A language that is functional from the ground up can be very beautiful, concise and a pleasure to program in. I agree with you though, that bolting functional programming onto Go will make it worse. Especially with the millions of lines of legacy Go code out there, it would essentially become an entirely different language.
> There is nothing preventing people from writing their own reduce() in their own utilities package, and I expect a thriving ecosystem of "even-more-functional-constructs" packages to spring up as soon as generics hit stable.
I really hope this doesn't happen because then you have random utility libraries that "infect" projects for what is essentially basic flow control. I would say stuff like this is best supported in the standard lib and not home rolled.
They’re not just hemorrhaging employees, they’re hemorrhaging customers too. I know I will never give them money.
This looks like a fatal blow, not a place someone would want to work. I’m sure they’re hiring though so you could probably get a job there and ride it out to the end.
I doubt that, most companies could not care less about the internal affairs of their tools' companies, unless it impacts the tools' performance and featureset, something we still await to see regarding Basecamp, whether they can successfully plug the employee hemorrhage wound and get new employees working on the product.
No evidence of this whatsoever. A bluecheck on Twitter loudly proclaiming that he's not going to pay $99/yr for email (HEY) or never using Basecamp again doesn't count. Citation needed.
> most companies could not care less about the internal affairs of their tools' companies
Most might be broad. Lots of companies absolutely care about the interal workings of their vendors. They can and do make decisions on these kinds of factors, especially if a large contract is on the line or they are looking for that last thing to separate 2 viable candidates. All companies doing manufacturing in places like Asia are constantly being looked at by human rights organizations to ensure the employees are being treated as humans. Personally, I won't do business with companies like Uber (even with new leadership), Wal-Mart, etc based on things reported about them.
Apple, Google, Amazon isn't tech with their manufacturing in Asia? Uber lost a lot with revelations of the fratbro leadership and corporate culture. Theranos lost everything when people looked into the fradulent practices. Lots of tech companies have felt blowback because of internal policies.
Most companies do actually evaluate their vendors. Basecamp built a brand on “management” and just proved they’re maybe the worst in the industry at it. Only on HN are people supporting them. It’s a dead company walking.
If a vendor we were working with lost a third of their employees, I would question whether that vendor would be a good long term relationship, regardless of what caused the exodus.
The founder’s egomania and the customer name list. I’m not going to give a company run by people stupid enough to put a bullet in the head if their own startup, any money.
I don't want to worry if my name is funny enough to be included in a list of jerks. That's ugly behavior and I don't want to have business with people that are looking for reasons to disrespect me.
>If we can’t take a joke we can’t share the connection of humor with others.
As an adult that has spent their entire life hear the same old tired jokes about their name, I could easily see/sympathize with them for no longer being amused by something that would make a 10 year old boy chuckle.
It is one think to have a laugh at something unexpected. Such things happen. Trying to maintain such a list and to keep it around for years is another level of objectivizing that is far from professional.
In addition, if they are so easy to one's name, it is likely that they will try to look for other sources of fun: accent, looks, type of issue.
I am also tempted to use their products now, even though I don't necessarily see their value inherently (they just don't fit my style of apps) simply to reward their behavior.
The idea of a bunch of right wing reactionaries using ultra crappy Web 2.0 project management software out of spite is actually rather amusing. There’s not enough of you guys to keep it alive though (not that you really did this).
The top 1% are making more money than ever before. If you're holding assets impacted by inflation, you're doing quite well now.
If we take it as a given that in a modern, humane society no one should starve to death on the street and everyone should have access to the basics of survival, then the answer to the labor "shortage" is simply to shift some of the historically record breaking wealth inequality back down the org chart from the executives to the roles that need filling.
Agreed. Not long ago there was debate about a permanent structural stagnation with permanent unemployment. The argument was that workers lacked sufficient training or desire to fill current jobs. All while some economists were screaming that it was actually the result of an insufficient fiscal stimulus response to the Great Recession that could have easily been solved had the response been $1.5T instead of $700B. Given the massive fiscal response to COVID and this current situation resulting in a rebalancing as you highlighted, I think it’s clear that it was never structural and always a result of unnecessary slack due to a financial recession easily solved by government support spending.
How do you define the basics of survival? In parts of the world people live with 2 hamburgers a day, is that what you propose? Even $15/hour seems huge compared with basics of survival.
Also, there are not enough executives to take from them to give to the poor. You need 100 or 1000 times more for that, so the executives theme is a straw man.
I don't think these things are easy to achieve but they seem like obvious goals to societal progress. If not, what are we even progressing towards?
> Also, there are not enough executives to take from them to give to the poor. You need 100 or 1000 times more for that, so the executives theme is a straw man.
I said if a company wants to fill a role, that they should pull from executive pay. The average CEO gets 70-1 the pay of the average employee. There is absolutely a surplus of capital to pull from to increase worker pay (thus filling the role).
This is nowhere close to 'basics of survival'. You can survive on 2 hamburgers a day and 1 liter of drinking water, this is called survival. If you want 'basics of nice living' then call it that way, but don't redefine the dictionary. Think of 'basics of survival' what you need to continue to live if you land on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean, naked and with no tools.
Really? Tell that to Hiroo Onoda and his 29 years in the jungle. You see, people play on the subjective nature of life and honesty is not a virtue anymore.
I pay taxes and I'd be super happy if my money went to support people in this country without jobs. It would lower crime and increase the quality of life for everyone living here. I could also be one of those people someday.
Unfortunately many of my tax dollars go to fund a military I find ethically abhorrent instead of improving the quality of life in the US.
If workers refuse to go back into the office, then the corporations will have no option but to support WFH. I for one would never again work somewhere that didn't offer 100% WFH. It would be the first thing I asked about in a hiring interview.
I love working from home and would never work in an office again. I prefer the freedom of schedule, quietness and lack of constant surveillance from my bosses.
It feels like the office was geared 100% for extroverts and finally introverts have an option that works for them. My productivity has never been higher and my stress has never been lower.
It's also a completely false argument since there's libel and slander laws. If the accused was innocent, they would simply sue the false accuser. That they don't says everything.
The barrier and punishment for coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse, rape or harassment is great indeed. Questioning every case is ignorance of existing laws setup to handle any false accusations.
Not trying to sue someone for slander doesn't actually say anything.
There's a lot of factors. How much will it cost? How much publicity will it generate and is that worse than just letting it go? What is the standard of proof that must be met and are they confident they can prove that it's a false statement? What are the consequences if they somehow fail to meet that burden? Etc.
Also, how did the left become the party of "if he's in the courtroom he must be guilty of something"?
So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?
If someone wants to clear their name, go to court and sue for slander. If it's two people's word against each other, I'll believe the victim every time since there's such a high cost of coming forward and slander laws exist.
EDIT Since I'm now throttled...
I'm saying that coming forward either means:
1. Something really happened to you.
2. You're breaking the law and can be punished.
High stakes, no? Which is one of the many reasons false accusations are exceedingly rare if not non-existent.
I will always believe the victim unless the perpetrator wins a libel case. It's the legal mechanism for fighting back.
So are you saying that victims (of slander) must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators (of slander) should be taken at their word?
The sword cuts both ways.
Except it doesn't, because if you're in the news for {serious crime} and later clear your name, your reputation is still probably trashed. There is no real mechanism for recovery in the modern panopticon. Lowering standards of evidence required for conviction (to basically nothing, if some people are taken seriously) is such a kludgy, cumbersome hack to solve this problem that it shocks me that people present it seriously. It's utopian thinking.
> So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?
Not the person to whom you're replying, but the presumption of innocence means this exactly. If you are accused of a crime, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven you're not.
So in your judgement, a person who is accused is guilty if they don't retaliate with a slander/libel lawsuit? Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?
The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.
It's amazing to me how little thought people like you have behind your beliefs. You basically just regurgitate what you heard from your college electives with zero mindfulness or introspection.
That's not how libel and slander works. You not only have to prove that the statements were false, but that the accuser knew they were false and was deliberately malicious in spreading the falsehoods
As the parent mentioned, the problem isn't recourse it is by that stage your life is already ruined. I don't think there is a clear answer though, the only moral thing to do is to support the accuser.
"My thought process was simply that there is a big need here and Redis had for some reason decided not to serve it. If they won’t then we will."
I feel like this and the general tone of the article are needlessly antagonistic toward Redis. KeyDB is building their entire business off of it after all.
There may very well be a need for multi-threaded Redis, but Redis as it stands today is an amazing project and there's something to keeping it simple along the lines of the project philosophy.
I’ve learned to appreciate Salvatore’s stance on simplicity the longer we’ve gone on with KeyDB. But when I first made KeyDB two years ago I was really perplexed at the decisions he made with respect to threading.
It’s not my intention to be antagonistic. I’ve had a lot of projects over the years that went nowhere and a part of me is sad that the one with the most traction is a fork.
I am aware. Community management is different from what is legally possible. Were a project owner start to act in a self-interested or malicious manner, then I think proudly and aggressively forking a project is a great idea. That's not Redis. Like I said, it may be a good idea to have a multi-threaded Redis, but Redis users tend to love Redis. I would probably lean into that goodwill instead of against it.
I don't see forking as being aggressive. It's the natural thing to do if you want to take the project in a different direction to its stewards. Often lessons are learned from that process and the learnings integrated back into the main project.
