samdoesnothing

> Your position is simply unable to demonstrate to us how a blanket policy of letting whatever corner-cutting garbage slip into your food, medicine, construction materials, safety systems actually leads to globally better outcomes.

You're gonna complain about "lazy ideological posturing" and then in the same breath construct a tired, boring straw man? Was this on purpose to prove a point or something?

Only the most simple and uncontroversial political claims can be counted on. Regulating lead in petrol is simple, uncontroversial, and very reasonably likely to do more good than harm. It's an example of an intervention on society that is relatively safe and easy to predict the outcome. And it's also an outlier, because most political action is neither uncontroversial, simple, or likely to do more good than harm.

Yeah thats my point.

The world is so simple when you can just assert that your intervention will have positive effects eh.

The null hypothesis is that interventions are just as if not more likely to cause harm than do good.

You cannot separate the idea of regulation from their harm because they are inherent to the concept. A system so complex and dynamical as human civilization is beyond our ability to correctly ascertain the outcome of interventions, especially those imposed from the top down. In other words, we're likely to do more harm than good by imposing interventions because we cannot accurately predict their outcomes. Which is why they often have paradoxical effects. Rent control is a fantastic if trivial example of such.

We know central planning doesn't work, yet we are inclined to do it anyway under the false notion that it's better to do something rather than nothing.

Everyone should read or at least be familiar with Joseph Tainter and his research on societal collapse.

> “It is suggested that the increased costs of sociopolitical evolution frequently reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. This is to say that the benefit/investment ratio of sociopolitical complexity follows the marginal product curve… After a certain point, increased investments in complexity fail to yield proportionately increasing returns. Marginal returns decline and marginal costs rise. Complexity as a strategy becomes increasingly costly, and yields decreasing marginal benefits.”

Government regulation and intervention are one such contributor to complexity, and as Michael Huemer demonstrates in his paper In Praise of Passivity we are akin to medieval doctors administering medical procedures on society that are more likely to cause harm than create benefits.

It's fairly clear to me that our civilization is in decline, and it pains me to no end to see people push for more regulation and government intervention. "The patient is getting sicker, we need to let more blood! Fetch me more leaches!"

The good news is that collapse, as Tainter puts it, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a return to less complexity, and it often brings great benefits to large swathes of people. For example, the collapse of the Roman Empire was beneficial to serfs who would actually welcome raiding parties into their villages.

What is your website about?

I think this is an excellent point. More is almost always worse, but if there is a genuine need for regulation it should be absolute.

In general you want as few as possible of both.

I'm not blaming the compiler, of course programmers can explicitly write incorrect code in any language. It's not Rust's fault.

> but Rust's type system did catch this error - and then author decided it's fine to panic if this error happens

The issue is that it wasn't fine to panic, thus Rust did not catch this error.

It's not that deep, if AWS or Cloudflare suddenly disappeared sites would move to different hosts, it wouldn't mean the internet would die.

The reason why people are criticizing is because Rust evangelicals say stuff like "if it compiles it works" or talk about how Rust's type system is so much better than other languages that it catches logic errors like this. You won't see Go or Java developers making such strong claims about their preferred languages.

> Pause for a moment and think about what a C++ implementation of a globally distributed network ingress proxy service would look like - and how many memory vulnerabilities there would be… I shudder at the thought

I mean thats an unfalsifiable statement, not really fair. C is used to successfully launch spaceships.

Whereas we have a real Rust bug that crashed a good portion of the internet for a significant amount of time. If this was a C++ service everyone would be blaming the language, but somehow Rust evangelicals are quick to blame it on "unidiomatic Rust code".

A language that lets this easily happen is a poorly designed language. Saying you need to ban a commonly used method in all production code is broken.

Seriously? Google is an incredibly evil company whose net contribution to society is probably only barely positive thanks to their original product (search). Since completely de-googling I've felt a lot better about myself.

It's inflation. The hidden tax that's perpetually underreported by governments and acts as a massive transfer of wealth to the property class.

Chat Control isn't something being pushed in the States though, so your criticism just seems like you're taking a random shot at the USA rather than accepting the uncomfortable truth that the EU is becoming increasingly authoritarian.

You see this happening a lot where criticisms of capitalism gets laundered in with criticisms of political power as a means to deflect.

Because I don't blindly accept bad science? It's more like others are sure that this data confirms their biases.

I usually am skeptical about a literal thousandfold improvement, yes. And I'm not saying it's impossible, but rather that the data and the way it's presented has inherent biases. Its on the people making grandiose claims to prove them.

It's not about learning syntax, it's about finding it generally tolerable to read. I personally find Rust syntax repulsive and would opt for a different language unless Rust was literally the only option. Thankfully it's never the only option, now or in the future.

Except it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. The C++ code has been around a lot longer, and a lot of it was written with older versions of C++ which didn't have modern safety features. I'm sure there is a bunch of new/delete in their codebase still. And I'm sure they're actively looking for memory safety issues in C++, and probably not so hard (if at all) with Rust.

They found a memory safety bug in their Rust code and assumed it was the only memory safety bug in their Rust codebase. And then they compared it to the historical average in C++ code that's been around for almost two decades in production. I can't be the only one here who sees how biased this comparison is right?

I mean, maybe if your background is mathematics this would make sense. But for a lot of us it isn't, we're more linguistically oriented and we certainly are not going to come up with some pure mathematical formula that describes a problem, but we might describe the problem and break it down into steps and then implement those steps.

jfc

Such a tragedy, and I'm really not surprised it happened in Canada. Our healthcare system here is utter garbage and there isn't really any political will to do anything about it because "it's better than the Americans at least" (it's not). I don't buy that it's underfunded either, it's just sorely mismanaged and nobody wants to build or grow. Even a child could tell you if you increase the population of a country by 10% in ten years, you also need to grow its infrastructure by at least that amount - but our political class are idiots and haven't even considered it. After all it's not "green" to build more hospitals. And thus we get situations like this where there literally aren't enough ambulances to handle the load.

I'm sorry if I'm ranting under a post about a father's passing, but tragedies like this are so avoidable that it practically sends me into a rage. This person should still be alive, she should still have her father. Fuck sakes.

Who are you to determine what other people want? Who made you god?

Ah yes, our wonderful governments won't beat us up if we don't comply, they'll just take our possessions and money so we don't have food, shelter, transportation, or the capacity to generate income. Totally non-violent.

"political power flows from the barrel of a gun" - Mao

> Eh? Violence? For refusing mandatory upkeep around your home and neighborhood? Are you writing this from North Korea or something? How is fining you such a foreign concept where you live that your government has to resort to violence to get you to do some upkeep as a homeowner?

What happens when you don't pay the fine? What happens when you resist the armed men at your door?

> outright insulting to human dignity to suggest that these are comparable to slavery

What's outright insulting to human dignity is authoritarians justifying slavery on the basis of "other forms are worse".

Systematic widespread slavery is obviously different from using the threat or application of violence to compel unpaid labor in smaller-scale scenarios, but both are de facto slavery and both are direct violations of the amendment. If you wanna argue that there is a concept of a "lesser violation" and that it makes some forms of slavery OK, be my guest but even children don't buy arguments like that.

It's like trying to argue that a little murder is fine because really, the laws are set up to prevent mass murder.