Say it isn’t so! :-D Just as an example: When was the last time you read about Angular on the HN frontpage? Basically last decade. Does that mean nobody uses Angular? Hell no. It is extremly widely used by big-ass corps. It’s just that their devs generally aren’t in the HN crowd.
What companies do, what their support cycles are and how conservative their tech leaders are is an extremely heavy influence on the programming languages, frameworks and libraries they will use. You can research in advance and adapt your expectations.
Can you name some companies that are actively investing in Angular right now besides Google? It feels like React has taken over for many large businesses (non-tech focused) because it's "easier" to hire React devs.
I used to work for a company where our manager (a few steps below CTO) was pushing for us to migrate to React from Vue so they could hire more people to come in and help with feature development. We pushed back and afaik the team is still using Vue today.
I’d say 50% of the devs I know use Angular. .NET shops love it. Fidelity and a lot of other financial businesses use it. I’d put money on heavy usage in the enterprise, though I haven’t been in that world in a long time.
Angular core has 3.5M weekly downloads. Quite a lot fewer than React’s 20M but still significant.
Sorry, I cannot, due to a confidentiality clause. Most of my employer’s clients use Angular though, some exclusively. They’re mostly machine tool builders from Germany.
Also, as someone else already guessed, they also all use .NET. This is not a coincidence of course, even though there is no rational argument to be found (“they both use classes!”).
Or they have invested so much into some JS "framework" (most likely React) that they are heavily biased to get this to work properly. Same thing happened at the previous place I worked at.
Because the disaster we're heading into is backed by laws of physics that have been proven again and again over centuries. It's not possible to come up with arguments to "push back" against it. If you think it is, you simply lack the level of required scientific education to understand what is going on.
The problem with this is there do seem to be quite legitimate physicists who disagree with the "sky is falling" conclusion that all popular discussion is premised on. I recently heard an interview with Dr. Richard Lindzen that, for instance, provides what sounds like a very reasonable counter to the prevailing attitude.
Anyone who says "the science is settled, the laws of physics cannot be violated" fails to realize what physics is even about. The vast majority of victories that physics has had since Isaac Newton are based on incredibly simplified models that strip out all of the complexity from a system. Basically everything interesting is treated as linear (as in f(x) ~ x) and a lot of the other stuff is just thrown into constants. After a few decades of working with that, both in theory and with experiments, you might get comfortable enough to add some small corrections to your theories. In this way you step closer and closer to "truth" but we are still very far off, even with our best physics, from fully understanding anything of even moderate complexity. This is not to say that we don't get incredibly useful results from physics (just look at our technology!), but it does mean that we need to constrain statements about how much we really understand and where our "laws" really are applicable. Take for instance the equation for kinetic energy, k=.5 * mv^2. Hugely useful, but dead wrong if you try to apply it to things moving at relativistic speeds.
The problem of climate science, from my perspective, is that we can't strip it down like we do for simple systems like a ball moving in space. Climate is inherently very complex; if you try to ignore how oceans interact with vegetation, how vegetation interacts with clouds, how clouds and rain are connected, etc, then your models can be interesting and might reveal something, but they can't be used to predict what will happen with any degree of confidence because they are too far removed from the real thing. And if you don't strip something out of the system when doing your modeling, well then good luck: you'll never understand anything at all because the thing is too complex to be used to calculate anything of interest.
Sorry, this is typical denial discourse up there. "Oh but we are not perfect, we can't be sure".
The fact that there a greater margin of impredictability should make us even more wary of potential disastrous consequences.
Plus, scientists working on the question do acknowledge that there is a big room of impredicatability. Which is why they make best-case and worst case scenarii that vary wildly.
There's however a consensus on the fact that it's going to be bad. What don't know is how bad. Which is IMHO frightening enough
I'm sorry but you are wrong. I am describing how physics works and it is at odds with many of the claims made regarding our understanding of what is a very, _very_, complex system. You can't just claim there is "consensus that it's going to be bad" without having the sort of scientific discussion I am trying to have. Let's discuss what we know, what the limits are of that knowledge, etc, before we declare that the sky is falling.
I do think you make a great point, which is that the risks and rewards need to be considered. The problem is that analyzing the cost is also a pretty complex problem and there are very real arguments to be made that going green could end up being very costly.
FWIW, I actually came into the climate science debate on your side and have been won over by paying attention to a broader set of sources. One of the things I really can't stand about the climate change disaster is that even if you accept all the claims from the IPCC, it pales in comparison, in my opinion, to other issues that seem a bit simpler to me. The collapsing insect populations, for instance, can have a pretty direct impact on human health and happiness. The climate discussion seems takes all the attention even though no one has made a credible argument as to why it is more dangerous than other problems we face.
edit: I'll add that scientific modelling is _very_ difficult in general, even for much simpler systems than what we are talking about here. These models have tons of simplifying assumptions baked into them and they can be made to spit out just about anything, depending on what values for certain parameters are chosen. The tools aren't particularly trustworthy.
edit: I'll add a bit more. I do think climate change is happening and I do think that humans might have a big part in why it is happening. What I don't find compelling is why this is necessarily an end-of-the-world scenario. The typical argument is: "there has already been warming and there will be further warming. Then there will be runaway effects, then the warming will become extreme and life will become very difficult for most people in most places." Well I do agree with the first part, but it is _really_ hard to predict what happens afterwards, i.e. are there going to be runaway effects. There are reasonable arguments that there won't be. The arguments that there will be tend to focus on a few scientific facts and ignore the complexity of the system at large (i.e. they ignore negative feedback mechanisms and focus only on positive feedback).
Well don't you think that climate change plays a part in a collapsing insect population. I know pesticides are killing them but I have a hard seeing how unpredictable weather patterns, extreme climate events and resulting ecosystem perturbations in their environment may not contribute to that collapse.
The mere fact that an end-of-the-world scenario is possible should mobilize us all. End of the world is not something you gamble on. And, of course, it won't an end of the world, it will a slow and painful life on an unlivable planet.
Can you give me any positive feedback from the release of carbon ?
We've seen this line of reasoning in the COVID crisis. I won't be fooled twice. Everyone is systematically overstating their confidence. I'd rather deal with the problem as it arises than do unnecessary damage.
And I definitely think that relying on the weather a.k.a. "renewable energy" when you have solid prediction that its going to be unreliable, while your prediction of the possibility of averting the crisis is unknown, is beyond dumb. It's suicidal.
We're choosing the worst possible strategy right now. We have the highest probability of the worst case scenario: chaotic climate and weather while relying on said climate for energy generation. Planning for worst case is planning for the crisis happening regardless of your actions, because your confidence about the impact of your actions is pretty low.
There is no metric by which the current suicidal strategy makes sense. We're not minimizing the damage in the worst case. We're not adapting to the situation as it comes. The only scenario in which the current strategy has a better outcome is if we somehow were right about everything, not only about the impact of CO2, but about the geopolitical actions taken by China and India.
The probability that we're on the best possible strategy is practically zero.
That the planet is warming is backed by very good science but the magnitude of the ecological impact to humans is unknowable and thus not science at all.
Aside from borderline impossible claims of a runaway greenhouse effect, there is absolutely no world where human extinction is on the table and frankly I would argue that mass death is unlikely as historical evidence is by far in the favor of human adaptability.
> I would argue that mass death is unlikely as historical evidence is by far in the favor of human adaptability.
I would argue that mass death happening somewhere else is almost an inevitability by historical arguments; it just doesn't look like it's climate related. Is a refugee from desertified Africa who drowns in the Mediterranean a "climate death"?
Mass death won't look like the Al Gore movie. It'll look like COVID: a line going up on a chart which people can ignore.
The difference with the Galileo situation is that the consensus before Galileo was not based on scientific work but on "It's written in the very old book of Truth, duh"
Your argument doesn't work, if it ever did. People have already decided where they fall. You'll never beat them into submission; you'll only make their positions more entrenched.
Right, E.T isn't a stand out classic, it's a bit rushed, the game isn't a great fit to the movie (but it's far from the worst in that era), but what stands out in people's memories is mostly that it wasn't what they expected. Which somewhat tells us about that era of video games more than about ET.
In an era with Goose Game, Paper's Please and Unpacking, people understand that just because this is a video game doesn't mean it needs to fit into a handful of pre-existing niches - games can do whatever they want, but ET pre-dates that era.
I expect if you had shot a found footage mockumentary movie in 1940 (before even Citizen Kane was shown) audiences wouldn't even have understood what you were trying to do. It wouldn't matter whether you did a good job or not, reviews are going to say it's a bad movie because the reviewer does not have a framework in which to assess it.
From the account in the linked article, it seems that a large part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the licensing folks at WB, who ate up a ton of the development time by constantly demanding changes. They probably didn't lose their jobs.
I'd be more open to getting vaccinated when I see people actively making use of hand sanitizers in stores. When people learn to cover their whole faces with their masks. When they learn to keep distance. Vaccinated people who are old, sick or born with bad luck in the genetic lottery are still at risk. Vaccination doesn't mean people can go back to doing whatever they want.
The vaccination itself can be a risk to certain individuals too. It's ludicrous to expect everyone to get the shot for the rest of their lives and call that situation a success because "at least everyone is vaccinated".
If you want to force vaccination, start with the people that have a history of covid infection. Why piss the people off that have been actively avoiding to come into contact with the virus and carrying it around?
Either my country is just behind or what you read on hackernews is not reflective of the real world.