kjksf

That is obviously the case that federal money comes with strings and strings curtail independence.

What you seem to imply that there should be no strings. Which is a position you can have but it has never been the case.

To wit, one of the things this compact wants is an enforcement of civil rights act and Biden admin did the same thing:

> The most important stipulation during the Biden administration attached to federal funding for universities was compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, including discrimination against Jewish students through antisemitic harassment or hostility on campus. Universities that fail to adequately address such issues risk federal investigations by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and potential loss of funding.

> Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent campus protests, the administration opened over 100 Title VI investigations into universities for alleged antisemitic discrimination—more than in the entire previous four years combined. This included guidance like a May 2024 "Dear Colleague" letter to colleges outlining examples of prohibited conduct, such as denying Jewish students equal access to education or tolerating harassment.

There was a wave of violent disruptions across many universities under the guise of protests.

"protestors" took over libraries, disrupted lectures, vandalized university property, used the power of the mob to intimidate students who disagreed.

The universities have rules against all of that but failed to stop it, leading to weeks long disruptions on campus.

There are videos of all that on the internet.

And you're playing dumb asking what actions do they mean. Those actions: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=university+prot...

Actions like setting fire to university, which apparently happened yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voqhFZZ9zyA

Actions like smashing windows by masked hooligans: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CH2kUU3h9j4

Actins like breaking cop's nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMssP-A09A

As to defining a "woman" as anything else than a woman: it's modern day flat earthism, not something a serious person should entertain.

Given that leftists have gained control of academia, are democrats fascists?

My claim of "leftists control academia" is based on data on political affiliation / donations by staff at major universities which is 80-90% democrats.

Yes, to the extent that any violation of constitution injures me.

Forcing me to say things I don't want to say under threat of punishment violates first amendment. It's been litigated and so concluded.

The fact that it's the 1st amendment indicates that founding fathers thought that it is indeed the greatest injury us government can inflict on us citizens.

In theory they could but in practice they don't want to. No company wants to loose $2B a year of free money.

Suddenly loosing 45% of revenues would be devastating.

And yes, MIT is a company. They have a CEO (under a different name), a board of directors, thousands of employees and they provide a service for a fee.

No one that works for MIT wants to loose that money. Not CEO, not board of directors, not employees.

Maybe they'll put ideology first and $2B second but I doubt it.

> an independent university

MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. That makes them dependent on the government and government is within its right to attach strings to the money.

MIT is free to not do what the government wants but then government is free to stop giving them (our) money.

Furthermore, MIT, like any other organization, must obey state and federal laws.

For example, there's a law that you cannot discriminate in hiring based on sex or religion. If IBM, MIT or a barber shop discriminates it's the role of the government to enforce the law and make them stop. The easy way is sending them a letter and asking. The hard way is to sue them in federal court.

You're so obviously wrong.

I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest, multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio. Half the people at protests are recording.

If you were right all that would be illegal.

The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy".

If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc. you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can be recorded, with audio, and it's legal.

The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two party consent the other person can't record the conversation without notifying you.

What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but not relevant to being recorded while in public.

You try to pin this (hypothetical) as fascism.

Let's assume Trump admin pressured Nvidia to invest in intel.

Chips act (voted by Democrats / Biden) gave Intel up to $7.8 billion of YOUR money (taxes) in form of direct grants.

Was it more of "Mussolini-style corporatism" to you or not?

It could be because the role of courts is to interpret the laws enacted by congress.

To my knowledge there is no law enacted by congress that dictates how SSN data is stored. Congress created the social security apparatus but day to day operations of said apparatus are in executive branch and executive branch ultimately carries the wishes of the president. So if president directs part of executive branch (DOGE) to audit another part of executive branch (social security) it's legal and works exactly as the constitution prescribed.

I think this page describes "what" but not "why" of Carbon.

Carbon exists so that it's possible to migrate a large C++ code base, like Chrome, from C++ to something saner, incrementally.

The most important attribute of Carbon is not the specifics of the syntax but the fact that it's designed to be used in a mixed C++ / Carbon code base and comes with tooling to convert as much of C++ as possible to Carbon.

That's what makes Carbon different from any other language: D, Zig, Nim, Rust etc.

It's not possible to port a millions line C++ code base, like Chrome, to another language so large C++ projects are stuck with objectively pretty bad language and are forced to continue to use C++ even though a better language might exist.

That's why Carbon is designed for incremental adoption in large C++ projects: you can add Carbon code to existing C++ code and incrementally port C++ over to Carbon until only Carbon code exists.

Still a very large investment but at least possible and not dissimilar to refactoring to adopt newer C++ features like e.g. replacing use of std::string with std::string_view.

That's why it's a rational project for Google. Even though it's a large investment, it might pay off if they can write new software in Carbon instead of C++ and refactor old code into Carbon.

UserID and AccountID could just as well be integers.

What he means is that by introducing a layer of indirection via a new type you hide the physical reality of the implementation (int vs. string).

The physical type matters if you want to log it, save to a file etc.

So now for every such type you add a burden of having to undo that indirection.

At which point "is it worth it?" is a valid question.

You made some (but not all) mistakes impossible but you've also introduced that indirection that hides things and needs to be undone by the programmer.

It makes sense, historically.

They had AI features that were always on.

Some people complained so they introduced a flag to, wait for it, disable the ai features.

So they didn't think too deeply about it and named the flag "disable_ai" because it mapped into how they were thinking about it.

You overstate the problem with negative booleans. It's trivial for them to add a function:

  fn isAiEnabled() { return !disable_ai }

and just use that.

I would expect a Nobel prize winner, MIT and Princeton professor and New York Times contributor to be able to construct proper arguments not emotional outbursts:

> Republicans say that they’re worried about invasion of privacy, that a CBDC would open the door to widespread government surveillance. But remember, these are the people who have handed over personal Medicaid data to ICE to facilitate arrests and abductions

Instead of providing an argument for why CBDC is not invading privacy and enables government surveillance he goes for ad-hominem of "they're bad and don't care about what they say they care about".

I don't need Republicans to care about privacy. CBDC would be a privacy and surveillance nightmare and if Republicans ban it, it's a good thing regardless of their motivations or thoughts.

Imagine a giant bank, potentially mandatory for citizens, run by government.

Today if government wants to look at your bank account and transactions they have to convince the judge to sign a warrant.

With CBDC they'll just have this information, they'll control your ability to send money which is essential to modern living.

We'll inevitably be one supermajority away from your ability to use money will vanish because you say something government doesn't like or call a politician fat.

This is not future dystopia, this is today dystopia.

In Canada during Covid protest the government gave itself emergency powers and shut down bank accounts of protesters.

In Brazil the new government just made it criminal to do and share interviews with previous president.

In Germany they're prosecuting someone for calling politician fat.

Governments will abuse any power they get so it's best to give them as little power as possible.

Politicians love it because they love every tool of control.

I don't know why Krugman loves it but you should be against it.

Sending money is not a problem and it doesn't need government to provide a "solution".

So you run the app. The other person runs the app.

How do those 2 programs find out about each other?

Well, they need to use some server that will connect all users, allow you to find the other person in order to send them a file.

Even BitTorrent needs tracker servers to connect downloaders to uploaders.

Now, you could try to make it run without a company behind it, like BitTorrent.

I guess it's an exercise for the reader.

Someone still needs to run those connecting servers out of the goodness of their heart.

You would need to degrade the usability (the first thing a user would need to do is to configure the app with the address of at least one connecting server).

BitTorrent is anonymous but for sending files you need to connect to a person you know. If you enable contacting via the protocol, it'll be a phishing nightmare.

So you'll have to degrade usability some more and use a side channel (e.g. an email) to exchange identities with people you want to send file to (or receive files from).

By having a service and a company behind it, they are able to perfect the UX and run the necessary servers to implement that UX.

No.

AirDrop is for people who are physically nearby.

This allows to send files between any computers anywhere.

The other person must be a known contact but it doesn't have to be on the same local network like in AirDrop.

I still intellectually can't parse the argument: yeah, we're in debt therefore it's fine to spend on stuff we don't need.

If you're ok with increasing debt to fund UN (and thousand other things) then come out and say so.

BTW: I would love to hear which wars did UN stop?

It seems to me that recently US, not UN, stopped Houthis from bombing ships, stopped India-Pakistan conflict, derailed Iran's nuclear plans and is making progress on Israel-Palestine conflict.

All I hear from UN is pro-palestine, anti-israel virtue signaling and zero action or even a realistic plan to help end those conflicts.

The U.S. is $35 TRILLION in DEBT. It's on a fast path to very high inflation which will be bad for everyone.

U.S. can't afford $18 billion of non-essential spending. It can't afford $1 billion of non-essential spending. In fact, it can't afford $1 of non-essential spending.

The argument "we're $35 trillion in debt so it's not a big deal to add 0.01% to it" is just incomprehensible to me.

And it's not just UN. It's $47 billion to USAID, $9 billion to NPR, $10 billion to California's "never gonna happen" rail, $1.3 billion to Harvard and that's just a small part of spending.

US government still needs to go on a serious spending diet. But every cut gets people to catastrophize how the world will end if US doesn't fund UN or Harvard.

The difference is that bank has a CEO that can take your money or loose it by doing risky things with your money.

Bitcoin network doesn't have a CEO. It is what it is and will always be that. Bitcoin network will not decide, at some point, to lend out your bitcoin at 100x leverage. There will never be a run on Bitcoin network because it always has the same amount of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin network is already "regulated" by the code.

Bitcoin regulations are merely governments trying to regain control they had with banks (they can get all the info they want about you, they can order banks to shutdown your account, like Canadian government did).

Governments print money because they want it and are ok with you loosing yours (via inflation).

What you describe (buy high, sell low) is the opposite so what incentive the government (or anyone else) has to loose money? Sticking it to Bitcoin?

BTW: it's not that I FIND fiat lacking. Fiat IS lacking. See all the printing of money by US, EU and everyone else. Most recent US budget is projected to add 5 $trillion, which will be printed.

I merely RECOGNIZE the fiat is lacking and Bitcoin isn't.

Musk denied it: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1943795272515301624

> These rumors are false. xAI is not seeking funding right now. We have plenty of capital.

He didn't "got rid of openai".

When he left OpenAI the stated reason was conflict of interests: Tesla was ramping up work on self driving.

He also hired A. Karpathy away from OpenAI to lead Tesla's ai vision.

Yes, I do write software for a living.

Software like https://www.sumatrapdfreader.org and https://edna.arslexis.io/

Because solar panel math doesn't work.

It's the same reason it makes no sense to put solar panels on a car: the solar panels would add minutes of driving daily.

You would need massive area of solar panels to power a sub which is obviously not workable if you want to be stealthy.

You're asking us to judge how pretty a girl is based on textual description.

I understand (and in certain context appreciate) hesitancy to blatant self-promotion but this is not the time.

Not seeing your website, websites of who you think your competitors are, links to your promotional efforts etc. makes it impossible to give good advice. The best you can hope for is generic, vague advice.

The devil is in details.

Maybe your website is bad. Maybe your product isn't as great as you think. Maybe your pitch is not good.

Generically I would say most people don't do enough promotion and could improve their "first time use" (onboarding) experience.

For example I make a note-taking application for developers and power users: https://edna.arslexis.io/

Almost all of my users came from Show HN post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40846242

So it's a sobering realization that I got lucky enough that the post was interesting and generated discussion and made people try the app.

At the same time, I know I could be doing more marketing.

I know I could improve onboarding, I could record videos showing how to use more advanced features etc.

Chances are you could do more marketing and you could improve onboarding in your app but to give you specific, actionable advice we would have to know much more about your app, your competitors, your marketing efforts.

Not your description of those things, the actual website, the actual marketing post etc.

At the time (11 years ago) I wanted this to run on Windows XP.

The APIs you use there (e.g. SleepConditionVariableSRW()) were only added in Vista.

I assume a big chunk of pthread emulation code at that time was implementing things like that.

For some it's stupidity. For others it's brilliance.

It's one of many examples of 80/20 design in Go: 80% of functionality with 20% of complexity and cost.

Struct tags address an important scenario in an easy to use way.

But they don't try to address other scenarios, like annotations do. They are not function tags. They're not variable tags. They are not general purpose annotations. They are annotations for struct fields and struct fields only.

Are they are as powerful as annotations or macros? Of course not, not even close.

Are they as complex to implement, understand, use? Also not.

80/20 design. 80% of functionality at 20% of cost.

Worth mentioning that this is only of interest as technical info on porting process.

The port itself is very old and therefore very outdated.

Thanks, fixed.

It works in msvc but as someone pointed out, it was a typo and was meant to be (void*) cast.

I didn't write that article to convince anybody.

I wrote it to share my implementation and my experience with it.

SumatraPDF compiles fast (relative to other C++ software) and is smaller, faster and uses less resources that other software.

Is it because I wrote Func0 and Func1 to replace std::function? No.

Is it because I made hundreds decisions like that? Yes.

You're not wrong that performance wins are miniscule.

What you don't understand is that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. And small, fast software.

How is Func0 / Func1<T> better than std::function?

Smaller size at runtime (uses less memory).

Smaller generated code.

Faster at runtime.

Faster compilation times.

Smaller implementation.

Implementation that you can understand.

How is it worse?

std::function + lambda with variable capture has better ergonomics i.e. less typing.