You don't need a startup. Millions of people have an effective tax rate that is 0% and they have a net tax rate that is negative. They do this simply by having no meaningful skills or knowledge.
How about, before we try to keep "big money" out of politics and adopt ranked preference voting, we ban ill educated people and ban voting yourself other people's stuff. Voting is not a survival skill, it's a civic obligation.
What specific educational test would you like to see for someone to be legally eligible to vote in some jurisdiction? SAT score higher than a certain threshold (what specific threshold?). What if huge numbers of people cheat on the test in order to be able to legally vote? What if instead the educational criteria is a degree from some credited educational institution? Who decides what institutions will be authorized to grant people the right to vote or not? What if some authorities within those educational institutions believe in universal suffrage and so make sure to give suffrage-granting degrees to literally everyone who sets foot in their institution, regardless of their academic performance? (During the Vietnam War in the US many college professors gave passing grades to all males in their classes, in order to allow them to keep their student draft deferments, to try to prevent them from being drafted into the US military to fight in Vietnam).
There's a set of similar questions one could ask about exactly how you implement a ban on "voting yourself other people's stuff", in an adversarial political system where everyone has a different idea of what that means and is motivated to use whatever constitutional framework exists to ensure that their idea gets structurally advantaged.
I'm not saying you have to have a certain level of education to vote, I'm saying you have to have a certain level of functional ability to not be incarcerated for the rest of your life. Such as you have to be able to read and write and do math at some certain level.
Voting yourself other people's stuff would be that the safety net is bare minimum to keep people who are going through unexpected issues alive. But no one gets to live in the social safety net. No one who is receiving these kinds of benefits from the government should expect name brand anything, or to even be able to choose what food to eat, or to travel, or even pick who you socialize with. If you want to eat steak, you have to be a net producer. If you want name brand clothing, be a net producer. If you want to go to the beach, be a net producer.
Everyone who should pay some amount of tax, and anytime there is an increase in government spending, that amount that they are taxed should go up. If there is a decrease in government spending, it can go down. But everyone pays something. People need to have skin in the game. The US's current situation where nearly half the country are not net tax payers is not sustainable. Anything that can't go on forever, won't. So the country should ease into better situation, where the country is a nation of producers and not a nation of consumers, instead of hitting a brick wall where suddenly your ration of beans just stop.
> I'm saying you have to have a certain level of functional ability to not be incarcerated for the rest of your life. Such as you have to be able to read and write and do math at some certain level.
Having a failure of parental upbringing and education system causing someone to be incarcerated seems cruel. Should a child who ran away from home & school to avoid family abuse be incarcerated? There are so many current systems of society (education, police, disability, etc) that have failures at the margin that adding incarceration seems over the top.
Plenty of illiterate people manage to stay out of jail, you’re implying that you weren’t suggesting literacy tests for voting, so I’ll just admit to being at a loss as to your point. But if you care to take another whack at how you would suggest “we ban ill educated people”, I’m all ears.
I am not attempting to describe the world. I am trying to define the expectations we should have of the citizens of our polity. It has nothing to do with illiterate people manage not to commit crimes. I am saying that before we decide to get "big money" out of politics or we let people vote for the seven people who promise them the most shit, we should decided to put people who chose not to acquire basic skills that any human within standard deviation of average intelligence can acquire, when given 12 years of free education, into jail. It literally is not a literacy test for voting. It's an "are you a lazy piece of shit who is going to drag all of society down" policy.
So you're calling for dynamic linking for rust native code? Because rust's safety doesn't come from runtime, it comes from the compiler and the generated code. An object file generated from a bit of rust source isn't some "safe" object file, it's just generated in a safe set of patterns. That safety can cross the C ABI perfectly fine if both things on either side came from rust to begin with. Which means rust dynamic linking.
A couple of the stories where I feel I have expertise I found to be a bit objectionable. The title/headline was some clever or unexpected thing, but upon reading it turns out there is nothing supporting the headline.
E.g. "Integer Comparison is not Deterministic", in the C standard you can't do math on pointers from different allocations. The result in the article is obvious if you know that.
Also, in the Logistic Map in 8-Bit. There is a statement
> While implementing Algorithm 1 in modern systems is trivial, doing so in earlier computers and languages was not so straightforward.
Microsoft BASIC did floating point. Every 8-bit of the era was able to do this calculation easily. I did it on my Franklin ACE 1000 in 1988 in basic while reading the book Chaos.
I suppose what I'm saying is the premise of the articles seem to be click-baity and I find that off putting.
In general when selecting articles we assume that the reader is an expert in some field(s), but not necessarily in the field covered by this article. As such, things which are simple for an expert in the specific domain, can still be surprisingly to learn for folks who aren't experts in that domain.
What I'm saying is, that we don't try to be a cutting edge scientific journal — rather than that, we publish even the smallest trick that we decide someone may not know about and find it fun/interesting to learn.
The consequence of that is that, yeah, some article have a bit clickbaity titles for some of the readers.
On the flip side, as we know from meme-t-shirts, there are only 2 things hard in computer science, and naming is first on the list ;)
P.S. Sounds like you should write some cool article btw :)
For what it's worth, I am only a mid-tier nerd and after reading this issue, I feel like I am your target audience. Nothing deep or overly-detailed, just lots of jumping-off points for me to learn more. Thanks!
I noticed that as well. Also misleading titles like “Eliminating Serialization Cost using B-trees” where the cost savings are actually for deserialization (from a custom format), and neither the self-balancing nature of B-trees isn’t actually relevant, as no insertion/deletion of nodes occurs in the (de)serialization scenario, so a single tree level is sufficient. It’s a stretch to refer to it as a B-tree.
I don't think that's fully accurate (full-disclosure: I've done the technical review for this article).
First, as for "serialization" vs "deserialization", it can be argued that the word "serialization" can be used in two ways. One is on the "low level" to denote the specific action of taking the data and serializing it. The other one is "high level", where it's just a bag where you throw in anything related (serialization, deserialization, protocols, etc) - same as it's done on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialization (note how the article is not called "Serialization and deserialization" for exactly these reasons). So yes, you can argue that the author could have written "deserialization", but you can also argue that the author used the "high level" interpretation of the word and therefore used it correctly.
As for insertion not happening and balancing stuff - my memory might be failing me, but I do remember it actually happening during serialization. I think there even was a "delete" option when constructing the "serialized buffer", but it had interesting limitations.
Anyway, not sure how deep did you go into how it works (beyond what's in the article), but it's a pretty cool and clever piece of work (and yes, it does have its limitations, but also I can see this having its applications - e.g. when sending data from a more powerful machine to a tiny embedded one).
That's hardly a harsh truth. We use the terminal model because it works good enough and there are decades of software that rely on it. There are certainly other models that could work, but so far they haven't been adopted. I'd love Mathematica style notebooks for my shell work.
Again, don't confuse the shell (command line interpreter) with a terminal with escape codes and the like. Check how 9font does it, you get the rc shell and a few more languages with a REPL (lua ports and the like) inside a graphical window, not by emulating a VT220 terminal running the shell inside. You can freely resize the 9front's rio window manager's windows running rc (or anything else, even games, graphical browsers, images, video players...), copy, paste, cut the text, save the history, grep the contents of a window's text itself and tons more.
You are confusing the unix terminal model with specific terminals. The TTY concept doesn't mandate an 80x24 text only device. Outside of applications that specifically rely upon the existence of a directly addressable grid of characters, Unix TTYs and PTYs would work perfectly fine in a mathematica notebook style interface.
9front went further; you don't need to care about TTY's and PTY's any more except for the 'vt' tool which was made OFC to connect to Unix terminals and to run some legacy software thru APE/NPE (minimal POSIX compat modules).
The core concept of Unix weren't the terminals, but text, pipes and the orthogonal composability. rc under 9front doesn't need a terminal emulating some DEC hardware crudely. You get a shell not bound to sizes. Scripts run in the same way, but with superior editing capabilities.
You're talking about a tragedy of the commons situation. There is an organic query rate of this based on the amount of public interest. Then there is the inorganic vacuuming of the entire dataset by someone who wants to exploit public services for private profit. There is zero reason why the public should socialize the cost of serving the excess capacity caused by private parties looking to profit from the public data.
I could have my mind changed if the public policy is that any public data ingested into an AI system makes that AI system permanently free to use at any degree of load. If a company thinks that they should be able to put any load they want on public services for free, they should be willing to provide public services at any load for free.
>a worse database than SQL, a worse C compiler than GCC, a worse website than one done by a human.
But it enables people who can't do these things at all to appear to be able to do these things and claim reputation and acclaim that they don't deserve for skills they don't have.
>But we fumbled that because we (collectively) have no idea what we are doing.
Because, almost entirely, the software development industry has disclaimed all responsibility. It's super common for people to try to do shit they have no experience or skill at, push their effort to be adopted by others, then when it crashes and burns they have no accountability. If software "engineers" adopted the rigors and accountability and dignity of traditional engineering, the industry would be very different.
And on top of that, now we have people letting LLMs go to town on their work, even though the things can't program worth a damn, all because those people can't be assed to actually program (you know, their job). We're entering very dark days for software quality, unfortunately.
There is no single "the locals", every tribe represented a different polity. They warred with each other constantly and conquered and took over land all the time. There is no part of the continent that is held by the original human that arrived here first. Every part has been conquered and reconquered many times. The Europeans are just the latest conquerors. Except in the cases where they literally bought the land. Which also happened.
LMFAO LMFAO. EXACTLY AS I HAD PREDICTED. I bet from his overdramatic exaggerations about downvotes meaning "censorship" a situation whre literally no mod powers were invoked, that I bet this idiots psychotic hallucinations probably drama queen and exaggerate in his imagination travel and marriage as violent murderous genocide too. I was absolutely on point!
This hikkerl idiot really thinks downvotes are "censorship" and immigration is murderous genocide lmfao. Just how hilariously fucked in the head this hikkerl entity you are trying to talk to is lmfao.
>I know that technically a Google employee could read it if they really wanted to, but the policies, security, and culture in place make it have a 0% of happening.
We know it's non-zero as they have already had occasions when it has happened that Google employees used their access to stalk teenagers.
>And such access kicked off an internal investigation and got him fired. Privacy is taken seriously.
The complaints of the victim's parents kicked off an internal investigation, months later. It's not like google found this and took care of it on their own. Also, it has happened before too.
This is such a backwards take. You are ignoring that the system you cite as evidence that secure systems with backdoors can be designed and protected from random access has not been perfectly protected.
And you say it's stronger now.
Ok, so which country or neighbor is going to be the one to hack our national encryption system with a back door the first time? The second time? The third time? Before we manage to get it right (which we never will), what damage will be done by the backdoor? Probably something like Salt Typhoon, which you also conveniently ignore as a counterfactual to your claim.
It not being perfectly protected is by design. Security comes with trade offs.
>Before we manage to get it right (which we never will)
Keep in mind that modern encryption isn't perfect either. You can just guess the key and then decrypt a message. In practice if you make the walls high enough (requiring a ton of guesses) than it can be good enough to keep things secure.
reply