> Not fixing typos in a README.
That's a detail that, even if specifically was mentioned, would be overshadowed by the main sentiment.
4,464 karma · joined October 15, 2011
https://blog.oxplot.com/
https://github.com/oxplot
That's a detail that, even if specifically was mentioned, would be overshadowed by the main sentiment.
TL;DR bigger fishes to fry ATM - yes you need IPv6 to scale, no you don't need it right now.
How?
IPv6 isn't a substitution for CGNAT, it's an addition to it. You either have to keep CGNAT or replace it with dedicated IPv4 for each customer. Dedicated IPv4 is most likely too costly given the limited availability. SpaceX is also trying to cut cost aggressively.
You'd think that people working on FOSS are aware of this pattern and watch out for it. But seemingly not!
Tone is lost in text and I don't have much background. If I was thinking of contributing to Clojure, this post is reason enough to stay away from it.
Based on your explanation, I think Hickey should have simply ignored the user's post and let that be the end of it. I mentioned "blunt" response to individual contributions. That is quite different to a blanket statement with a "we don't owe you s... - f... off if you don't like it" vibe.
The main reason for living this way is not to have to spend brain cycles deciding what to wear every day.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to why bluntly refusing a feature, contribution, etc they didn't like hasn't worked for them. It's worked just fine for my limited experience in maintaining FOSS projects. Perhaps there is a scale aspect that I'm missing here.
To say someone's doing something for money, is to imply money making is their main motivation and end goal. I'm arguing that money is the means to an end.
> You seem to consider that cars made the world a better place, that's your opinion
I probably can argue for that, but what's more important than cars themselves, is the technology, processes and innovations that came about because of the desire for personal transportation.
> But it would be hard to argue that the current climate crisis is not caused by technology.
True.
> You're just blindly hoping that more of it will magically solve the problem
Trend towards more technological societies has historically solved the issues of the past. In field of medicine alone, it's because of industrial revolution, mass production, integrated circuits, and countless other tech innovations that: we have access to all sorts of medical imaging and measurement devices that help diagnose and save people's lives; vaccine development, patient monitoring to name just a few. You look at cars and see excessive number of people moving machines. I see an entire history of innovation in mass production that high scale car manufacturing has led. Mass production is what has made possible the cheap silicon tech we have today, that goes into everything.
TL;DR you can't just pick one thing and label it good or bad. Technology is general has evidently (as piles and piles of stats show) and increasingly improved the quality of life of the world population in general.
> technology is destroying life on Earth
Earth will be destroyed even with no humans on it. In the long run, technology is the only tool for survival of life. Life will go extinct one way or another, sooner or later. We can either stay in the cave and face our doom, or get out, innovate, make mistakes and extend how long life sticks around. We can obviously make more mistakes than we need to but that's a much more nuanced conversation than "tech is bad, let's stop".
> Because we can do something cool (nobody denies that SpaceX is cool) doesn't mean we should do it.
"Something cool", just like "only for profit", is not the goal. SpaceX'es mission is to extend life beyond Earth. Making Space cool is what's needed to inspire people to join and make things happen.
[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/urfave/cli/v2#App.ToManWithSec...
When US opened up GPS for civilian use, there was NO other GNSS. Other GNSSes exist BECAUSE of GPS.
> You mean by sending a few chosen people in space?
This is how every new thing starts. Do you think people one day had no cars and then suddenly a billion people were driving cars the next day? No! It started with a few who had the money and believed in the future to invest in cars, and further few who could afford to buy cars and were OK with the initial dangerous, horribly unreliable vehicles that the most ill horse of the time would be superior to.
If you read up on the history of literally any tech, that's how they start, and literally that's how they are received (e.g. waste of money, more important things to do, few chosen ones, etc.).
> I don't feel like there are thousands of successful social networks
Your feelings bears nothing on reality. Go do a app search for dating/social apps and you'll see hundreds, with dozens being pretty successful.
> But I get your point: SpaceX is a nonprofit with the purpose of solving the climate crisis
No non-profit will ever solve anything at this magnitude, by definition. This is what it boils down to:
- You need to have a plan to make profit
- in order to attract investors to give you money,
- so you can pay talented people to join your cause.
Yes some of your employees are there because they believe in the cause and they're fine with lower pay. But that's a minority. Majority of your workforce will want challenge and good pay or you'll lose them to the competition making social network apps for iPhone. I'm baffled that most people can't follow this simple logic.
> My mistake.
Never too late to learn.
One country allows the entire world to use its global navigation system "for free", build businesses on that technology, save people's lives and benefit from it.
One company brings usable Internet connection, the electricity of the 21st century, to anywhere in the world, with a fixed price, often lower than the existing inferior or non-existing ones.
> One company decides to produce more and more without giving a damn about their ecological impact, in the name of profit.
One company will have accelerated our escape from extinction.
> in the name of profit
If Space was such a profitable industry, it'd be as crowded as ad and social network markets. It's the exact opposite. To claim it's all for profit, is to admit you shouldn't be trusted with anything money related, as you'd probably lose it all in a blink.
GP is talking about the future. The future is what people are working towards and planning for at SpaceX. This of course goes right over most people's heads as most people are consumed by their immediate life (and rightly so).
But you're actually understating even the current state of things:
- First of all, "just" putting satellites in orbit has revolutionized human civilization time and time again. Global navigation, accurate time keeping, weather prediction, communication, physics research, disaster response, and that's just from top of my head. Cost of launching satellites often exceed the satellite development and build itself. SpaceX has improved on that immensely and continues to do so.
- SpaceX puts people into orbit and brings them back down safely. It's the only non-government organisation in the world to do so, and to do so for significantly lower cost.
> It's going to help isolated people get internet
Starlink is already helping 40000+ people in Ukraine to be informed in middle of a war! Starlink is also going to be installed on airliners which will allow far better monitoring and metric collection should the airlines want to use it for. This will greatly improve crash investigations in absence of the black box.
So if history is any lesson, when SpaceX makes a claim, one has to pay real good attention to details and question all their own assumptions hard because these guys have made impossible possible time and again.
Teslas are ever more in demand, with wait times extending to a year. They are the highest selling EVs in the world by a large margin and they make the highest margin on EVs they sell, while others are losing money and stopping production (latest of which is Ford Mache E).
He knows what he's doing.
Yes! When you have leverage, you can. What's the leverage? The amazing opportunity to work on tech that will power the future and all the challenges that come with it. Furthermore, ability to work in an environment where you are not restricted by traditional business hierarchy and practices that inhibit innovation. I know dozens of Tesla employees who've echoed the same sentiment, saying how much of more freedom and autonomy they have at Tesla, compared to their previous employers.
Also what's viewed as "being a dick" is clearly relative. I see a frank and no BS memo which is closed to interpretation and doesn't waste anyone's time. As The Wolf puts it:
> if I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor ... so pretty please with sugar on top, clean the fucking car
He has admitted time and time again, on twitter and in interviews, that FSD has been a series of "local maximas" which each time given him and his team a false sense of reaching the full self driving capability. So yes, when pushing the edge of tech, it's not easy to estimate timelines and he's admitted that. What more do you want? For him to call it quits or get into magic and pull rabbits out of a hat?
A single space telescope, the James Webb's, which is far less involved than FSD (runs in controlled environment, albeit harsh, doesn't interact with anything but well known objects and is produced once with little cost optimization, since it's not sold in mass volumes and need not attract customers) has been delayed time and time again and run over budget by multiple factors, amounting to billions of dollars. No one said along the way that the project leaders were liars who knew they couldn't build the telescope but just wanted to spend tax payers money.
Tesla employees own shares. They'll retire as millionaires, not just with a retirement.
> It’s like electrical code, you may not like it, but adherence to it provides a market standard.
Union brings a lot of baggage with it. Sure the above is good but doesn't mean union can be the only way.
> who pretend to speak engineering
He's more of an engineer than you'll ever meet in your life, count on that.
> anti-Americanism disguised as a work ethic
WTF does nationalism have anything to do with this? Musk is planning to put "humanity" on "Mars". You think he gives a flying fk about one country or the other, or traditions and status quo? He cares about people, not Americans. This the most shortsighted comment I've read all week.
> No union? No way, Jose!
Will see amigo.
Genuine doesn’t mean what you think it means. FSD is late because Elon underestimated it while working on it as fast as Tesla can, not because he’s a liar who’s walking his dog around the office instead of running the business and rebranding Siemens machines as his own.
We can talk about facts, effect of things on larger population, etc. I'm not gonna start a debate on you as an individual.
Kubernetes definitely achieves this goal well, and in a relatively portable way. But just like any other engineering decision, you should evaluate the trade offs of learning a completely new OS just to get a simple web site up, versus running a nginx instance with bunch of cgi scripts.
Elsewhere here, you said you've watched his interviews and yet you missed him mention, more than the dozen times over the past few years, how he split his times between his companies?
> Please do inform us then.
I've pointed you to where you can find that out yourself. If you actually care to learn something, you'll spend the time. But if you're content with your preconceptions and the media's take on Elon, whatever I say here will fall on deaf ears.
Your grand kids will understand.
> An automotive manufacturer who is anti union in 2022? Wtf
Perhaps you should do some research into the current state of "unions" and their members' satisfaction.
> My life would be exactly the same without any of his products.
And what about the lives of people who'll come after you, generations after you? Well he does care. And if you think that he runs his businesses for the money, then you're in for a big surprise when I tell you, there are far far far easier ways to make lots of money with someone of his skills and intelligence, than trying to compete in two industries, one monopolized by a few with a mind shatteringly high barrier to entry, and the other saturated by established players that have optimized their cost over a century and reduced their margins to bare minimum to stay competitive.
> while my life (and everyone else here as well) would not be possible without the products from traditional "boring" companies that nobody cares about anymore
Wait 50 years. Then Tesla will be traditional, boring and the one that one's life would not be possible without.
You've drawn the wrong conclusions, evident by you leading your argument with "pedo guy".
> The fact that he works as many hours as he claims isn't a good thing.
Good is too vague. Good for what? It's probably not good for his general well being. But then neither is sitting and watching Netflix. Long hours is necessary to achieve his goals as he has laid out for Tesla and SpaceX. And not just for him, for everyone who works at those companies.
> It's not good that he has had so many romantic partners
That's his private business. You should perhaps look into swinging. That may broaden your horizons about what is good and isn't in respect to number of romantic partners.
> it isn't good that he has so many kids that he clearly isn't raising
He's raising them better than 99.9% of parents out there (and he better, given the resources he has).
> it isn't good that he is publicly so out of balance
That doesn't mean anything!
> It isn't good that he now is facing sexual misconduct allegations.
So did Assange, and then they dropped it. An allegation by itself is not a proof of anything. It is however a very good signal that someone is either getting too famous, too powerful and nothing else has worked to stop them.
> None of those things are respectable.
None of the things you listed are valid or of any significance.
> None of those things are OK for a role model to be modeling.
He's led people to do their beyond best effort to achieve things that have been deemed impossible over the last 20 years, and made the world better for everyone. That's what you should be paying attention to, not his number of romantic partners.
> We need to stop idolozong people for simply being rich and famous and good engineers
He's rich and famous, because he's a visionary and a leader. The fact that you think people idolize him for being "rich" is yet ANOTHER clear evidence that you know little of him. You're basically equating Musk with Kardashians.
> Elon isn't a good human.
Watch the movie Pleasantville. :)