'Most' is important to recognise here. I'm studying theology at Cambridge University and at least one current professor (in a small faculty) advocates strongly for an early dating of John (i.e. pre-70). It is important to note that a lot of the rationale behind dating, as with Q itself, is supposition/educated-guesswork. To take the example of John, arguments for a later dating, which is the mainstream perspective, is based on the idea that the theology is too developed for it to be early rather than direct historical evidence. Paul's epistles, which are early arguably display a very high christology, suggesting John is not such an outlier here.
Russell Cox consistently produces excellent technical blogs and proposals (and work). If you want to improve the clarity of your writing and thinking, he is a great place to start.
His series on FSAs and regular expressions made me fall in love with all of that. I wasn't aware of who Russ Cox was at the time too, but that series of articles was just incredible. That's probably the highest quality content freely available about implementation of REs. Runner ups being various compiler focused books, but those aren't freely available and easily searchable via the web.
Poor GDP is a complex question to answer but lowering the heating by a degree doesn't seem like the best attempt at exploring it(!).
Transport might be a better part of the explanation, but more because of the lack of investment in decent transportation beyond London (the recent HS2 cancellation being one example).
For me, I suspect poor GDP performance is due to a lack of investment/success in manufacturing and science, in part because of an over-emphasis on the city/finance and other (in-part) rent-seeking activities which has sucked in talent and energy, but also because of a general incompetence of government over the last 20 years.
Go is changing the semantics of its for loops and the user is not a fan of this - at least in the subtleties. Most people, from what I can tell, are very much for this change. And note, Go is introducing quite sophisticated backwards compatibility features to avoid changing semantics for programs that are need the old behaviour.
I am in the process of exploring a switch to become a vicar/pastor, which would obviously be a complete change!
It's not clear from your post what it is about tech that is demotivating you and without that it is hard to give good advice. But I'd caution against just leaving without having some clarity about what is next - i.e. discerning a positive pull. It may well be that your challenges/frustrations are only tangentially related to tech itself - could it be social, mental health, team/company, etc?
Flexible or part-time working is also something to explore - especially as you are not struggling financially. I've done variously 4 days or 9/10 days for the last 5 years or so and that's allowed me to do some volunteering on the off day, which has been a great change from sitting in front of a screen - as it's been physical and people-focused.
A sabbatical is another option. Take 3 or 6 months off, do something different, and you may rediscover a bit of passion for tech or otherwise figure out what you want to do next.
I also recommend chatting to friends/people you trust who know you well and might be able to give some wisdom/help you understand where the frustration is coming from.
And of course, if you do leave tech, you can always jump back in!
I don't understand the almost religious opposition to the telemetry the Go team are proposing. It involves no PII data, would be easy to disable for those who want to do so, is minimal in scope, and the use cases are well articulated.
Data collection always starts out like that. An independent company may get away with that approach. However, this is Google.
The problem is, we've seen it all before. When Microsoft added telemetry to dotnet, they stated the following:
> The feature collects the following pieces of data:
>
> The command being used (e.g. “build”, “restore”)
> The ExitCode of the command
> For test projects, the test runner being used
> The timestamp of invocation
> The framework used
> Whether runtime IDs are present in the “runtimes” node
> The CLI version being used
>
> The feature will not collect any personal data, such as usernames or emails. It will not scan your code and not extract any project-level data that can be considered sensitive, such as name, repo or author (if you set those in your project.json). We want to know how the tools are used, not what you are using the tools to build. If you find sensitive data being collected, that’s a bug. Please file an issue and it will be fixed.
All very useful information that doesn't tell them anything about you or your machine.
Since then, Microsoft has been steadily increasing the amount of data it's been collecting, including personal identifiable information in the form of a pseudonym based on unique machine identifiers. Once data collection starts, it only ever gets worse.
It doesn't have to involve PII data to be invasive. The heuristics applicable can be used to, in a roundabout way, fingerprint the type of software. And since it's being shipped to Google through the Internet they also know where the software is being developed and where it's being used. And this is just for starters. Once they've tackled the hurdles of people's resistance; having one foot through the door; it's easier to slide more and more telemetry functionality in. You may recognize this behavioral pattern from, uh, well, almost all of their other products.
"PII" is often a straw man based on a few narrow categories defined by corporate interests. I consider IP addresses and what code I'm working with much more personal and sensitive than say the association between my name and my social security number.
Doesn't matter, someone looking over your shoulder while you're using your own machine, without asking first, is spyware. Period. Doesn't matter a bit what they're collecting.
Objectively speaking, how valuable would that information be if it were to be leaked? Random weekly aggregated and sampled machine data associated to random IPs that in most cases would no longer be yours (and that’s in the worst case that both servers were compromised or misused by an employee during a specific time window, because IP is not stored in the analytics server but temporally in a proxy to prevent abuse).
I don’t know, I’m all for privacy but people get passionate too easily the moment someone even mentions the word telemetry and I think we should focus on actual privacy issues, like analytics in the context of ads, social networks (tiktok, fb, ig…), etc.
T-mobile and Sprint has been a win for consumers - as much as I wish we had dozens of carriers instead of 3. Sprint was a zombie corporation and T-mobile was well run but lacked the spectrum to compete. One of the few times merger logic worked out even better than the ibankers promoted.
Microsoft has embedded itself deeply into the democratic party through huge PAC donations over decades. If anyone has sway with the democratic appointed FTC, it would be them.
Acquiring AWS would absolutely be the kind of emergency/pull out every stop to make it happen event worth tapping every connection (and then some) to make happen. Overnight they would go from scrappy second place to the dominant provider of all cloud computing on the planet.
Far more dumb mergers were greenlit in the past like AOL/Time Warner.
In the 2020 presidential election year Microsoft donated over 21 million dollars, almost all to democrats and the Biden campaign. They were the 26th largest donor, period.
Biden appointed Lina Khan, she owes her job to him (and he can choose not to appoint her again!). Biden owes a substantial amount of his presidential campaign funding to Microsoft... not hard to connect the dots here.
Go back decades--Hillary Clinton, Obama, Gore, etc. and Microsoft was always been donating enormous amounts of money to democratic candidates.
Again, you should really read up on what a PAC is before you form your conspiracy theories. Those are donations from Microsoft employees - not from the company, hence the big bold warning label:
"NOTE: Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees."
Wow, the 26th largest donor, that sounds like a threat to democracy. Microsoft also gives money to republicans.
How about an actual threat, the Koch family (one of the infamous brothers died), who by themselves have a budget about the same size as the entire us republican party, and have taken it upon themselves to select the next republican presidential candidate - and they will back that up with enormous spending. Regardless of your views on the political parties specific choices, it's a bad idea for a private group to control (or credibly attempt to control) who can run for president - this is fundamentally different than microsoft's donations (even if I don't like that corporations are putting money into politics). Koch have had a lot of success in setting the previous few decade's political framework about how the us looked at international trade, along with influencing the libertarian party (David Koch was the Libertarian VP candidate in 1980, but had enormous impact on that movement over time).
go.mod provides a way to introduce the new behaviour incrementally. The key point is the dependencies can (and already do) declare different go versions in their go.mod file. When everything is compiled, each module is compiled with the behaviour that applies to its own declared go version. So even if you update your go.mod go version to take advantage of this (soon to be) new behaviour, you can continue to use existing deps happily without worrying they will break.
I wonder if the two are not quite as separate as you suggest? Can the market be free without some kind of functioning democracy? Without democracy the market as you say is very unlikely to be free. Even with imperfect democracy we still see market failures due to monopoly power, externalities, and corruption.
True. In practice they go hand in hand (except in very few cases, like Hong Kong under British rule).
But I think the distinction is still important. For example I think there’s a good case for limiting democratically elected politicians influence over the economy, by enshrining private property rights and the independence of the central bank in the constitution (as e.g. Sweden has). How would you come to that conclusion if you think it’s democracy itself that allocates resources efficiently?
Democracy creates buy-in and legitimacy, and requires good ideas to be sold to the people rather than imposed on them. There is additional evidence that compulsory voting adds to this legitimacy (in ways that may be freedom-harming, if that matters to you - in particular, some people find evidence that Australia can typically impose stricter rules than other democracies because of compulsory voting). Some of this might go against the American tradition of democracy (which exists to help entrench freedom) but it is compatible with the Australian-British tradition of democracy (which is the goal in itself).
Democracy acts as a circuit-breaker for entrenched inefficient resource allocation. For instance, if there was no usable legislative process, but only an executive and a precedent-based judicial system, markets would generally be free, but this would allow the intergenerational accumulation of capital/wealth until some people have almost total power, and some people are essentially serfs. But in democracy, the mere potential for the mass of people to vote themselves wealth limits the incentives to aggressively accumulate capital/wealth. For instance, if the rich want their property rights to be respected, they need to make sure that the mass of the country has enough property to also want protection. And if that potential doesn't work, it can actually be used and new taxes and rules can be introduced that distribute wealth more efficiently.
As you can see, some might not agree with your conclusion that "there's a good case for limiting democratically elected politicians['] influence over the economy, by enshrining private property rights and the independence of the central bank in the constitution". By asking the question you did, you first presumed that democracy was inefficient and on that basis drew a conclusion, but then asked how a person who thought democracy improves efficiency would argue for the conclusion whose premises they disagree with.
Democracy is not simply representatives voting on your behalf; it includes protection of individual rights (including, to some degree, property rights) and also active civil society.
But in any case, I wonder if your example is not so strong - after all, the independent CB was only enabled by democractically-elected representatives voting for it.
reply