be fixed in the long run, because each run risked an OOM Killer (employed by the system) will show up and start its random kills. When I've finished my fixes, I've committed everything to the master branch and CI slaves started working nightly to bring me fresh binaries to execute in the morning. It wasn't much longer after smoke tests when it was apparent that the bug was eliminated. ;)
Just wait until they hear that it’s perfectly fine to show someone being graphically killed or blown up on prime time TV, but a national scandal if a boob gets flashed.
It’s just a particular flavor of first world problems combined with group policing using rage and shaming.
I know my libertarian tendency hackles get triggered when I see it, but frankly I’ve given up giving a shit. Mostly.
But there is a target here, too. "Ana" and "Leslie". I get the "b00b" ones may be "bad" in the sense that those are sexually explicit nouns, but as for "d00d" or "babe", not so much as it requires a target.
It's a mystery, lost to the sands of time. IMO, it's highly unlikely anyone will ever discover why the maintainers of the Rust compiler decided to lint their codebase for a dozen or so magic numbers.
It's fairly simple - and I don't know why no one has pointed this out already.
If everyone starts to use the same magic numbers then they are no longer magic and you can end up with strange corner case bugs and holes where a magic number used in one context is mistaken for a magic number in another context.
the github commit's "conversations" log for the commit has a few notes you need to log in for to view. But then, the maintainer who merged said "it's just a few constants". Which is fair enough.
I think this would more belong into clippy; it'd be easier extensible then, and less "magic". But I'm just a 0xf001 who's intentions are 0x900d ... please don't let me 0xbe misunderst0x0d.
It sounds like you are trying to define freedom as Stallman would. Based on that, here are his “4 freedoms”…
1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Which of the above does MIT not provide? Honestly, which one?
What you seem to be looking for is to take away the ability for somebody who writes NEW code to be able to choose a license for it. You want to take away their freedom?
And why exactly? What “user freedom” does this serve?
Well, it forces that users will get access to FUTURE code that developers write.
I think it is a stretch to suggest that a developer writing new code makes existing users less free. Forcing a license for the new code certainly does make the developer less free though.
If “having the freedom to take away freedom does not make a society more free” then the only morally acceptable choice is to stop using the GPL. Is that what you were trying to say?
I mean look at the case of Spotify's Car Thing. They sell you a hardware product, and then they can discontinue it in the snap of a finger. Users are out money with little to no recourse. Luckily Spotify is refunding customers, but only if they ask for it, but that isn't always the case for the discontinuation of hardware. Without free, as in freedom, software customers become enslaved to capitalism where they have to buy the newest hardware because their OEM only supports hardware for a certain amount of time. With free software, I can take the software from the vendor and provide updates to the product for much longer amounts of time. But because people want to use MIT, BSD-2/3-clause, Apache-2.0, et. al., consumers cannot reap the full benefits of what Free and Open Source Software truly means.
It uses indentured neural networks to write code for you. You're a neural network! You just have rights because you ain't digital (and way larger and possibly using quantum effects). Smh
Resisting the urge to be snarky, self defense is a legitimate answer. You may not live somewhere where it's common (or you may not frequently feel unsafe) but wanting the ability to have a weapon to defend yourself (or more commonly to show that you have the ability to defend yourself) from any assailant is a very real thing for people both in the US and around the world.
There are plenty of women with restraining orders against men who would do them harm who would very much suffer consequences, and be made much more afraid for their safety, if it weren't for "guns that shoot people".
I believe there should be stricter gun control, but that people should be allowed to carry other forms of self defense such as pepper spray or tasers (I understand these are illegal in some countries). If we invented a gun which allowed hunters to hunt but somehow didn't let people should other people, I can only see that as a positive
Because bad people exist and there are imminent dangers? There are legitimately good uses of people shooting people all the time. Hostage situations being the painfully obvious example.
Well obviously the police would have access to other kinds of guns, but if civilian guns were only capable of shooting deer then that would be a definite plus
But on the highway they are watching over you so you don't break any laws. They have police officers who patrol the highways and traffic cameras. If this had any implications on people's basic human rights, I might agree but driving is a privilege, not a right.
It's very different to watch 1% of drivers, 1% of the time, and to watch 100% of drivers, 100% of the time.
There's no room for change if law enforcement is absolute. Imagine if gay people could never sex, because a microchip zapped their brain whenever they got a sexual thought about a member of the same sex. Homosexuality would still be illegal.
Putting a microchip in people's brains is a completely different thing than putting a microchip in people's cars. People have a right to bodily autonomy; they don't have a right to drive a car. The first would violate human rights on principle alone, the second has no implication on human rights
I think that very much depends on what the chip in the car does. If it effectively broadcasts your movements to the government, I very much think that does have human rights implications (on the right to privacy).
However, if the chip just limits your car's speed, I have trouble imagining what rights that would violate. Your right to speed? C'mon.
In my state, it's illegal to go over the speed limit at any point, for any reason. If you want to pass someone, you do so in the left lane, at the speed limit, and then move back over to the middle/right lane. And you best believe you'll get pulled over
In my particular state things tend to be a lot more nuanced. E.g. at the surrounding highway of a major city the typical traffic speed will be 10-15 over the posted and it's 20-25 that gets people pulled over. Go about an hour out from that city and you may be on a stretch of highway where going 5 over is a ticket. Very rarely is anywhere going e.g. 2 mph going to get you pulled over but it does happen some places. We do have turn on red though!
Regardless of where I've travelled in the US I've yet to see someone get pulled over for travelling in the passing lane (though I know it to obviously be a thing just not lucky enough to witness it). I thought for sure I was finally going to see it in Texas with this person doing 10 under in the left lane but the trooper just passed on by to their right.
And what state is that? I do know that some states are over zealous about this but two vehicles driving next to each other slowing gaining on another to overtake is also creating a dangerous road situation. This is taught when you take your written test in CA. Trucks don’t really have a choice which is why it’s normal for them to do so even on a two lane highway.
> two vehicles driving next to each other slowing gaining on another to overtake is also creating a dangerous road situation
Then perhaps you shouldn't pass if it's not safe to do so. My problem with everyone in this thread and who is against speed limiters is: the subtext is that they want to go faster than the speed limit so they can arrive faster. It's simply the fact that people are willing to engage is an extremely dangerous activity multiple times a day so that they can save a few minutes a day. The idea that people should have the right to go dangerously fast because it's simply more convenient for them is a psychotic proposition to me
FWIW, Virginia is infamous for strict enforcement of traffic laws—I've never even driven there but have been warned to pay extra close attention when crossing its borders.
Most US states aren't anything like Virginia. I just did a road trip across ~20 states and in none of them did people in cars (as opposed to semis) actually follow the speed limit on the highway. Most states had ~8 over as the normal speed, none were less than 5 over.
> The idea that people should have the right to go dangerously fast because it's simply more convenient
No one is saying anything about dangerously fast driving. In most US states speed limits are set with the understanding that a significant portion of drivers will drive 5 to 10 mph faster than the speed limit and not get pulled over even if a cop sees them. In those states driving at or below the speed limit is actually more dangerous because you're creating an obstruction that other drivers who are following the expected driving patterns have to adapt to.
(Again, from what I understand that doesn't apply to Virginia, which would be why your experience differs from most here.)
I think it's more the idea that the speed limit should be reasonably close to what'd be unsafe for long periods, not pressed to the absolute border between what a safe speed and a psychotic speed would be. From that perspective it makes sense that, while you'd ideally like to just go 65 the whole way without obstruction, if you have to pass it's still reasonably to go 67 and do it in a third of the time than clamp to specifically 65 out of ideological principles. If going 67 is just unfathomable from a safety perspective then the problem is probably the speed limit being 65 not what people do to pass at a reasonable rate.
