Is it? I'm with you on gobsmackingly ancient, but it's "doesn't support long options" which I haven't bumped into. I do replace some coreutils, but not all of them.
This blog post is disqualified from any serious discussion, because it doesn't know the distinction between templates, which Zig's comptime constructs are not, and partial evaluation with reified types, which Zig's comptime constructs are.
It's not possible to make a positive contribution after a mistake that basic.
Here's an example of someone getting the design space correct, and therefore contributing to the discussion in a positive way. He doesn't end up liking Zig, for reasons I disagree with, but he does completely evade being not-even-wrong, which is table stakes.
> This blog post is disqualified from any serious discussion, because it doesn't know the distinction between templates
Just because a blog doesn't go full type theory doesn't disqualify it from drawing conclusions based on experience and limitations incurred during actual use.
Something can be very well typed but still suck to use.
Intution doesn't need to be based on formal understanding. See Table of elements. Created by grouping elements by behavior, it turned out to be based on electron orbital configuration.
The central claim is that Zig's use of comptime is similar enough to templates to conflate them. That's simply incorrect. There's no value in trying to extract information from something which makes such a basic mistake as that, it doesn't contribute to a discussion, it distracts that discussion down a blind alley.
I think it's insightful to some extent. The problems encountered in C++ templates apply to Zig's comptime as well. And their solution seem to be along same lines, i.e. add constraints.
Edit: on re-reading the author doesn't understand why negative traits in Rust are a problem (not is basic boolean operation). I think they are abstracting too much and saying cows should be roughly spherical and water should roughly be a superconductor.
You can't reason about macros, that's not how they work.
You can read their definition, you can expand them, but there's no way to look at a macro call and reason about it, it can do anything at all. In C you don't even know what is and isn't a macro, so Rust has a modest edge in that respect.
Reading a macro's definition and reasoning about its effect is... reasoning. It's not the same as reasoning about something using its inherent limitations, which is the kind of reasoning that I think you're referring to, but it's still reasoning.
Ok, sure, we can reason about anything. We could reason about machine code, if we had the time and inclination.
I barely participate in Hacker News anymore because it seems to have collectively lost the ability to extract meaning from words, unless an exhausting and totally excessive amount of attention is put into satisfying a misplaced sense of precision. There's no intellectual charity left and it sucks.
I use Siri for about three things: timers, reminders, and asking about the weather. But the reminders are mission critical. I use the watch, and any time my flighty brain hits on something, I set a reminder for it on the spot.
I literally couldn't get along without it. The only killer feature of Siri is accurate voice transcription, and that's all I need (and it could be more accurate, I just get used to comical translations when I use a rare word).
I guess I wouldn't mind if it were better, but I don't need it to be. Reminders are enough.
I've never heard from anyone who likes the Apple Mouse enough to use it, but doesn't like the charging from the bottom. It's frequently cited as a 'flaw' by those who don't use it, this has become a bit of conventional wisdom. In reality it's a non-issue.
I have heard from a whole lot of people who don't like the Apple Mouse. I don't like that mouse. But it isn't because of the charge port. It's an uncomfortable shape for my hand, and I prefer a trackball.
I think it's fine for Apple to have one peripheral which appeals to a minority taste. We're not short of mouse designs and they all work with the operating system. It's not even the main peripheral Apple sells for the purpose, that's the trackpad and everybody likes it. I still prefer a trackball, Tim Cook uses some kind of oddball vertical mouse with a bunch of buttons. It's a big design space.
If they wanted to please the maximum amount of people, they'd need to clone Microsoft's mouse, and that would be boring.
I actually like the charging port design. It stops normal user from using the mouse plugging in. Which is not what it was designed for. They could have designed the USB-C port in the mouse does not come with Data Pin. But given it is a wireless mouse it would still work plugged in as wireless mouse powered by cable.
In the end I really think it is a non-issue. The shape still sucks though.
But for a small or medium flaw, you'd expect a bunch of people that complain but keep using it. Only a really big flaw would prevent users entirely and find no complaints among the people that keep using the product. I find it hard to believe it's that big of a flaw. It seems much more likely that the people that started off against the charging decided after trying it that they didn't care very much.
> The Software Engineering PE exam, which has struggled to reach an audience, will be discontinued by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying after the April 2019 administration. The exam has been administered five times, with a total of 81 candidates.
> NCEES’s Committee on Examination Policy and Procedures reviews the history of any exam with fewer than 50 total first-time examinees in two consecutive administrations and makes recommendations to the NCEES Board of Directors about the feasibility of continuing the exam.
Part of it was "most software developers don't have enough experience in other engineering disciplines to be able to pass the FE exam"
> This collaboration was preceded by Texas becoming the first state to license software engineers in 1998. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers ended the experience-only path to software engineering licensure in 2006; before the 2013 introduction of the software engineering PE exam, licensure candidates had to take an exam in another discipline.
> NCEES Director of Exam Services Tim Miller, P.E., says there was a lot of discussion about the exam’s impact, including how many people with software engineering degrees were taking the FE exam. “If they’re not even taking the FE exam, they’re probably not going to take the PE exam,” he says. “In addition, if the boards aren’t regulating the [software engineering profession], it’s tough to get people to take the exam.”
Engineering salaries in Europe are held back compared to the US by market forces (notably lack of investment), not unions. Unions representing highly educated workers do not typically engage in collective bargaining on salary, but rather supply legal aid and continuing education. It’s useful to have an army of lawyers on your side when the MBAs in charge try to cheat you and take away that promised equity, just to take one example.
In general it’s surprisingly difficult to compare salaries, because the US is a complete anomaly here. The tech bubble, stock inflation, real estate prices in SF and NY, student debt are all contributing factors.
In my anecdotal experience, there is little difference in actual disposable income for software engineers in the US and North West Europe, even when one makes $200,000/year and the other makes €100,000/year.
Good one, moved from France to Hong Kong, can confirm. We all move to non-unionized countries to finally be free to make money. When we go back, ofc we're all like "oh yeah you're so right, protect your right to work 35 hours, the boss is evil anyway" :D
The existence of various grades of a commodity says nothing about whether that commodity at those grades is fungible. Mostly it implies the opposite, in fact.
But you can't then say unqualified that "water is fungible". Sewer water is not fungible with potable water. Greywater is not fungible with distilled or RO water. I'm not convinced that sewer water is fungible at all, considering its unknown content!
Almonds are grown in California and not so much elsewhere, because with California's broken water policies you can grow them there for cheaper than elsewhere.
If California were to implement proper water pricing (eg via water trading), then the production costs of almonds in California would rise. And they might rise above the costs in other places, thus leading to a shift in production.
Have a look at water trading in Australia to see a good example of how that can shape agricultural practices. The Australian water trading system ain't perfect, but it's a lot better than the Californian mess. And it allowed agriculture to grow in dollar terms, despite severe limitations on the amount of available water.
No, almonds are grown in California because of a uniquely favorable climate. They're profligate with water because they're allowed to get away with it.
More to the point, if water had a market-clearing price, California would stop growing so much alfalfa. Alfalfa uses half, half, of California's water, and California has no unique advantages at all in growing alfalfa.
But to reiterate, your first paragraph is absurd and very silly indeed. Lots of places have super cheap water but California still grows four out of five almonds on Earth. It baffles me that you thought cheap water was a plausible explanation for this.
Underpriced water contributes to California's almond growing. I did not wish to imply that it's the sole cause of all of California's almond growing.
Obviously, there are plenty of places on earth that have essentially free water, and almost none of them grow almonds.
> If water were priced by auction, which I support, almond growers would invest in less wasteful irrigation methods, mostly subsurface drip: [...]
Yes, of course. But that investment costs more money compared to what they are getting away with today, so on the margin we would see less almonds grown in California.
Your suggestion that a reasonably priced water would drop alfalfa production in California a lot more than almond production seems reasonable.
(A slight complication: the fields currently growing alfalfa would presumably grow something else instead of lying fallow. As a second order effect that might lead to more almonds being grown. It would depend on a lot of factors.)
Why? Id truly be interested to know what makes Californian geography so massively advantages competitively that isn't infrastructure or economics of scale
The Central Valley is an incomprehensibly vast area of incredibly fertile soil, due to its history as a seabed and collection basin of all the mineral runoff from the mountains. It also has California weather, which means one of the longest growing seasons on the planet. Crops grown there grow faster and easier than anywhere else to begin with, and then on top of that you get to grow them twice in one year. It's really kind of unfair when you compare to farmers trying to scratch out a crop anywhere else.
That said... it's not like California is the only place it's possible to grow almonds, or even to grow them profitably. It's just the most profitable place, especially if you're exporting to a US- or Western-centric market. And as with everything related to the environment, that's because the profits are centralized while negative externalities are socialized. We all pay the price of the reservoirs depleting and the aquifers running dry - maybe not monetarily, yet, but in the form of LA needing to ration water in homes, and in the form of possibly causing earthquakes [1] - but only a small handful of people collect the benefits. And because water is available in practically uncapped quantities for such an incredibly cheap price, they have no incentive not to do so.
How much should society value a change in the risk of The Big One happening in the next decade by, say, 1%? Or a similar increased risk of thousands dying of thirst in an increasingly hot summer? Or even just a extra few weeks of water rationing being in place every other year? Probably a lot more than what the almond farms are collectively paying for their water.
I do actually believe that markets can solve a lot of problems - but in order to do so, pricing needs to include the entirety of the transaction. Right now, water - especially bulk use of water - appears cheap, because our future selves or children are unknowingly kicking in part of what's being paid. Non-renewable resources like this need to be a lot more expensive in places where they're scarce, or else they're going to become extremely expensive at some point in the future.
> And as with everything related to the environment, that's because the profits are centralized while negative externalities are socialized. We all pay the price of the reservoirs depleting and the aquifers running dry - maybe not monetarily, yet, but in the form of LA needing to ration water in homes, and in the form of possibly causing earthquakes [1] - but only a small handful of people collect the benefits. And because water is available in practically uncapped quantities for such an incredibly cheap price, they have no incentive not to do so.
Exactly. Capitalism is already a contestable proposition, but capitalism with infinite money cheats for some?
Without proper accounting of externalities, capitalism does not work even in theory. This means water and all natural resources, it means pollution, it means harmful products like tobacco or social media, it means big cars... So on so on
Most California lowlands like the Central Valley sit on alluvial plains where water runoff from the mountains evaporated over millions of years, depositing nutrients dissolved from rock. It’s like the Nile river delta but over time instead of flooding every year. They were also once an ocean, so there’s a very deep layer of fossilized organisms that provide nutrients too.
There’s other reasons like California’s climate supporting a double growing season for many plants but the fertility is what really makes it so economically competitive. Farmers still have to use tons of NPK fertilizer like everyone else but most of the micronutrients are already in the ground so it’s a lot easier to get high yields with low risk and little micro optimization.
They can also grow almonds where it actually rains and requires little to no irrigation. Just because destructive exploitation of natural resources makes producing almonds 5% cheaper, that doesn't mean it is the only way or place to grow almonds.
What's a good example of such a utility?