It's not even running on bare metal.
1,274 karma · joined March 3, 2020
?! So this is just a stand-alone binary with an awkward loader then.
The real trick (and challenge) comes when you want to run your stuff on actual bare metal.
Take Paris or Berlin with their 5-8 floor buildings as far as the eye can see. That's a moderate density for a modern city, leaves space for green spaces, infrastructure and is so dense that everybody can sort-of affort it while not so dense that everybody is just anonomous. You can still know all neighbors in your building by name. (That there is a problem with exploding rents is a separate issue.)
As contrast, take the average north american city with a million residents. most either live in a detached house or in a 30+ floor skyscraper. Of course the detached houses rather close to a city center won't have much space around them, so you hav 1.5 bushes and then there is the fence and next house. The lots are worth millions and out of reach for most unless the go super deep into debt and have a lot of luck. Or you live in an anonymous skyscraper silo. There is an alternative to all this, but all that's happening is that excuses are ruminated back and forth.
That overachiever neighbor with 3 kids he rarely sees, the trophy wife that wants another gucci handbag and the porsche he drives hastily to the next meeting? Does he have more money? Sure. Is he more happy? Hardly. If the happiness and relaxation metric are what counts then me bindge watching netflix a lazy saturday morning wins 10x over that guy rushing to the airport to make it to his business class flight to Paris.
That's arguably worse than competing with other people, because with other people there is always the excuse of different contexts and conditions, while with yourself it's only you to blame if you don't come up on top.
Which, coincidentally, is what the original article is about. I suggest a reread and a bit of meditation about it.
> It takes work to achieve this, just like it takes work to achieve any useful skill.
This is the recipe to have the exact feeling of inadequacy discussed in the article. "Didn't achieve? So you didn't put in the work. Shame on you. You are behind."
> "losers focus on the winners, and winners focus on themselves".
Having to be a winner is the exact mentality descibed in the article.
And your kids not being raised wimps is a comment that just makes me sad.
Remember that in the software engineering industry, the (competent) engineer is the hot commodity. If your employer turns out a bad apple, just leave to a different one. That's what keeps the nonsense in check -- not regulations, but competition for the best employees. For employees this is a great situation to be in. Unlike in other industries.
And it's also pretty certain that posting this message into the eternal commit history can easily be interpreted as trying to make IBM look bad, which tends to not sit well with any employer.
Sounds like the articles point. But on steroids.
All it does is keep people from doing actual work and be happy doing so. This is just infighting waiting to happen.
Did you make the same amount of noise when Apple stopped include the phone charger? "What brand new phone on earth..."?
What a weird detail to make so much noise about.
Offering as much freedom as possible comes at a price. A price paid in money, in one-generation-older hardware of some components, and in making compromises that some components are not as free as they ideally would be, but which don't have alternatives.
You don't fit that niche, apparently, but just don't go buy it then. Instead of ranting, go buy an overpriced macbook and leave other people to their own choices.
As comparison, it's like saying that current EVs are not totally carbon-neutral, too slow and too expensive so you don't see the point and keep buying cars with ICEs. You are free to have that opinion, but it's not the only one around.
Nonsense. It's lobbyism. In more drastic terms, corruption. Plain and simple.
We can have this "discussion" once significant industrial nations have implemented a carbon tax. Until then, it's all just excuses. Similar to all the bunch of nonsense people come up with why they can't start working out today or save money today or go to bed right now instead of after watching the next episode of whatnot-series.
As long as we are having this kind of "discussion" I can see why fantasies about leaving earth and colonizing space are popular.
These discussions tend to be heavy on Asimov-inspired scifi-think and weak on just taking a walk in a forest on a nice sunny day in late spring. All this talk about having to colonize space is just rubbish, compared to the wonders of nature that would be worth preserving.
But the audience here is strongly biased. If most of your day is spent in front of a computer and reading scifi novels in the evening, then that's where the discussion moves.
Of course one feels inadequate in an article supposedly about fire if all we ever get presented with are different shades of grey smoke and "as it turns out it's beautiful" and "I've researched this smoke since the 80s".
Oh wait, he never actually did.
And it's also a deeply unscientific place. The option to be wrong and change course is at the heart of true scientific inquiry.
Unfortunately, by reading your comment history, I learned that you've been self promoting here for quite a while and have always been ignoring questions about references to other people's thoughts on your work. I also learned that there is a wikipedia talk page and apparently the same pattern happened there 5-6 years ago, where you were asked about citations and could only come with self-citation and claims of harrassment. And after sockpuppet edits you got banned there. That's sad, for everybody.
It would be so easy for you to just throw a handful of citations into the mix and let the research speak for itself! You want to go down in CS history as somebody having discovered something big, right? I'd love to see that! Then I could tell my grandkids that I was sitting in the front row! But you won't convince anybody by only doing self-promotion and complaining about "personal attacks". Scientific progress works by convincing the scientific community, and for that you need to engage with it positively.
As-is, the article is more like a mix of product history and sales pitch than something a hacker enjoys/expects.
Imagine an article about brtfs just mentioning when it started and that it procides snapshots. Yeah .. sure, but how? That's what interests a hacker.
What I'm saying is that the described scheme of Income Sharing Agreement is a step towards a dark age. Saying that it's always a choice is ignoring realities and just buys into the myth of "If you're poor then it's just because of your poor choices. Your fault." In the average western society, especially the U.S., there is a lack of social mobility that goes directly counter to that myth and can't just be explained by people making poor choices, compared to societies where mobility is higher.
Fraction of future income and participation in "certain life decisions" is just the beginning. In principle this can ramp up to all future income and all life decisions.
And don't tell me this is voluntary, which makes it all different from slavery. Alex himself writes "I had no choice". Just take this further and apply it to some drone worker in an Amazon fulfillment center or other precarious employment. People who don't have a choice and would end up uneployed and hungry on the streets if they don't agree to terms put in front of them. The only thing between the worker and such a deal is labour laws, and we all know how popular those are in "entrepreneur" circles.
And you are incorrect in claiming that I wrote that.