alharith

They don't like conservative opinions here, so I am not surprised.

Unironically, this is one of the simpler setups for a multi-node WP setup I have seen, and I have set up prod WP many times. Anyone with associate level knowledge of AWS can do this. There is a reason there are entire companies (pantheon) dedicated to hosting Wordpress for you: doing it with speed, resiliency and redundancy is hard.

I recently purchased a new 13" pro, upgraded to the top processor. I installed Bootcamp and played hours of The Witcher 3 (on low settings, of course, but still). There were no overheating issues. Fan was going full blast the whole time, but it kept up just fine. Hopefully my little anecdote instills a little confidence. The new 13" is as close to a perfect machine to me as I have ever owned. It's compact, portable, light but a completely full powered functional 100% dev workhorse (with a great keyboard AND a physical escape key to boot). I couldn't be happier. Kudos to Apple for this one.

Throwing generalized insults is easy. Projection is a hell of a drug. I don't think it's constrained to cities. I hold to no ideology. I said the _worse_ of them are usually big blue cities.

Nuclear. The answer always has been nuclear.

Or quality, or getting what you actually paid for, or not supporting a wanna-be trillionare technocrat that would rather satisfy his fantasy to colonize mars than treat his warehouse workers humanely or help his neighbors here on earth in general.

Note the key distinction I made: I said commerce in general, not strictly limited to e-commerce.

Are you sure you have lived in the country? It doesn't make you a pariah, it makes you the target of lots of pamphlets to come to their Church. There are plenty of people who don't go to Church in the country.

And get this, there's bars too!!! With real alcohol!

Just a word of caution as someone who has went from D.C. to small town: It can also be not so good if you come with your previous political beliefs. Big coastal city politics are _very_ unpopular in smaller towns (not here to discuss the merits, just stating the reality). You won't make very many friends. Smaller towns don't have the same issues big cities do, so naturally it will require a different approach and way of thinking.

I am not sure why people think Amazon is such a dominate force on the commerce front, especially with respects to Walarmt. It isn't even close between the two. I am more worried about the cloud technology space being down to basically two choices now.

There are infinitely more language users. I'd rather throw a bone to the compiler developers.

> To make the same product in 1997 would be difficult if not impossible without very deep pockets.

And likely 10-100x the quality and reliability, and without needing to sell every bit of your personal information. Has anyone stopped to ask, maybe we just don't need all of this software?

Efficient for what? What are we solving for? Rushing out buggy, complex, unmaintainable, undocumented software? Sure. We are certainly more efficient at that. Hardly anyone takes the time to understand anything anymore, thoroughly, and detail it for others. It feels like all surface-level stuff.

This is the lazy answer I know, but I wanted to at least answer your genuine curiosity: There is ample research available online on the subject that explains it in depth and far better than I ever could. However, I will leave you with a few quotes that help at least paint the picture.

From the Golang FAQ:

> Generics are convenient but they come at a cost in complexity in the type system and run-time. We haven’t yet found a design that gives value proportionate to the complexity

Quote from Russ Cox:

> The generic dilemma is this: do you want slow programmers, slow compilers and bloated binaries, or slow execution times?

Finally, one of the reasons the C++ or Java approach has never been palatable to Go core devs is summarized from this Rob Pike quote from his famous "Less is Exponentially More" blog post:

> If C++ and Java are about type hierarchies and the taxonomy of types, Go is about composition

So therefore it really is also a matter of finding a generics approach that lives up to that spirit as well. Contracts I think are approaching that.

All that said, user defined generics (since technically speaking, Go has many generic capabilities today already) are coming to Go, they just aren't being rushed. I think we will be happy with the generics implementation in Go within the next year.

Generics, I would certainly be ecstatic for if it was done in a way that is novel and feels Go-like, so not Java or C# or C++'s implementations. This has certainly been the stance of the Go team since the beginning of time. It has never been "anti-generics" it's always been "we've studied all the generics implementations out there, and didn't feel like any one of them were good enough, so rather than shoehorn them in, we are being patient." This approach needs to be celebrated more.

Exceptions, OTOH, I hope never see the light of day in Go. Curse them.

See my sibling comment. If you think the overreach the last 2 decades is the same as the previous 5 then I don’t really know what to tell you.

Sure, but not to this degree. We are in perpetual war, excuse me, "targeted campaigns in the interest of National Security" because of the last two.

Dismissing this as some petty doom-to-fail attempt to fulfill some narcissistic desire would be foolish, as recent presidential history, from GW and especially through Obama has shown us the levels we have allowed executive overreach to rise. Obama designed the blueprint for achieving things without Congressional approval.

Does anyone else find the costs associated with running well-tested, well developed systems overblown? Like if you know how to adjust some basic parameters, you will solve for 99% use cases (adjust memory, adjust ram).

Examples I can think of is Rabbit MQ and Cassandra. But in general, we have some really battle-tested software these days that has become simpler to configure and run over time. People seem scared to run their own these days.

By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. In other words, the government passed a law that enabled others to limit free speech. Wonder if this angle has been tried in court yet?

Cancelling 230 IMO is the wrong thing to do as well, but it, at minimum, needs to be modified to lay out some sort of "minimum neutrality / anti-bias criteria" and provisions for holding these Tech companies accountable -- something like 3 strikes and you're out -- you lose your platform status -- hey! kind of how like they treat the rest of us! Bonus points if we can algorithmically determine it so they lose it without human input or consideration of context and then have to beg not to be "deplatformed" by yelling for help from an actual human on other social media sites.

Then they can focus on just being a defense contractor. But there's nothing that requires them to bail out the commercial airline business, and it wouldn't be the first time a major aerospace and defense company made this pivot. When Lockheed merged with Martin Marietta, they stopped making commercial airliners.

This article does a good job of explaining the issue (if you can stomach viewing an article on a conservative site, I know many here can't, but the information is good) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...

Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

Yes I am aware of CDA section 230. Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for protection under the act.

Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.

But my kitchen sink just has dishes in it.

That's quite the broad brush you are painting all capitalists with. There are many ways to be successful many forms of capitalism, some degenerate yes, some not so degenerate. It is up to good honest people to set the example, because yes the greedy ones will always greed away. History has shown me that it doesn't matter what economic and political system is instituted, greed will find a way to exploit the good intentions of those systems.

I am sorry to say, this seems like a thoughtful answer but there is a lot of nonsense in it is as well.

For example, pluralism doesn't state there is no way to "find truth", but that in light of multiple views, to have good faith arguments, avoid extremism, and engage in dialog to find common ground.

> but there are genuine ethical arguments on all sides.

These ethical arguments, however genuine they may be, are not equal however, otherwise, you would be falling victim to making the false balance fallacy, commonly observed in media outlets, or the "both sides" argument we have so unlovingly become aware of in recent times. The False balance fallacy essentially tosses out gravity, impact, and context.

> That most of human progress over the past couple of centuries has resulted from companies doing what's most profitable, despite how non-intuitive that is.

Despite the over-simplicity of framing it as companies simply doing what is most profitable, this is, in fact, extremely intuitive, and has been studied, measured, and observed. I am curious what you find unintuitive about it?

> But I am saying that supposing there's some kind of obvious right ethical answer, and implying bad faith towards people at Facebook that they're somehow making decisions they genuinely believe to be wrong but making anyways, is not accurate.

This view may be true in a vacuum, but it is irrelevant. We live in American society, and there is an American ethical framework in which Facebook's actions can be viewed as unethical. Other countries that have this similar issue have their own ethical frameworks in which to deem Facebook's actions ethical/unethical.

It's not wishful thinking to want people to play fair. That's called being a decent human being, so apologies here, but yes that is a knock towards cynicism. Piracy is illegal. The law already protects me against illegal activities. Expecting people to behave legally, and setting your business to succeed in a legal environment is not unreasonable or wishful thinking.

I think I’m in the middle. Play through quickly then if I enjoyed it, replay a little slower, enjoying the lore. Makes a little more sense that way too.