Although I cannot comment on this specifically for Rust, what I would confidently say is that one of the best methods for finding the “best” dependencies in any language is to read lots of code. Find the popular and/or most useful projects written in the language on GitHub and see which dependencies that project uses and how they are used.
At least in my career this method has served me well. For a given problem domain I was able to quickly identify the best/most popular packages to use by reading the code that was heavily used by others. Obviously the more you do this the easier it becomes.
How do you define what an appropriate per capita CO2 budget is? Is it different for someone from China, India, and the US? What about the difference between individuals from rural agricultural communities vs a large city? If non-western countries have the 'right' to increase carbon emissions why don't poorer people in Western countries have the 'right' to increase their emissions?
What is the target level for developing economics? How does it make sense to mandate Western countries go to net-zero while all developing countries continue to dramatically increase per capita emissions?
Since it would be impossible to force China or India to meet the same standards the West self-imposes in this scenario, you are essentially asking Western individuals to pay a higher cost of living for NO net carbon reductions. This mandate will disproportionately affect poor people.
As a result I don't see how anyone expects radical carbon reduction policies to receive support from the Western world. I do not see how this is a rational course of action for an individual voter or for any developed economy.
> How do you define what an appropriate per capita CO2 budget is?
Negotiation of elected represenatatives constraint by a total budget.
> Is it different for someone from China, India, and the US?
Yes.
> What about the difference between individuals from rural agricultural communities vs a large city?
This is something that should be respected when the country allocations are made. However the distribution in the country itself is subject to decisions in the country.
> If non-western countries have the 'right' to increase carbon emissions why don't poorer people in Western countries have the 'right' to increase their emissions?
Because countries with unequal wealth distributions shouldn't be rewarded or allowed to externalize (by taking up more CO2 budget) their societal wealth distriubtution. However in terms of allocation of the budget in the country i would find poorer people getting more a workable solution.
> What is the target level for developing economics?
Being able work afford cost due to climate change. Being able to live a live without deprivation. Such that people won't need to be prevented at gun point from fleeing into the richer countries. That be a good start.
> How does it make sense to mandate Western countries go to net-zero while all developing countries continue to dramatically increase per capita emissions?
Because the consequences otherwise are ugly. The western countries could of course invest heavily to into developing countries with the goal to direct their growth. However i am not sure collolianlist meddling will be appreciated by people in developing countries.
> Since it would be impossible to force China or India to meet the same standards the West self-imposes in this scenario, you are essentially asking Western individuals to pay a higher cost of living for NO net carbon reductions. This mandate will disproportionately affect poor people.
If the mandate will disproportionately affect poor people it was implemented badly on a inner country basis. Inside your country you can do redistribution to make it less impactfull on poor people.
> I do not see how this is a rational course of action for an individual voter or for any developed economy.
Yeah, it is a case of a tragedy of the (unmanaged) commons. I don't think that this approach is feasible but i adopt this position none the less as any compromise which i am a part of will be pulled in a direction i find preferable for all mankind according to my ethics. I choose my position to optimize the resulting compromise.
The CIA has a history of spying on Congress[0], overthrowing democratic governments [1], among a long list of nefarious activities I would not consider proper "democratic hacking." [2]
How is obligating big tech to cooperate with Western intelligence agencies a positive move for democracies?
I'm quite skeptical of the viewpoint in this article - just answering the question from the parent comment of "would China be justified in exploiting Huawei?"
The distinction that this article makes is that our clandestine operations have "democratic oversight." To be clear, I think the author would say that they are attempting journalistic neutrality, but they're giving considerable space to the argument that democratic clandestine services deserve a different standard.
I switched from Ubuntu to Fedora on my development machines and it has been amazing.
Stability is superb and a lot of the niggles I had with Ubuntu just went away.
Fedora Cinnamon is damn close to perfect as a development desktop for my needs. I literally can't think of anything I'd improve outside of its multi-monitor support (it's fine with fixed monitors but plugging my 4K on displayport on the ThinkPad requires some finessing but so did windows).
You are missing the point. It's not at all about Fedora itself here. What I was trying to say is that today CoreOS (even in) stable is using Linux kernel 4.14.32 (https://coreos.com/releases/) and therefore enabling deployments to use the latest and greatest features, performance optimisations and innovation from the Linux kernel community in enterprise environments. Going back to RHEL kernel would be a major step backwards preventing a wide user base from access to what CoreOS enables them to do today. I genuinely hope that CoreOS folks at RH don't give up on continuing to deliver this sort of innovation. That is all what I was trying to get across.
We really try to avoid being a "bleeding edge" distro, and prefer to focus on leading edge. We don't always do every thing absolutely before anyone else; we try to be the first to provide integrated, tested, usable versions of innovative open source.
An additional problem is one of economic calculation. Mises argued one hundred years ago that a planned economy where the state owns the means of production and arbitrarily sets prices without an open market to determine prices by supply and demand would result in economic waste and shortages. He was largely proven right by the disastrous Soviet experience.
In a capitalist system, a zero sum game in which titans buy ads to pull marketshare back and forth between each other creates value, yet feeding a starving person does not.
That's a ridiculous statement, of course, but it demonstrates that the economic notion of value can diverge wildly from most other reasonable notions of value. The seemingly inoffensive "economic value = value" approximation is actually a trojan horse used by libertarians to sneak the more objectionable aspects of their theories past casual observers and put a tautological halo over markets and their preferences.
It's a point worth keeping in mind when considering complaints that X system doesn't optimize economic value.
While he might have been right one hundred years ago, the economic calculation problem might not be a problem anymore. We're starting to get to the point where we have enough computing power to simulate the world economy. Everyone also now has a way to communicate their needs instantly to a computer. Compared to what could be achieved with todays technology, the price mechanism is inaccurate and slow.
> "Everyone also now has a way to communicate their needs instantly to a computer. Compared to what could be achieved with todays technology, the price mechanism is inaccurate and slow."
The price mechanism means that people have to make trade offs, and for anyone living outside of poverty, that's often a good thing.
To use a simple example, if you're a gamer you may want both a PS4 and an Xbox One, but if you only have the money to buy one, you have to choose which one you'd rather have. If you remove the price mechanism you've absolved the individual from making that choice, and you'll get greater demands for material goods as a result.
Of course you'd have to somehow set limits on consumption in any system where resources are limited. The price mechanism isn't the only way to do that. You could for example have only one game system to begin with so there's no reason to own two. Or you could have public "libraries" for things like gaming systems where you could borrow anything you need, reducing the need to own things.
Resources should be allocated where they are needed the most. The price mechanism doesn't do that. If you don't have any money, a system based on the price mechanism doesn't know you exist no matter how great your need.
> "Of course you'd have to somehow set limits on consumption in any system where resources are limited. The price mechanism isn't the only way to do that. You could for example have only one game system to begin with so there's no reason to own two. Or you could have public "libraries" for things like gaming systems where you could borrow anything you need, reducing the need to own things."
Okay, but putting aside shared ownership and artificially limiting choice, how do you set limits on consumption?
Let's use a different example. Someone owns a car that they maintain themselves. Their car breaks down, but instead of requesting a new part to fix it they request a new car. How does the government choose which is the appropriate action to take? Before you answer, consider that this is just one decision out of millions that a government would have to make within the space of a month.
If we know exactly how much resources we have, how much resources we usually spend on things and we ask people what's most important to them now and in the near future, we can calculate the allocation of resources that does the best job of satisfying peoples needs.
If a lot of people think new cars are important, then a computer can allocate a lot of resources into making new cars. This would of course mean we'd have less resources for everything else and peoples needs start changing as a result. If you can easily get a new car but notice that the quality of healthcare is decreasing, the next time the system asks your opinion on resource allocation you vote for more healthcare.
So in your example I guess there would be a democratically decided amount of resources dedicated to making new cars. If that amount is high, the computer would probably give him a new car as soon as one was available. If it's low, society would be fixing and sharing cars and using the freed resources on more important things.
So in other words, you've replaced money with votes. Will everyone have an equal number of votes? Do parents get more votes as they have children to support? Do the votes of locals have greater weight than the votes of people from outside a region where a proposed change is due to take place? How do people stay informed about all the votes they should be participating in? If someone wants to opt out of your proposed society, can they do so and still retain material resources?
I didn't mean people would buy things with votes. People could just keep a list of things they need in order of importance and the system would only use those lists to calculate the optimal allocation of resources, for example.
We'd need to test what works best. I don't have the details of such a system because it doesn't exist. All I'm trying to say is that we could come up with other ways to allocate resources than the price mechanism with our current level of technology. What I just came up with is just one way you might go about doing it, I'm sure we could figure out a working system. Of course such a system would have it's own faults, but I believe we could come up with something better than the current system, where the "needs" of a billionaire are more important than the needs of a million people in poverty.
I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and I admire your optimism, but I just don't think what you're suggesting will be a society I'd want to live in.
The thing is, I used to think along similar limes to you. When I was in my 20s I saw the Zeitgeist films and found the ideas behind the resource-based economy to be compelling. A way to meet everyone's needs without relying on money. However, as time went on and I thought more about what living in such a society would be like, I saw that it wasn't the answer I was looking for.
To give you some idea of what changed my mind, I'd suggest we look at variety. As the phrase goes, variety is the spice of life. Centrally planned economies, whether resource-based or otherwise, would see variety as inefficient and attempt to cut down on variety. You gave an example of it earlier when I asked about the PS4 and Xbox One. Whilst it's true we don't "need" variety, it is something we collectively want.
For all its flaws, money gives people the chance to make choices based on what's best for them, with far fewer restrictions on what's possible. These days, I'd much rather see something along the lines of universal basic income than a resource-based economy, though I recognise UBI has its flaws too.
Variety in life can come in many forms. The difference between different brands of products isn't that great. You get more spice for life from trying completely different things instead of different variations of the same thing. The PS4 and Xbox One have basically zero difference, the only difference they have is the artificial difference of exclusive games. How much better could the PS4 be if the resources used for the creation of the Xbox were instead used to improve PS4?
I believe people would quickly get used to less variety. But if variety isn't just a product of a system based on competition and people really desire it, there are no rules against it in a planned economy based on direct democracy. People could suggest and vote for different types of the same thing if they feel there's a need for such a thing.
money gives people the chance to make choices based on what's best for them, with far fewer restrictions on what's possible.
Most people have quite large restrictions on what they can choose due to the amount of money they have. Sure if you're wealthy enough you probably have more choice in the current system, but for the majority of people I believe a planned economy would increase the amount options they have in their lives.
Even if the expensive infrastructure was put in place to allow electric car batteries to be used as a peak load reservoir, utilities would still need to maintain traditional on demand resources, such as natural gas fired power plants. Using a large number of cars is not dependable, utilities need on demand dependability.
What happens if during peak consumption in the evening winter months more people stay out late (such as on New Years Eve) and most people park in places where there's no way to plug in?
This would only add to overall infrastructure costs, adding a huge bidirectional grid in addition to traditional power sources that must be maintained year round for on demand use.
Long story short: NRG wanted to build a natural gas peaker plant, California Energy Commission said "can you do this cost-effectively with storage?", NRG said no, then people realized the "no" was based on 4-year-old battery figures. With updated figures (storage follows a manufacturing curve where the more we build the cheaper it becomes, so prices are dropping every year just as they've done with solar), turns out that yes, storage is a potentially cost-competitive alternative to nat gas peakers.
The application to build the plant is on hold to let the battery folks submit a few bids, I believe, but the econmic trends are clear: you can do peaker plants with storage now (or at least very soon).
It's just a matter of safety margins and probability. Traditional powerplants break too, and with enough cars the probability that enough of them wouldn't be available at once is smaller than the probability that enough powerplants break at once.
There is so much work and planning that goes on between the utilities and regulatory agencies to ensure we almost always have reliable electrical supply. Traditional plants have planned outages for regular maintenance, and they are constantly working to ensure there are enough backup systems and alternate routes to ensure there are not outages even during maintenance windows. The amount of cars and the amount of extra grid you would have to build to completely replace these traditional plants would be prohibitively expensive. It's not just a matter of plugging a few million cars into homes.
My understanding from a talk at Ignite 2017 is that certain OS functionality (like some Windows Updates) use it, and that it would get more official support later...but nothing I can find yet, so as you say for the developer it's still an undocumented 'experimental' feature. Hopefully this has changed in the latest build, I will have to look more.
Mormon and long time lurker here. Just wanted to give clarity to this because it can be confusing. Mormons don't believe they are forcibly baptizing these people by proxy. They believe that everyone should have the opportunity to accept baptism and salvation through Jesus Christ, even if they did not receive the opportunity in the mortal stage of life:
"Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf."
Thank you for clarifying. It seems like there is an unfair share of negative perceptions compared to other religions just because it's only ~200 years old.
Although I'm not a member, I lived in a 90% Mormon city for a few years and was made to feel very welcome and accepted.
Sorry for the delayed response. As paulddraper there is no official doctrine on evolution, but Mormons do not believe in "Creatio ex nihilo" or that the creation of the earth was literally a seven day period. The "days" of the creation story are meant to mean periods of time, and we do not fully understand how God created the earth or that evolution was not necessarily a part of it. Mormons do not accept a lot of the "standard" Christian teachings on creation that actually stem from the Greek/Roman philosophical influence in early Christianity and not from scripture.
Our official doctrine encourages us to seek to learn and understand the will and processes of God through science in addition to spiritual experiences.
"Latter-day Saints should strive to use both science and religion to extend knowledge and to build faith."
"Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men."
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Are_they_comp...
