Gadiguibou

Yep, I probably should give a bit more context with the links as they don't all confirm the results. I thought it was important to tell both sides of the story.

Link without paywall: https://psyarxiv.com/pvz24

Previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27371309

Previous studies:

- 2008: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00605.x

- 2016: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002851...

- 2020 (large-scale replication study) (could not replicate results): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emil-O-W-Kirkegaard/pub...

- 2021 (reanalysis of previous studies) (could not replicate results): http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0010-0277(21)00245-6/rf0045

- 2021 (reply to 2021 replication study): https://englelab.gatech.edu/articles/2021/Tsukahara%20et%20a...

I'm not the original commenter, nor am I experienced with upgrading in general, but what I understand from the comment is that you always make sure that your current schema is compatible with the previous backend.

For example, this could mean that you don't delete any column that were still in use in the previous backend version.

This would have the advantage of letting you rollback your backend alone if anything wrong happens.

This seems like such an obvious abstraction, that it's hard to believe noone came up with a macro to do this a long time ago.

However, that seems like a sign of a good or well explained idea.

While, I've never seen something similar being used before, I wouldn't call it revolutionary since it's not really making the function iterative, it's just moving the call stack to the heap.

It would still be a very nice convenience for functions that are more elegantly expressed recursively.

> Sadly, the two benchmarks are not equivalent, the Rust version loop over ints, the Java version loop over longs.

I thought longs were 64 bit signed integers in Java, what's the difference with a u64 in Rust? Is it the signedness that affects performance?

> OptionalLong

Thanks for the info! I didn't know there were Optional primitive types in Java!

Haha, yes, you're right!

I never saw it this way, but it sure looks like it!

I understand this must reveal areas where the other person is less knowledgeable. However, don't you think it's alienating for them?

I noticed the same thing.

I don't think I "debate" much anymore. At least, not with the intention that I assume most people have when debating: changing the other's opinion.

Instead, I try to focus on understanding the other person's point of view as thoroughly as possible. I found that backtracking until the last point on which you both agree and then moving from there seems to be the most efficient. Whenever you disagree on something, make sure you're all making the same assumptions.

One tip to do this well is to rephrase what the person just said and ask if that's what they meant. If not, they'll elaborate. You won't even have to ask. If it was right, try to formulate your misunderstanding as a question instead of an affirmation.

For example:

"I understand that you feel y. Considering x (the point you both agreed on), what do you think of z (what you believe follows from x)?"

I understand that often, we think something new will solve all our problems, but it only changes how they look and the old solution ends up being good enough already.

However, isn't it kind of pessimistic to think that there's nothing new to learn from rebuilding existing institutions from the ground up based on new knowledge?

I'm by no mean a crypto apologist. I think it's important to discuss why those new ideas fail and what we can learn from them in the future rather than mock them for trying to reinvent the wheel.

I agree that this certainly feels like it's a step back in terms of freedom for all users. Introducing these kind of measures and expecting them to be only used to punish morally wrong behavior is a form of exceptionalism. I don't think any institution can, in the long term, consistently have such moral insight and correctness.

Historically, I think those measures almost always ended up being abused at some point. Measuring whether they've been used to do more harm than good is where the question gets a lot more complicated.

However, I'd like to better understand why you believe that freedom is the main force of progress. Although I do feel like our society generally progresses towards more freedom, it isn't always the same kind of freedom that was present in the past.

For example, freedom surrounding gun rights, freedom from taxing or freedom from government interventionism in the economy (or what is perceived as such) have all, arguably, caused a lot of harm in the US. Do you feel these are all justified simply because they are "positive rights"?

Regarding that storage thing: in the hardware section, they specified that the storage could be expanded with a microSD [1] card which should already improve storage capacity by a lot if you wish.

[1]: https://www.steamdeck.com/en/hardware

Maybe I understood the context improperly, but I thought "abuse" was used in the sense of "improper use of something".

In this case, it would be the improper use of your life experience giving advice that causes more harm than good.

Maybe "misuse" would have been better suiting here.

I don't think that's really what's happening here.

Banks have been choosing who they fund and who they don't for a while and it hasn't really been decried so far. This only highlights that we live in a society that is both democratic AND capitalist: decision making power is distributed, on the one hand, "equally" to each citizen via voting rights, and, on the other hand, to whomever holds the most capital.

You could even argue that the proportion of the power that goes to capitalists is inversely proportional to the amount of state actions in the form of redistributive policies, market legislation, etc.

Once you take this into consideration, your initial observation doesn't reflect a new financial "cancel culture". Rather it reflects how much of the decision making power is now in the hands of capitalists in the US.

That's included in Rust![1]

Code examples from the documentation automatically become "documentation tests" to make sure your examples are still up to date when updating your code.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/documentation-tests.html

Thank you!

I'm curious about what those specific features are. Could you tell me their names? I'd like to go read up on them a bit more.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I'm familiar with Rust, but didn't know what he was referring to.