Ragnarork

The first part of your statement feels true, although that's... unverified and lacks actual backing up.

The second part of your statement is very debatable based on what safe means in this case, and whether it's an enormous benefit for a given situation.

There's plenty of stories [0][1] about Rust getting in the way and being very innappropriate for certain tasks and goals, and those "enormous benefits" can become "enormous roadblocks" in different perspectives and use cases.

In my personal and very subjective opinion I think Rust can be very good when applied to security applications, realtime with critical safety requirements (in some embedded scenarios for example), that sort of stuff. I think it really gets in the way too much in other scenarios with demanding rules and pattern that prevent from experimenting easily and exploring solutions quickly.

[0]https://barretts.club/posts/rust-for-the-engine/ [1]https://loglog.games/blog/leaving-rust-gamedev/

> As far as I'm aware, VideoLab has nothing to do with the VideoLAN non-profit

VideoLabs is a company which has been founded by one of the creators of VLC/VideoLAN and president of the VideoLAN non-profit.

It's basically a for-profit that hired/employs most of the VLC main contributors and pay them a salary to work on that ecosystem while providing consulting and other services to finance all that.

They are significant contributors to the VLC codebase.

After having worked with them in the context of a partnership, I can add that "for-profit" is mostly the legal form but not the mindset.

> I feel like once a language is standardized (or reaches 1.0), that's it. You're done. No more changes. You wanna make improvements? Try out some new ideas? Fine, do that in a new language.

Thank goodness this is not how the software world works overall. I'm not sure you understand the implications of what you ask for.

> if they aren't cheekily mutating over the years

You're complaining about languages mutating, then mention C++ which has added stuff but maintained backwards compatibility over the course of many standards (aside from a few hiccups like auto_ptr, which was also short lived), with a high aversion to modifying existing stuff.

Aside from "the right tool for the right job" kind of conversation, there's one inherent aspect to chasing the most popular language (given that you find an actual ranking that's put up meaningfully, which I don't think the TIOBE index is): you may find more people able and willing to work with it, which can sometimes be a feature.

I've been in a company which had a major refactor need, and they took the opportunity to slowly convert their backend from PHP to Go* because they couldn't find any good PHP developer (let alone any willing to work in PHP). For the actual project, it kinda worked, but for the recruitment, it went from not having any applicants / very mediocre people, to having way more people applying, and a few competent ones in that pool.

* As to whether that was the right choice, that's a completely different topic...

> Anyone has ideas on which frameworks those could be?

I would imagine stuff like ReactNative for example, which lets you write JS for mobile apps in a platform-agnostic manner.

To address your concern, you could look into avante[0]

[0]https://github.com/yetone/avante.nvim

If a city enforces a new speed limit somewhere and only people living outside of the city break that speed limit, you argue that the law isn't applied equally because no resident of the city has been fined so far?

That's the most backward way of trying to prove a point (without even addressing whether DMA and GDPR are a good thing or not, just based on that...)

> What is the "Price" of Instagram and Google Maps?

Those are free for consumers, but Google Suite (Mail, Calendar, etc.) for enterprises definitely has a price.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, there are 7 million unemployed in the U.S. currently.

I don't know how you expect these to cover for all the manufacturing you imply might come back to the U.S. with these tariffs, and that's assuming the space and the production means (factories, etc.) are here already. They aren't, and not for a couple years.

Combined to the fact that the U.S. is clearly sending a signal that coming there is dangerous now, especially for any other category than white males, and I don't see how you can even imagine that this situation is going to be working out.

Judges sitting in those courts are not politicians elected to take decisions weighted by how their constituents will like them and reelect them, but people who've studied law and its application (unlike politicians who can be anyone), who have been vetted by peers for their capacity to be law "technicians", and whose job is to "apply" the law, whether they disagree with it or not.

That's the concept of the separation of powers. Of course judges will have opinions and can never truly be objective (no such thing exists anyway), but their main job is to apply the law. And the concept of appeal and (in France) "cassation", which meana judgment can be revised up to two times, are there so that no single judge ruling can be definitive in isolation.

If politicians can use the judicial system to ban political opponents, the system is broken and powers are not separated in the right way. And I'll definitely not say that France has a perfect separation (the president concentrate a lot more than it should), but it's still there and this wasn't such a case (in the past two years, Le Pen and the RN is the group that Macron has been willingly compromising with and letting arbitrate a lot of stuff)

If it's been proven that a politician will cheat democracy, how is banning them from running for office a bad thing? And who should decide that if not the courts?

How would that be any different than banning someone from running a company after they've been found guilty of fraud or any other way of breaking the law about how to run companies?

If they've been proven unable to follow the law, they shouldn't be able to be elected.

As some extra context here, the judge mentioned that she was totally recognizing how heavy the situation was. But she mentioned a few things:

- it's been found that it was all part of a system designed from the very top of the party (so MLP) to embezzle money

- it's been noted that during the entire procedure, all the defendants showed complete denial of the facts and no will to accept that they did something bad

As such she pointed out that they was a high risk that they would do it again, and that's what tipped the scale in favor of banning them right away. I agree with that.

"The left". Would be nice to see how you came to this conclusion. Justice applies the law and she was found breaking it.

Also the current government is, by the most lenient definition in France, center-right. Although it shouldn't interfere with the justice system in any direct way, lest we want to enshrine even more the fact that politician in position of power shouldn't ever face consequences.

I think we can agree this would be bad.

A class that is not interactive then doesn't have to be a class. It could be a book or a set of slides with an audio narration and that'd have the same result.

Teachers that can only read their notes and write stuff on a board without ever interacting are of the most useless kind. They're completely replaceable by course material.

If the presence of regulations and taxes destroys a portion of motivation to innovate, then that specific portion was likely harmful to society and I will not mourn that loss.

> if you've done great work, if you've produced superb software or fixed a fault with an aeroplane or investigated a problem ... without telling anyone, your work is wasted

Completely disagree though. That work hasn't been wasted if that software is used, if that aeorplane can fly safely as a result.

Knowing how to advertise oneself can be useful but some people can also take pride and sense of accomplishment in doing things silently and knowing they did something useful.

And there's a difference between communicating, and advertising. There's an overlap, but it's not the same thing. Communicating is crucial. Advertising... not as much and wildly dependent on the situation (like trying to land a job).

> There was so far no measurable negative impact of Brexit

Uh... Disagree.

> On January 11, 2024, the London Mayor's Office released the "Mayor highlights Brexit damage to London economy". The release cites the independent report by Cambridge Econometrics that London has almost 300,000 fewer jobs, and nationwide two million fewer jobs as a direct consequence of Brexit. Brexit is recognized as a key contributor to the 2023 cost-of-living crisis with the average citizen being nearly £2,000 worse off, and the average Londoner nearly £3,400 worse off, in 2023 as a result of Brexit. In addition, UK real Gross Value Added was approximately £140bn less in 2023 than it would have been had the UK remained in the Single Market.[0]

The whole page paints a picture which is far from "no measurable negative impact". While it's contrasted with some areas suffering and others benefiting, it's hard to have an overall picture that looks either good or bad, but it's far from being overly positive. And this is just on the economic topic, there's another whole hoist of topics which have negative outlooks such as security, politics (i.e. with the Ireland controversy and how difficult this situation is), etc.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit#Imm...

I'm not sure about this. Why do we constantly need new ways of presenting data?

My main concern is that eventually it becomes easy to read and interpret data, especially for people that are not used to it, that are less data- or science-savvy in a way. That it's accessible.

It's good to try to find better ways to present certain cases, but also it's only needed as far as it's useful, and otherwise I feel consistency is way better instead of keeping churning out new ways to look at it that require an effort on the consumer part (no matter how beautiful / well presented this is) to figure out what they want to know out of it.

Innovation for the sake of usefulness is good. Innovation for the sake of innovation feels... definitely not as good (although I wouldn't discard it completely).

Thank you for saying that.

I see this divide all the time, and I can't bear seeing this used time and time again to make the rural vs. the urban populations angry at each other, which in the end only detracts from trying to see how to make everything work together.

I wish we'd be smarter and stopped just being condescending towards the other group. The only ones actively benefitting from this divide are not well-intentioned people in my mind.

> no more performative regulations which are so poorly designed that they are basically impossible to meaningfully enforce

It's difficult not to imagine that as a jab towards GDPR which, despite far from perfect, is neither performative, nor impossible to enforce.

That you're frustrated with that doesn't remove the need for it, doesn't mean other people think the same way, and doesn't warrant letting that area completely free to be rampaged on by ads companies directly or indirectly.

> A multi-polar world is a tinderbox

Meanwhile, a unipolar is totally fine....

Bit of a tangent but nice seeing you here and offering support. I remember your name from my time when I admin'd one of Liquipedia's wikis (IIRC you were going through some hardship with one wiki provider or something at the time), happy to see you're still kicking in that area!

> one of the most notoriously slow and bloated video game ever?

I like how you conveniently focus on that aspect and not how that didn't prevent it from being one of the biggest video game hit of all time.

Those two can be true at the same time. And that's one thing that a lot of technical people don't get. Slow is generally bad. But you cannot take it out of context. Slow can mean different things to different people, and slow can be circumvented by strategies that do not involve "making the code run faster".

> They don't have to make affordances or adjust for third party users. If they released it with no intention to play nice with the community then all they open themselves up to is criticism and bad press when they inevitably break third party users

I kinda get this but also don't get this. You can always open source something without giving any guarantees to third-party users about stability, feature requests, etc., no?

It would still be useful as just having the possibility to look into the code, and if someone want to build on top of it, then they know the context and have to accept the conditions.

A painful reminder as it is, that for many projects / components in the open ecosystem, there are very few if not a single person actually keeping it alive, maintained, and updated.

Mandatory: https://xkcd.com/2347/

Not sure if if this is way overblown in my head but this society, domain, and economy don't take asymptotic progress for an ok answer, and always have the pressure to deliver ever increasing performances and results, even when the law of physics become harder and harder to bend or circumvent.

It shouldn't limit innovation and trying to go past those limits one way or another, but at some point it feels like marginal (or below expectations) progress isn't acceptable at least for a while. That it then has to become coated in some marketing lie or half-truths to mask reality and oversell what it truly is... That's still progress! And it can slow down, accelerate, who knows? This should be acceptable.

I commend author for not shying away from writing such a take on one of the generally assumed consensus about code.

However this just underlines again why globals are usually good to avoid. It takes rigor not to make mistakes that can completely mess up with program state.

I also strongly disagree with the benefits author advances for having global. Code feels actually less spaghetti when things are properly scoped and not accessible from everywhere, which hides extremely well dependencies and makes it way harder to reason about the code.

One famous exception to that is indeed logging (which in itself is based on global state when printing to stdout or stderr anyway).

And also

> on account of how few places your object can be stored to

you can store things in a single place, just once, without the need for globals.

Definitely agree with you on the fact that there are tests which are complicated to write and will take effort.

But I think all other things considered my impression still holds, and that I should maybe rather say they're easier to write in a way, though not necessarily easy.

I also think that this is a great way to emphasis their value.

If anything I'd only keep those if it's hard to write them, if people push back against it (and I myself don't like them sometimes, e.g. when the goal is just to push up the coverage metric but without actually testing much, which only add test code to maintain but no real testing value...).

Like any topic there's no universal truth and lots of ways to waste time and effort, but this specifically is extremely practical and useful in a very explicit manner: just fix it once and catch it the next time before production. Massively reduce the chance one thing has to be fixed twice or more.

Writing tests isn't free but writing non-regression tests for bugs that were actually fixed is one of the best test cases to consider writing right away, before the bug is fixed. You'll be reproducing the bug anyway (so already consider how to reproduce). You'll also have the most information about it to make sure the test is well written anyway, after building a mental model around the bug.

Writing tests isn't free, I agree, but in this case a good chunk of the cost of writing them will have already been paid in a way.

> They dissolved shortly after Overwatch 2 came out. The move to 5v5 did not help as suddenly one of their tanks was redundant.

This is so sad to read. :(

Grassroot competition like that is the basis on which esports scene thrives...

Blizzard really wrote down the manual of everything you shouldn't do to make a game into an "esport", from the competition structure and insane costs (remember the initial slots for a league that hadn't had its first season yet was between $2 and $15 millions...), to the game balance which led to one meta destroying interest completely for way too long, making an entire role useless in the process, and the list continues.