Don't pay too much attention to the inner-circle feedback. Some people subconsciously use the tone of reception to control you, especially peers/colleagues are prone to this. They see someone having a bright idea, and they genuinely don't like it just because it makes them feel small in comparison. The thing they do next - they try to extinguish the spark by creating an illusion of worthlessness in your mind. By doing so, they are getting rid of a potential competitor on their own way to success. According to psychology, they start feeling normal again by reducing you, this is a natural compensatory mechanism ingrained in human archetypes.

The key thing here is to be able to discern between real and manipulated input information. For this, gut feeling usually works best: it spots that whiny, attention-insisting, importance-seeking, fear-inducing tone of a manipulator, but oftentimes the higher-level nervous system of the brain suppresses that signal (e.g. "How can a well-educated and charismatic person feel a bit off and responsibility-lacking sometimes? It cannot be right, so it must be something with my interpretation of reality. I bet they have the best intentions.")

An even better approach may be not to search for feedback at all, unless it's shared naturally without any strings attached.

It’s a great insight and fun to think about. Perfect for HN.

If I put on my academic-paper-reviewer hat, I’d probably ask: what does that insight get us? What knowledge can we pull from databases into compilers? If we convert compiler/linker/loader operations into database lingo, then do we see patterns or more insights that let us resolve existing controversies/problems?

I haven’t read the author’s academic paper, so I don’t know what he considered the contribution to be. The contribution is “what knowledge was learned that improved the world”. The insight is enough for a minor paper, in my opinion. But if you can show it is the key to tackling an existing problem, that would be a great paper.

Academic reviews are rough. Hasty, inconsistent, often poorly written or incomplete. Responses can be random with good papers getting harsh reviews. Don’t take it too personally. Sometimes the information in a communication isn’t in the content - it is what it says about the communicator. Keep working on your writing and thinking clearly and your odds of better reviews improve … but will never be 100%!

Academy can be like that. Ignore and push on. This idea is fantastic.

I love your idea, 40% of which is because I had the same one. I think it is the next logical extension over using zip as the container (jar/ooxml/epub).

https://sqlite.org/draft/appfileformat.html

There is little reason that ELF needs to be so complex. My motivation was to bundle multiple wasm modules together along with data.

Curious what that feedback was, specifically?

More nix content