Musk in 2022: "Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic"
If the continental US can do it (and it looks like it might soon, with California voting for it) I'm not sure I buy that argument. Heck if China can survive on one timezone...
They certainly could if they had started that way, but changing it now will disadvantage at least one of the countries (Spain for example), and those countries’ politicians don’t want to risk the ire of their voters for the greater good. And DST is regulated on the EU level, so can’t be changed by individual EU members without breaking EU law, like apparently individual US states can.
It’s status quo bias and loss aversion. Similar to how it would be better for the US to change their voting system, but it will never happen because it would disfavor one of the political parties who’d have to approve the change.
Nah, the States can’t. What we actually voted for, and I voted for this too, was that if Congress passed a law that enabled States to move to permanent DST, then the legislature is authorized to pass a law to move California to permanent DST. Congress hasn’t acted, and the main guy who was pushing for this isn’t in the legislature anymore, but basically the law did nothing except send a message from Californians saying “yeah, this sounds good, do it.” but technically it was never necessary.
States can opt-out of DST, as a few have done, but cannot choose permanent DST (assuming the relevant federal law would be deemed valid/constitutional).
Is that not true for Portugal, or Finland in the other direction for example? I haven’t seen clear reasons for why a 1-hour offset would seriously affect economic relations particularly if it doesn’t affect when businesses are operating. Spain is already known (in stereotypes, so not sure if this holds up in reality) for later start/end times to the workday or other engagements than most western/central European countries, probably partly a figment of the time zone.
I think it's the changing times that people don't like, rather than standard time.
I'd prefer California to stay on standard time instead of staying on DST, so noon will be aligned with solar noon. (It is, right? I never actually checked.)
It’s tempting to want to put stock in solar noon as the the thing the day should be aligned around, but honestly it’s probably overrated. Personally, I much prefer daylight savings time over standard time if I had to pick only one.
Reminds me of "how did this ever work in the first place" bugs. Something that used to work stops working, you look into it, and it seems that the thing looked broken to begin with, but by some lucky miracle something was making it work.
Boggles my mind that after more than 60 years of computer science, we still design tools (programming languages) where the simplest tasks are full of gotchas and footguns. This is a great example.
The tasks seem simple from 30,000 feet up in the air. Once you get down into the dirt you realize there's absolutely nothing simple about what you're proposing.
A filesystem is a giant shared data structure with several contractual requirements and zero guarantees. That people think a programming language could "solve" this is what is boggling to me.
It's hardly a footgun. Close may be able to report some additional errors with getting the data on persistent storage but it won't report all of them anyway. For most applications, ignoring the return of close is perfectly fine in practice.
Agreed. Just log it and move on. The code _probably_ wrote what it needed to even if it didn't close. If truly cared that you got everything out correctly, you'd need to do more work than a blind `defer Close()` anyway and you'd never have written the code like this.
the close() manpage says that it shouldn't be retried anyway, because one might end up closing a file that meanwhile had been opened with the same handle by a different thread.
The problem is that the filesystem primitives are garbage, so it is impossible to make something safe and reasonably performant. This is not a case of "speed at all costs" where huge footguns are added for marginal performance, this is avoiding 10x and up slowdowns that would be required to be safe due to the anemic primitives. If the filesystem had better primitives/APIs, like barriers and proper asynchronous completion, it would be trivial to design tools that are safe and performant. But, without them it is like trying to build a skyscraper out of mud and toothpicks.
To be honest, you sound like someone who has no experience with designing a filesystem and thinks he can do better because doesn't understand the problems at all.
I think this post overhypes the issue. So many writes we do just aren’t that important (e.g. logs, cli config, blah), Close fails rarely, and it’s pretty standard for casually developed application software to misbehave once the disk is full or breaking.
This is a classic safety / performance trade off that was properly selected in favor of performance.
The defer Close() is still quite useful as a way to avoid fd leaks.
Funny thing is that there is a near footgun with this go: if you defer and set a non named return in a defer, like cErr, that won’t actually set that variable. Not sure what actually happens in that case but godbolt would tell you. In that case, the error would get swallowed
What if having the resources to develop hardware are not the point? This is a physical business, and supply chain is the bottleneck at some point. Right now it seems that all the money in the world can't build fabs fast enough to manufacture alternatives to Nvidia's chips. As long as they maintain dominance over the supply chain, having developed equivalent technology might not matter. Someone correct me if this is wrong, I'm mostly speculating.
Background playback works fine on desktop for any video site (simply put the window in the background) and the fact that YouTube gates this feature behind a paywall is a prime example of enshittification. It makes me want to never give them a dime.
Option A: let the dude have his talk. Nobody hears about it beyond the walls of defcon. Move along.
Option B: uninvite and call security. Guy becomes instant personality on reddit and hn. I didn't know that defcon had become a shitty, small minded operation that abuses volunteer time and can't take an Easter egg, well now I do!
I stopped paying attention a few years ago because their leadership was visibly heading in this direction.
It's always kind of frustrating to see programmers and other software people participating/defending that kind of thing considering logic is our whole game to begin with.
The premise of ‘tech people’ not at all succumbing to the same shortcomings as any other human is utterly language and the source of so much undeserved hubris in this industry. Developers are some of the worst, ‘illogical’ people I’ve ever met, especially when it comes to anything interpersonal.
Next time you're thinking "I wish I was the one who had made a billion dollars with my startup idea", remember that only health and family matter, and to have fun while you're alive. RIP.
Edit: some people misinterpreted my comment. I'm just one anonymous voice on the Internet, but am deeply saddened by the passing of Susan Wojcicki, who meant a lot to me as one of the many people who crossed paths with her professionally. I wish her family strength in a very trying moment. She did not deserve this. I've not met another business leader demonstrate everyday kindness to the degree that she did.
Her untimely passing is also a reminder to those of us who sometimes look up to such successful businesspeople that we should all appreciate our luck to be alive and enjoy it to the fullest, as I hope that she did as well, and as I'm sure that she'd prefer we did. RIP
They weren’t arguing the specific times, but the article itself reads as if AI generated and not as a real report of someone’s schedule, by someone who would know that person’s schedule.
The follow-on conclusion from that is that the times are highly suspect.
6hr, as per my comment. Its enough for some people, but average is 7-8. I go to sleep 45-60 mins after going to bed, and i wake 30mins before exercising. Im assuming that is fairly typical.
I think you have misinterpreted that sentence. It is saying that too little sun exposure is harmful to health in women. See also this study which found the same for men in Norway:
Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.
“ Research on a link between vitamin D and cancer is mixed. Some studies have shown a link between low vitamin D levels in the body and a higher risk of getting cancer or dying from cancer. However, it’s not clear if taking vitamin D or having certain vitamin D levels might help prevent cancer. It’s also not clear if vitamin D can help control the growth and spread of cancer. More research is needed to know what role vitamin D does or does not play in helping to prevent or control cancer.”
Yes indeed, it is sunlight that has the most evidence. Sun also releases nitric oxide in the skin, which reduces blood pressure, and high bp is associated with increased lung cancer hazard ratio, even for nonsmokers.
I’ve tried to google with no success but is it known if she smoked or ever did? Or is she part of the unlucky cohort (~12.5%) of non-smokers that get lung cancer?
Well, yeah. For the sort of people who have "Title: CEO" on their Wikipedia page I suspect we're overdrawing from the pool of people where mission implicitly matters a little more than taking it easy. One way or the other you're going to die, but if your response to that is to relax and try to eke out a few years by keeping your stress down then CEOing is probably not for you.
Health is only temporary, and everyone in your family is going to die, until someone makes a trillion dollar startup to cure aging. So it is fundamentally wrong to put health, family, and work as things opposing each other, ultimately they are all needed on a way to get all of the galaxy filled with life. And as Susan have shown one can both do great work, and have a big family with 5 children.
Isn't that person and stress source dependent. Also working until late in life actually improves mental acuity and fights off dementia.
So maybe work but not in excessively high stress loads is your point?
Though i think your implied underlying assumption that because she was a leader in tech and under a high workload somehow caused this is unfounded and unnecessary.
Yeah, but magnitude wise it doesn't seem like a huge difference of 56 vs 90. 56 to me now looks way early, but I assume when I get 70 then I start to think that 90 looks way too early. When I was 10 years old, 56 seemed miles away though. So there's always going to be this problem. Especially since supposedly the older you get the faster time seems to go. So the fact that I and we are all going to die at some point not too far away is still something that is constantly in the back of the mind and frequently on the front.
E.g. compared to being able to live more than 1,000 years or forever and with body in its prime condition recovery etc wise. E.g. having a 25 year old body for 1,000+ years.
Why it's a good idea to fill galaxy with life? Why should we care about it? Also, seeing that our current civilization-system is already at the brink of catastrophe, we should focus on less ambitious goals, such as preserving life on Earth.
1. I don't want my children to die. And i don't want all the life on earth to be eliminated by a random asteroid.
2. Imagine two planets, people on one of them believe that expanding is the moral imperative, and the other want stay where they are. Eventually the people from the first planet will be technologically as far away from the people on first planet, as we are from people on Sentinel island. And therefore will be completely reliant on goodwill first people.
3. The only way to preserve life on earth is to develop space technology, once we have sufficient industry in space, controlling whether on earth will be a simple task, trivially solving climate change issue.
Absolutely worth it. We wont fill the galaxy filled with life because the galaxy is huge and we are but one tiny tiny portion of it. For us to survive and do anything impressive takes all of human ingenuity.
Also those two items aren't mutually exclusive. Both can and should happen in tandem. Anyone arguing otherwise is just a mentally lazy person.
Whenever you have two goals competing for the same resources, you need to prioritize. I'm for preserving life on Earth first, and spreading it to other places as a distant second.
Again you aren't competing for the same resources. Our global resources are plenty. You are unnecessarily making a dichotomy.
Of course preservation of life on our planet should be paramount. We can also pursue space travel. Space travel research isn't whats killing our planet.
Your message is very powerful, for the good, and I think people nowadays are used to extremes instead of the balance when they read something like your comment.
But being rich or even just comfortable gives you a completely different experience during the end of life.
You can afford to quit your job and be with your friends and family.
You can afford to see that best doctors that will ensure you have as comfortable as possible end of life.
Your kids can afford to take a sabbatical to come spend time with you.
You can be sure that no matter what your kids will be financially secure.
You know that you got the absolute best care that you could.
The list goes on.
Cancer is horrible and everyone who loses someone hurts the same. But you absolutely cannot keep saying that being poor and rich doesn’t make a difference during the progress of this awful disease.
Only someone who has never been poor would ever say that.
If you're poor you won't even officially have cancer, because no one will diagnose you, since then you'd be entitled to services. Someone who's actually been poor would understand this.
Eh, I made 75k on my IRS forms last year and don't have health insurance. The poor people I know all have way better access to treatment through medicare/medicaid and various subsidies, and all use the medical system multiple times a year while I look up videos on YouTube (thanks susan!) to learn how to perform minor surgeries on myself
When my mother died of cancer (also in her 50s, still working as a public teacher in NYC so should have had great insurance for this) the hospital went after the estate with a million dollar bill. I couldn't even afford a lawyer to contest it at the time and ended up not inheriting anything except what I could take out of the house.
The only people with good outcomes are the rich who can afford it, and the poor who couldn't afford anything yet are still being treated because other tax payers are paying into this system.
it's not just access to healthcare, it's time, convenience, effort, whatever.
an impoverished single-parent 4 member family will not have time to exploit whatever medical care options are made available to them. this time deficit is one of the more common characteristics that impoverished families have in common.
in a way it's similar to the healthcare problems that startup people see early in the business; 'no time for the doctor, I have meetings -- i'll live with the ulcer' , just from a different angle.
Lots (if not all?) of hospitals offer free care options for patients in poverty. I grew up poor and had a family member who was able to be diagnosed, for free, a university clinic that offered free care, and then was able to receive free care through a program offered at one of top 5 ranked cancer systems in the US. Although the premium quality wasn't even that big of a deal. The overwhelming majority of care can be provided pretty much anywhere. It's not like a premium hospital offers super chemo or super radiation. The treatment is what it is, and all the money in the world isn't going to significantly change your odds of survival relative to basic treatment provided at any clinic anywhere.
The US healthcare system is broken beyond belief, and I do think there is some degree of managerial sociopathy around profit (particularly in the pharmaceutical and insurance wings), but by and large there still remain options for people even if they may be arduous, and I do think that hospitals and doctors are still significantly motivated just to provide good care.
The problem is that, for patients in poverty, the chance that cancer will be detected early enough for treatment is much, much lower. Cancer is often detected during check-ups for vague symptoms that most people can't afford to go visit a doctor for. By the time the symptoms become alarming or even debilitating it is often already too late.
Money does buy comfort and care. Also, it does not make one immortal.
We can choose what we take away from events. I could choose to feel unlucky that I haven't made as much money as someone else, and I would be justified in it, because being rich absolutely makes a difference. I just choose to feel lucky to be alive instead, and I'm just as justified. You are free to choose your own perspective.
Edit: I don’t want to get into an argument but just beware that your original post rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I respect that’s the pain and sorrow of a loss are the same but please don’t dismiss the power and need of money. It makes a world of a difference in the process of dying. You don’t want to sound like someone living on an ivory tower.
Let me put it this way. I don't think you and I are fundamentally disagreeing: money matters, to the extent that it allows to buy statistically better health outcomes and quality time with family. I don't personally think it matters more than that.
In general if you want people to take you seriously, don't make statements like "Two things can be true." It reeks of reddit condescension where they can't make a simple statement without implying the other party is stupid enough to think that only one thing can ever be true at once.
I mean, considering that people harped on about one specific thing being more true than the other, it certainly seems like people think that only one thing (being rich) can ever be true at once.
Stupidity is entirely your implication, but people generally like to see things in binary. It’s far easier than acknowledging that most things live on a spectrum.
I think you are interpreting the comment rather ungenerously. This sounds far more like finding common humanity with the deceased then somehow correlating cancer to wealth.
So this comment applies to people who are at least somewhat affluent and career-ambitious. Perhaps this person does not need to be addressing everybody on the planet to be making a valid statement.
Both this
and the other posts are full of rich people apologists, “remember billionaires are humans too!”.
So out of touch when billions live in poverty but imagine telling them, “remember have fun money doesn’t matter” when they can’t even have basic clean water or clothes
What's the use of buying a team that doesn't do management right? The only possible reason for wanting to buy a software provider and turn them into an in-house team would be if they were a stellar team, with stellar management.
Ah, but it is quite possible that they are only in the situation they are in because they are so niche and they have to focus on unnecessary new features in a vain attempt to get new business.
If you purchase them, you just focus on bug fixes and features you actually need. The developers might be great, you might find you need to get rid of management dead wood. Or it might be that you get a very nimble team who in all likelihood have been itching to fix bugs for years and yet who haven't been able to due to competing interests in the business.
> The developers might be great, you might find you need to get rid of management dead wood.
In my experience great developers do not stick with mediocre managers, because they quickly find better options. My experience with poor managers is that they are only able to retain middling engineers.
> Or it might be that you get a very nimble team who in all likelihood have been itching to fix bugs for years and yet who haven't been able to due to competing interests in the business.
That would be closer to a win scenario, but I think OP would have had a strong feel about it - from the way they describe there interactions, it doesn't seem to be the case?
In 2024:
reply