Of all the invectives to level at Rust, "toxic development community" would be the least applicable. Frankly, I've found the Rust community super welcoming and willing to answer questions from a newbie.
As for the rest of your points - I don't think they're applicable as well. I've found Rust to be super solid and the ecosystem a pleasure to work with. Could you give examples to support your claim?
A lot of your attacks seemed to be aimed at personal beliefs of some of the rust developers. I follow some on twitter and they may have some views people disagree with, but nothing exceedingly controversial.
Furthermore, all other criticisms you've mentioned specifically towards rust and the community of rust are literal opposites of everything I've experienced.
The community is friendly and helpful. Rust is extremely stable, both as code, and as far as the developers making sure to not break backwards compatibility, going as far as testing EVERY PROJECT available in crates.io for regressions. They are also extremely organized, having all discussions in well thought out and documented RFCs,and allowing all to give input on it all.
I don't know what problems you have with Rust. I'm sure there valid things to critize. But everything you mentioned is categorically false. If you disagree, I'd be open to see proof of it all.
We'll quietly ban serial trolls or outright spammers, but otherwise we provide an explanation so that the community can benefit from observing the application of the guidelines. We have other tools for dealing with accounts created as a result of the apparent ban.
I make it a strong point to keep my personal politics outside of Rust; there's actually many people who work within Rust and its community that I would fight bitterly with about politics, but we instead focus on the technology and work together in a productive manner.
If you see me acting inappropriate within Rust project spaces, please report me to the moderation team: the core team is subject to moderation just like anyone else,and no core team members are allowed to be part of moderation for exactly that reason.
> I've heard rumors of memory vulns in rust as well.
I've had nothing but amazing experiences in the Rust community, and was actually proud/embarrassed the one time that I was chastised for being rude in /r/rust.
The Rust community reminds me of how welcoming the Go community used to be... (I love Go and write it every day, this isn't some sort of commentary about Go).
Accusing other users of astroturfing and shillage is not allowed on HN without evidence, and someone merely holding a different view is not evidence. So please don't do this.
Yeah, I use a Chromebook as my main browsing machine and I've been so disappointed with it's capabilities. For some reason, I thought Google would make some efforts to make the ChromeOS a tool for developers on-the-go, but they've just seemed to shit on the entire lineup except for the Pixel.
I don't know why you ever thought it was for developers. Clearly not having coreutils makes it a non-starter ad a development machine.
ChromeOS was always about being a thin-client. A better kiosk OS, if you will.
With that being said, I use Chrome OS for development. I have a DigitalOcean server that I SSH into using the excellent Secure Shell app, do all of my development there using tmux/vim and test in a browser tab. If you already like this workflow (some don't, I understand), then Chrome OS works very well for web development.
I continue to be mystified by this take. The S&P 500 index is usually the benchmark cited here. But the S&P 500 is tremendously diversified over sectors, factors, you name it. Trump managed to create actual wealth in our economic system at a rate slightly less than the S&P 500. If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders on the economic engine that Trump is part of (full disclosure: I use index funds without exception for my investments)
Another thing bothers me: you're supposed to look at risk/return, not simply return, in evaluating investment strategy.
If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders
No. How much wealth could those individuals create if they couldn't sell the companies on the market and invest that money, and had instead to accumulate dividends? The relationship is symbiotic.
Yes, Trump created wealth, but the point is that his peers would have created even more if he hadn't used that money himself. To make an analogy, I can swim a few laps, but you wouldn't want to have me replace Michael Phelps on your team.
Trump has created wealth, but he also destroyed wealth in his multiple bankruptcies and the contractors he stiffed. One could argue that casinos (even if they are profitable) are a net destructor of wealth. It is very hard to get a clear picture of exactly how much net wealth he created since there is no reliable information. Tax returns would have been a good start...
His father, Fred Trump, built a real estate empire of 27.000 apartments in Brooklyn and Queens. Just sitting on those and maintaining and expanding it would have resulted in a fortune many times bigger than he has today.
I may have been a bit hyperbolic about freeloaders.
The bigger point I want to make is that the standard deviation on returns of a single venture like Trump's is so large that you cannot meaningfully compare it to a highly-diversified basket of stocks.
To use your analogy, it'd be like evaluating the effectiveness of a coach in a swimming event by picking a single one of their swimmers and comparing them to the average times of the U.S. Olympic team. Does this necessarily imply anything at all about the skill of the coach?
I feel like you're making an argument against your thesis instead of for it (?). With higher risk, you expect higher return... so isn't that another tick against Trump's "success"? His ventures were way riskier than an index fund (see bankruptcies and losses), yet they had a markedly lower return. That means they were not good investments.
Well there are two possibilities: 1) Trump's businesses are lower risk and so the lower realized return is as expected 2) there is significant idiosyncratic risk in a single company which can diversified away with the S&P500 while maintaining the same expected return.
I disbelieve (1) because of his multiple high-profile bankruptcies.
In running his businesses, he also delegated "actual wealth creation" to others. E.g. the waiter serving drinks is the one creating wealth as much or more so than the owner of the business...
No, it really does not. The S&P 500 inclusion criteria[1] states:
> Treatment of IPOs. Initial public offerings should be seasoned for six to 12 months before being
considered for addition to an index.
So if the S&P 500 explicitly excludes equities to IPO into the index, then how is it that an investor in an S&P 500 index is delegating wealth creation? They're just trading the returns with other investors. And to be clear, this is totally great for the investor! But it shouldn't be confused with actual business.
You can't ignore the indirect influence. The same way people care about resale value of their car or house, the investors that purchase at an IPO know that index funds will buy their shares and can therefore make more and bolder investments.
Of course I can ignore the indirect influence; if the company had no actual value at IPO its share price would plummet. Also, by definition the S&P 500 only includes companies which have had 4 consecutive quarters of positive GAAP earnings, so the shares would have value on the public markets. Specifically, they'd have to have enough value to be among the 500-or-so largest positive-earnings companies by market capitalization. Hardly value that can be attributable to indirect influence of an index fund.
You're looking at it too statically, and ignoring the full ecosystem.
If I'm an investor that buys at IPO time, how many companies am I willing and able to invest in if I have to wait for the profits to come in through yearly dividends? And so, if I'm a VC, how many companies am I willing and able to invest in if the IPO market is much smaller? And so, if I'm an entrepreneur, how many companies can I found and create value from if I have very little chance of selling them off?
The index funds are the terrain that sustain the "wealth creators".
Billionaires that received millions in loans from their daddy? Not so much.
Great respect to all who went out and built something great. Trump is not one of them; he would be penniless if his dad hadn't rushed in and saved him on at least two separate occasions.
Yes. Lua could have been the Julia of its time if they had decided to pursue a more advanced compilation system rather than trying to embed lua everywhere in everything. Luajit is fast because of the nature of optimizations upon the tables structure and single table architecture. Julia is a better, faster lua and I don't find myself missing being able to embed my code when I can just call into what I need FROM julia.
Yeah I noticed that too. I wax assuming that it would target the word nearest the bottom that starts with the letter I start with, but I don't think that is the case. Not sure, but not def tripped me up a couple times. No excuses though, definitely need to get faster.
I'm pretty excited about this. I think some kids out there will really enjoy an environment like this to mess with, and maybe learn a thing or two about machine learning along the way.
Starcraft is a really fun game, and I think it's enough to engage kids a little more than something like Minecraft where there's plenty of room for some cool ML hacking, but not enough stimulation from it. Instead of just seeing blocks here or there or whatever, starcraft has hard goals that will force them to use critical thinking skills, their knowledge of the game, their own personal strategic insights, and the ML skills they accrue.
So exciting! Love the feature layer idea also, well done!
I agree. SC2 is a very strategic game and has tons of potential for scouting, fake attacks, distractions, diversions and all sorts of deceitful play. And that's coming after having a good micro-management of units, using perfect timing for expanding your economy, upgrading your units, proxy offense, and a ton of other mechanics.
DeepMind really chose well. SC2 has to be the most demanding game nowadays in terms of strategy and execution.
Well, this thing can run Ubuntu Touch apps, and it may even be able to run Sailfish and Nemo apps later on...
Ubuntu Touch is the big one though, I'd love to see more devices compatible with it. Some industrious fellow out there is probably willing to port most of the python crap in Kali to something more useful, agile, portable, and compatible with Ubuntu Touch, if something like that isn't already going on.
How can thinkpads reasonably be trusted after superfish though? Some security agencies don't even allow Lenovo hardware onsite, sort of implies something...
"Lenovo ideapad (cheap ones, superfish, avoid) and Lenovo Thinkpad (no superfish, mostly good) should be thought separate manufacturers. They're not comparable."
Why would you use preinstalled OS anyway? Every manufacturer installs ton of unneeded crapware. Just download pristine Windows iso and install it from scratch.
A clean windows install wouldn't make any difference. Lenovo installed their malware in the BIOS and set it to automatically make sure it was present, and reinstall itself if necessary, on every reboot.
Because I shouldn't have to do work just so the machine is usable. If I bought a PC, I would buy it from Microsoft, as they don't sell them with all the crap.
...other than first-party Microsoft crap. But you would get that anyway in any other OEM version of Windows, along with additional third-party crap.
As long as you're willing to put in a tiny bit of effort, you can know that all the software on your machine is coming from known people and companies, that you chose to trust.
Apple is the only company I would trust [at this time] to put only Apple software on retail Apple hardware. But that is because even if anybody was willing to comply with the inevitable list of strict requirements, Apple would almost certainly try to charge the third-parties so much to bundle their software, that no one would reasonably be able to justify the cost.
Microsoft, I could see making a deal with some third-party to put into certain models of the Surface. It might just be something like hardware drivers with a Windows GUI to change some settings, but they would do it.
I knew throwing personal experience out was going to open a can of worms! :)
They seem to act like they're separate. Hardware build and installed software is entirely different. I was under the impression they still operated as separate divisions. UK Support was even on separate numbers until fairly recently - now it separates at top level.
If Lenovo get a strike, Sony probably should for the rootkit.
If you're not comfortable ignore my "probably wrong" suggestions! :)
First thing I do with any Win machine is remove the crap and demos or clean install and add drivers. Or occasionally start immediately with !Windows.
I think you misread the article. The article headline is paraphrasing Theil saying that Silicon Valley's majority support for Clinton is out of touch. Basically things are going well here, so they aren't aware of how ready the rest of the country is for change that will allow them similar economic prosperity. I personally disagree with Thiel, but I at least bothered to understand what the article was about.
