It's often impossible to make backwards-compatible changes to a format which wasn't designed to allow for future changes and which is designed to be as space-efficient as possible.
That doesn't mean that the limits of the old design won't hit anyway and force a switch off it.
They are. Every breaking change is a pain point for your users/customers. Every time they have to do something to work around your breaking change, it's an opportunity to reconsider whether they need you or whether using your product is worth the trouble.
Lol if you say so. I contribute to an OSS project with thousands of industry users and we break downstreams all the time - we literally have no stability guarantee. In the 2 years I've been a contributor I've seen exactly once when someone got upset about a breakage.
Each layer of your stack should have different types.
Never expose your storage/backend type. Whenever you do, any consumers (your UI, consumers of your API, whatever) will take dependencies on it in ways you will not expect or predict. It makes changes somewhere between miserable and impossible depending on the exact change you want to make.
A UI-specific type means you can refactor the backend, make whatever changes you want, and have it invisible to the UI. When the UI eventually needs to know, you can expose that in a safe way and then update the UI to process it.
This completely misses the point of what sharing types is about. The idea behind sharing types is not exposing your internal backend classes to the frontend. Sharing types is about sharing DTO definitions between the backend and the frontend. In other words, sharing the return types of your public API to ensure when you change a public API, you instantly see all affected frontend code that needs to be changed as well. No one is advocating for sharing internal representations.
Mr. Buckley may or may not be shocked, but he's certainly a vocal opponent of a competent effective government, so all of his thoughts on how he'd prefer to be governed should be ignored with extreme prejudice.
According to YOU. What a very poor all or nothing statement. And the reader should never listen to someone who claims all or nothing here or there. Nope.
Perhaps throw a bridle on your unbridled "kindly fuck off nuance" view.
Great. Now we have inexperienced legislators, inexperienced aides, and experienced lobbyists. That's definitely going to be an improvement rather than an absolute catastrophe.
Term limits are like so many populist ideas: they sound great until you think at all about the consequences.
Effective government requires people with a long tenure. That's how you learn how the system operates, that's how you build the relationships that allow you to get things done, and that's how you build the reputation that allows you to get people to believe in what you say and accomplish things.
In my own defense, the kinds of term limits I'm talking about are much lengthier than most people start out wanting, I think. I would term limit senators at 5 terms, perhaps, and representatives at 12 or 15? I think the issue is not so much long tenures per se as losing relevance by spending an entire lifetime in one position in government.
I think the point of contention the article and many people are identifying is that that control and feedback mechanism appears to be somewhat broken as evidenced by many elected officials achieving what amount to lifetime appointments that are only terminated by death or disability and even disability seems to be no obstacle in an increasing number of cases.
Yeah, I feel like our form of representative democracy is the least bad option. At the very least, office-holders aren't entitled to their office beyond their term unless they're re-elected.
The fundamental problem is that governing is boring, complicated, and unfulfilling to most people. The most impactful elections to citizens' day-to-day lives (i.e., local offices, state legislatures, and primaries for those) have absolutely abysmal participation rates, even in states that bend over backwards with voter accessibility.
I'll take inexperienced legislators with fresh ideas who understand how the world actually works over 80 year old careerists whose only skill is fundraising and who still see the world through the lens of Cold War great man politics. Long tenure is how you get entrenched power dynamics, dynasties and eventually dictatorships, and government locked in eternal stasis and unable to adapt to modernity.
I'm really starting to think Thomas Jefferson was right and every 20 years we should just burn Washington to the ground, rip up the Constitution, hang every politician and start over, and make the new blood walk through the corpses on their way to work just to keep the fear of God fresh in their hearts.
FFS, Hillary Clinton had the long tenure. She had experience - implicitly as first lady, and explicitly as governor and secretary of state. She campaigned on policy. She lost to a buffoon conman sex pest with no political experience whose reputation hitherto was playing himself on tv.
Am I saying Hillary Clinton was a better person than Donald Trump? No. I'm not even saying she would have been a particularly good President. But I'm just pointing out how little "reputation" actually matters to American voters, because she was obviously vastly more qualified for the job, and if that mattered it wouldn't have been a contest at all. But the one thing Americans hate more than an experienced politician is an experienced legacy politician. FFS the most popular American President in recent history was an actor who had Alzheimers in office, and got advice from his wife's astrologer.
What he have is already an absolute catastrophe, an utter circus. The competent, well-meaning civic minded politicians you're referring to don't exist, nor does the educated, discerning voter base necessary to put them into office. People voted for Donald Trump the second time because they thought he could control the price of eggs. Like there was a fucking knob somewhere and Joe Biden just didn't want to turn it.
The least we can do is try to minimize the damage any specific idiot (in the voting booth or in office) might cause.
No, they didn't. They talked about their process and their mindset. They didn't share the photo.
Your response feels spiteful and needlessly mean. When someone is talking to you, listen to their words - such as their words talking about creating art even without an audience - before jumping immediately to attacks.
The US doesn't mandate any vacation or sick leave days, so a huge chunk of the population can't even get a week off work, much less afford $4k per person.
I live in the US and I've worked minimum wage jobs for half my life. By minimum wage I mean where they only give you 29 hrs a week to avoid risking you become full time and you have to work two.
Yet, I've always been able to take time off if I really press for it.
You're absolutely right that it's not easy and harder than the average crowd here but it's far from out of reach.
Also, you hiked up the price by 20% by rounding in the wrong direction. While Americans don't have mandated vacation most Americans have access to PTO. You don't need to exaggerate problems to be able to discuss them. It only makes them harder to discuss and easier to dismiss
How often can you get that week off? Most people I know working in the service industry have to fight to get that even once a year. Hopefully someone's OK not going home and seeing their family in a year to take a vacation like this. Hopefully they don't get sick and need the week for that.
To the cost: $6500 for two is low. Just getting there will be a significant amount, especially if you don't live in a major travel hub like LA or NYC.
"My Galapagos excursion took place on a boat with over a dozen other travelers."
The absolute cheapest is the 100-passsenger Galapagos Legend at $2000 per person for 4 days, 3 nights - but a flight to Baltra Airport from, say, Pittsburgh will add another $1800 per person, and even from Chicago it's $1500 on a mix of airlines.
If you want a small ship with only a dozen others it will be significantly more expensive. If you want a week on something of that size you're looking at $4700 per person and up - plus travel. https://www.galapagosislands.com/cruises/catamaran/tiptop-ii
I would imagine the set of people who would spend $4K per person on a week in the Galapagos does not contain very many people who don’t have 3 weeks of vacation per year (or are retired).
The entire post is one big ad hominem. The entire premise is "these people's arguments don't matter because of who they are", which is a fallacy.
I don't care if you think that a broken clock is right twice a day, that competent, intelligent people aren't wrong all the time, or that people are sometimes able to look past their biases and call out the truth, but dismissing arguments for or against AI just because of who someone gets a paycheck from is wrong.
This gatekeeping is bizarre and weird. It's not OK to complain about the impacts of AI because you worked in the tech industry?
Especially since it starts by complaining about Rob Pike's rant and Rob starts by complaining about the copyright problems as well just as this article claims to dislike.
Poorly thought out and poorly written. By the way, there's no E in "angry".
I would draw a distinction between "working in the tech industry" and "being instrumental to the rise of a terribly consequential corporation over the course of decades".
Copyright is a strange thing to bring up, given I mentioned it not and I couldn't possibly care less about it.
Does the author say “it’s not ok” for tech-knowledgeable to complain about AI? Or do they point out a bit of hypocrisy making it difficult to take them seriously?
My health insurance from AWS was about the same coverage/cost that I got from a startup I worked at that had 10 employees for a year or so afterwards, but the insurance from the startup had much better humans for me to talk to when there were issues. As for the extra money, my point was that I've found my quality of life is higher working for companies where I know where I stand in the medium-to-long term.
I definitely don't have any illusions that this is based on a number of personal factors (e.g. my overall financial situation making any additional income not likely to drastically change my quality of life and the somewhat unorthodox medical needs of someone in my family causing me to need to talk to the insurance company a few times a year to sort things out). The comment at the beginning of this thread was asking " Who would join a startup these days?" though, so my answer is basically "someone like me". I don't pretend to have any idea how many others like me there are, only that the tradeoffs for larger companies don't really make much sense for me.
That doesn't mean that the limits of the old design won't hit anyway and force a switch off it.
reply