1. 14

    The biggest issue I have with the defaults, and the borrow checker is that places in FP where you would normally >pass by copy — pass by value, in Rust instead it assumes you want to pass by reference. Therefore, you need to >clone things by hand and pass the cloned versions instead. Although it has a mechanism to do this automatically, it’s >far from ergonomic.

    The argument of pass by reference, or borrowing is that it’s more performant than cloning by default. In general, >computers are getting faster, but systems are getting more complex.

    It’s actually not the case that computers are getting faster in general anymore - Moore’s law has been slowing as we get closer to fundamental physical limits in terms of how small we can build transistors, and actual effective clock speeds for hardware haven’t been increasing significantly for about a decade now. Consequently programmers should be more leery than they are in practice in using non-performant but easy-to-write programming languages and constructs - even ignoring the fact that Moore’s law gains can no longer be counted on, it’s easy for people writing in the middle or towards the top of a large software stack to write non-performant code that stacks on top of other people’s non-performant code, leading to user-visible slowdown and latency even on modern, fast hardware. This is one of the huge issues with applications built on the modern web (in fact, my browser is chugging a little as I write this in the text box, which really shouldn’t be happening on a 2018 computer, and I think it’s the result of a shitty webapp in another tab).

    In any case, one of Rust’s explicit design goals is to be a useful modern language in contexts where minimal use of computing resources like CPU time and memory is important, which is exactly why Rust generally avoids copies unless you explicitly tell it to with .clone() or something similar. Personally, I’ve written a fair amount of Rust code where I do make inefficient copies to avoid complexity (especially while developing an algorithm that I plan to make more efficient later), and I don’t find it particularly onerous to stick a few .clone()s here and there to make the compiler happy.

    1. 6

      I agree with you, and would go further and say that resource usage always matters. In my opinion, performance is an accessibility issue; programs that care about performance can be used on cheaper/older hardware. Not everyone can afford the latest, greatest hardware.

    1. 2

      “If you can use 45 degree traces, you can use 90 degree ones with no measurable impact. Use which over one you like or is suited for a specific trace density. Engineers never used to care, and there is no reason you should. Don’t let the unsupported answers (upvoted as they unfortunately are, despite being false information) pull you in. Validate rule of thumbs you’re told with data. Tradition and faith has no place in good engineering. “

      This is excellent advice for things other than PCB traces

      1. 8

        I had been vaguely aware of Copperhead OS but never looked into it or used it (I used Cyanogenmod before they imploded, and Lineage OS thereafter). I don’t know anything about the context for this other than the reddit and hacker news links here. Everything I’ve seen so far makes me feel inclined to be sympathetic to this Daniel Micay fellow, so I can’t help but wonder if there’s any information from his former business partner’s side of the story that would make me feel less sympathetic.

        1. 12

          He’s a fellow Arch Linux Trusted User. He seemed like a pretty ok dude in my interactions.

          1. 8

            I also chill in a few old irc channels with strncat post my major arch days, he has a lot of people in the open source community that respect his contributions. My bet is he’ll come out ahead of this if he can get untangled from the copperheados company.

          2. 16

            Daniel Micay was a prolific Rust contributor. (In fact, he is still in the top 20 even if he has been inactive since 2015.) In his Rust work, I found him to be a straight person.

            1. 2

              I have a good impression of Daniel Micay after talking with him om IRC. He’s also an unusually knowledgeable programmer.

            1. 6

              I agree with the author that many of the software abstractions all common operating systems use are decades-old relics of a time when designers made decision based around hardware constraints that are for the most part no longer relevant, and it would be good to re-think the relevance of some of these abstractions.

              The devil’s in the details though. What specific abstraction should replace plain text? If I call my plaintext file “config.json” or and check that it is valid JSON, does that effectively solve the problem I wanted to solve by making another abstraction ubiquitous (is parsing text really all that hard on modern hardware?)

              Are the specific terse conventions of UNIX shell commands (ls, cp, etc.) so bad that it’s worth the transition cost? After all, nothing is stopping anyone from writing their own shell where you type whatever you want to do those things, that really is just a product of human inertia - just like the English spelling system, one might point out.

              Is “But the division of work into processes seems very coarse-grained; one widely replicated practice is having each end-user application, on average, correspond to a process” still true anymore, even on desktop computers? Of course the UNIX process abstraction still exists, but plenty of software makes use of multiple threads of execution (IIRC the basic unit of a thread of execution in Linux is the task, which can be configured share arbitrary resources with other tasks, and if you have one or more tasks that happen to share a memory address space you call that a process). And this is ignoring fairly-common computing environments like, say, offloading computation to GPUs to play a video game or do some hardcore math.

              I don’t want to seem overly critical here. I don’t think that the Linux process abstraction is necessarily the best possible abstraction for running a computer program. Maybe there’s a better abstraction out there that would make multithreading and talking to the GPU much easier, and computing as a whole is losing out because most mainstream software developers have to shoehorn these tasks into an inferior abstraction. But this is below the level of abstraction that I personally normally work in as a programmer, so it’s hard for me to judge whether or not this is actually true without a counterexample of a potentially-better abstraction, which the author doesn’t provide.

              The Urbit project also seems relevant to this discussion. They are trying to build a clean-slate computing environment (right now implemented as an ordinary UNIX process however) that has fundamentally different abstractions from UNIX, created for the purpose of making it easy for people to host personal servers. It uses a custom functional programming language (interpreted by a very minimalist interpreter running on actual hardware) as the OS implementation language/application software language, rather than C; it builds a network namespace into the design of the system at a much more fundamental level than any kind of UNIX networking, and has a model of running programs that addresses a lot of the points made in section 5 of this article.

              1. 1

                Urbit is interesting in many of it’s choices. But it is also a long way from stable and polished. I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time getting to understand it and also possesses a galaxy on the network.

                It will be interesting to see if they can stabilize it and make it more ergonomic.

                1. 1

                  Urbit is interesting in many of it’s choices. But it is also a long way from stable and polished. I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time getting to understand it and also possesses a galaxy on the network.

                  Oh, absolutely, it’s still very much unstable software. I bring it up because it’s an example of a recent OS that actually is substantially different from UNIX/Windows and uses different abstractions and conceptual metaphors for its computing, that you can use (to some limited extent) right now today.

              1. 5

                I’m really happy to see someone try their hand at writing an operating system from scratch in Rust that attempts to do something novel in the space and is a little ambitious.

                1. 3

                  If you would like to experiment yourself, and don’t have much OS-writing experience, I found this quite helpful.

                1. 13

                  “We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right.” <- This is bullshit. Anyone at all has the right to program, and attempt to get other people to pay them for programing.

                  1. 8

                    I suspect that by “working” they mean “being paid to work …”, not “attempting to get paid to work …”, and that is certainly not a right.

                    1. 5

                      Careful, you are replacing one badly worded statement with another.

                      It is a right to attempt to get paid.

                      But unless you have satisfied a mutually agreed contract, it is not a right that your attempts will succeed.

                    2. 4

                      I think it’s ironic that participation in the field is described as a privilege rather than a right but later we get

                      We must make room for people who are not like us to enter our field and succeed there

                      How on earth can everyone be obligated to be inclusive if no one has a right to be included?

                      1. 2

                        Counterpoint: many people in the industry are “have been programming since elementary school” types. Having the resources for that (usually your own computer to play with, + sometimes access to classes and stuff) wasn’t a given.

                        Even those who go out of their way to do stuff like coding camps get shunned by the “truly passionate”.

                        It’s not exactly the original point but accepting people from different backgrounds is important I think.

                        (As an aside: this is also present in the “show us your GitHub profile” talk. Maybe you have kids and simply don’t have that sort of bandwidth. Or don’t care about making your own web framework?)

                      1. 1

                        I remember they had all these shows in the 90’s talking about how everything was going to be like the Jetsons by year 2000. We’d have personal robots, flying cars, and so on. Instead, they spent $150 billion rewriting COBOL since the year 2000’s computers can’t keep track of time properly. I was so let down.

                        1. 2

                          The TL;DR of the article: all personal robots in the 80s were a major letdown except the one that was least successful, because it cost as much as a new car & didn’t have any arms.

                          1. 2

                            I think home robots are kind of a letdown now, in the sense that Roombas that you can actually go out and buy today aren’t good enough at navigating the floor to be better at vacuuming than me with a canister vac, 3D printers are a niche hobbyist thing, and Alexa is so privacy-invasive I refuse to use it out of principle.

                            Of course, half the things that people imagined home robots would do in the 80s - basically all the things that you can do without the device physically moving - have been accomplished by personal computers and smartphones, to wild success. I can use my phone and ubiquitous wireless internet connection to play music or read encyclopedias or shitpost about cryptocurrencies, all of which I’m sure would blow the minds of the 80s people typing things into the keyboard attached to their 80s home robot.

                            But my phone and computer don’t move on their own so, I wouldn’t call them robots.

                            1. 2

                              When you follow Google Maps directions or steer to high ranked restaurants or attend meetings in your calendar they do move on their volition. Kind of.

                              1. 2

                                Heh, yeah. Exactly in that restricted sense of “move around” that you say. That’s the sense of “move around” that turned out to be useful.

                        1. 8

                          Good. If you’re a vocal asshole outside of the project, I don’t trust you to be able to magically turn it off and hide your prejudices inside the project either.

                          And people act like this is some bizarre new thing. If I engaged in harassment or inappropriate behavior on Saturday, so much so that people knew about it…I’d likely be fired from my day job too. Nobody wants that kind of association with their project/business. Plenty of employment contracts and employee handbooks have “good conduct” clauses, and have for decades.

                          Those of you concerned about this, serious question: what is an example of some behavior that you honestly think would be problematic under this new policy?

                          1. 17

                            Those of you concerned about this, serious question: what is an example of some behavior that you honestly think would be problematic under this new policy?

                            Mainly people digging Twitter to oust someone. One case immediately comes to mind, Rod Vagg and Node.js:

                            Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article. As a perceived leader in the project, it can be difficult for outsiders to separate Rod’s opinions from that of the project.

                            The article mentioned is The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech, which I agree with. I really don’t want to be excluded from Go project by tweeting this reasonable article I agree with. This actually happened, and I fear it will happen after this revision of Go CoC.

                            1. 6

                              I don’t know enough about his situation to judge, but a quick reading shows that there were sufficient complaints from contributors and other Steering Committee members to bring his resignation to a vote, and 40% of the vote was for him to resign. Generally speaking I’m opposed to the concept of “where there’s smoke there’s fire” but if a lot of people are saying they don’t want to work with you…maybe the problem is you and not them.

                              (And they have in that article lists of explicit violations of the project’s policies, like discussing private moderation publicly, etc. That he wasn’t allowed a forum to answer to these charges is a flaw in the process to be sure, but he doesn’t deny they happened.)

                              And the problem, from what I gather, wasn’t that he tweeted about an article, but that he tweeted screenshots of rude responses about it. He’s a leader of the project, and as such needs to think about his position.

                              If thw CEO of Pepsi tweeted something on his “private” Twitter that the Pepsi Corporation felt brought them into disrepute…you don’t think PepsiCo would do something? Because they absolutely would. Like it or not, he was in a leadership position and discussed things relevant to the project’s governance in a (supposedly) flippant way.

                              …but like I said above, I’m not familiar with this issue, and am just providing my opinion based on the linked article (and the things it linked to).

                              EDIT: And I went back and read “The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech”, which in my opinion is framing the argument very poorly. They seem to imply that there are people with atypical neurologies who are incapable of refraining from sexist, homophobic, and anti-Islamic speech. It’s basically saying “I can be an asshole and if it makes you uncomfortable…I have a condition!” It’s removing all agency from atypical neurologies or implying that prejudice and bigotry is an inherent part of atypical neurologirs, neither of which is true.

                              It also echos the old Kuro5hin “we’re just smarter than you and if you can’t handle it, too bad” argument, which was tiresome then too.

                              It goes on to say that Isaac Newton would run afoul of these sorts of things today. Well, sure. He owned shares in a slavetrading enterprise. He’s not gonna be in trouble for thinking he can transmute lead into gold, he’s going to get in trouble for talking about owning other humans. It’s a sttawman.

                              There’s a difference between the kind of behavior exhibited by, say persons with Aspberger’s Syndrome and people who are just assholes. If someone with Aspberger’s truly believes he should tell women he wants to touch their boobs and “just can’t help it”…that’s unfortunate, but it’s not appropriate behavior regardless. Nobody’s banning an Aspie because they forgot to say “please” or said that some piece of code is “garbage”. Aspies can be not-homophobes too, just like neurotypical people.

                              The article is seeming to say that people shouldn’t be held to any expected form of social behavior when working on a social project. It also falls into the “you have to know 100% every time without asking if someone else would be offended by what you say” which is logically falicious and not in line with what these Codes of Conduct actually say.

                              In other words, this “reasonable” article seems, to me, to be attempting to throw around some absurd examples and mischaracterized strawmen, and then claim that anyone should be free to act however they please socially with no repercussions.

                              That’s not how it works, or has ever worked, in any field of human endeavor.

                              1. 19

                                No one should be obliged to refrain from anti-Islamic speech in order to participate in an open-source software project, especially if they do so outside of the confines of the project (I’ll grant that it’s reasonable for a project to make any discussion of religion off-topic within the confines of the project). When I said that these changes to the code of conduct were a way of controlling participants’ political speech, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Islam is a system of religious thought like any other and deserves no special protection from criticism, other than that which is granted equally to all religions in a religiously-pluralistic society. If the Go project can define anti-Islamic speech outside of the project as a banning offense, then they are acting as enforcers of a specific political ideology that privileges Islam as a sacred idea. This has no place in an open-source software project.

                                1. 4

                                  Well said.

                                  I am more concerned about how, say, virulent your speech is. If you’re so anti-Islam or anti-Christian or anti-Atheist that it becomes obvious that you might have problems working with people of those philosophies then I would be concerned as to how well you’d function in a project that explicitly welcomes people of all (or no) faith.

                                  I am more concerned about consistent “women are just inherently worse at programming, it’s science!”-style posts. If that’s what fills your Twitter, I wonder how you’ll be when you review a woman’s PR, y’know?

                                  But you raise an excellent point.

                                  1. 3

                                    If (this is hypothetical) women are, in fact, inherently worse at programming, and one thinks programming is important and should be for everybody, this means women need additional support for programming. In fact, this is the exact position I hold: I think men are inherently worse at language (reading) as evidenced by standardized test score statistics, and reading is important, and boys need special support so that they can get equal score at reading.

                                    I don’t hold such position wrt women and programming, but if I were, I would review a woman’s PR with more care and time so that it is more helpful.

                                2. 7

                                  You asked for an honest concern for the new Go CoC. If my concern, to be specific, tweeting a link to The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech and being allowed continued participation to Go project, sounds honest and reasonable, please confirm.

                                  Thanks!

                                  1. 2

                                    I edited my comment above. From what I gather, the problem was twofold: he didn’t just tweet the article, but supposedly offensive screenshots of comments about the article; and he did it while in a leadership position of the project.

                                    And there were apparently many other complaints and violations of the project’s policies, so it wouldn’t appear to be as simple as “tweet a link, get banned.”

                                    But again, I first heard of this like 15 minutes ago.

                                    1. 10

                                      so it wouldn’t appear to be as simple as “tweet a link, get banned.”

                                      With Go, it would appear to be simpler than that. Post something totally innocuous that they don’t agree with, and get banned.

                                      They banned some guy on reddit because he was just expressing his opinion.

                                      (In case my own post gets deleted, here is a screenshot.)

                                      1. 1

                                        Reddit isn’t Go, though. We have to wait and see.

                                        (And he wasn’t “expressing his opinion”, he was accusing them of witch hunts before the thing was even promulgated. He wasn’t banned for his opinion, he was banned for being an asshole. Go into any volunteer organization and combatively accuse them of witch hunts and bigotry and see how long they welcome your effort…

                                        If he had said “I worry that the vague language and lack of public investigation to lead to abuse of those with minority political opinions,” he’d be fine. Instead he came in accusatorily with guns ablazin and then gets taken aback when people don’t like being talked to that way.)

                                        1. 9

                                          Note that /r/golang does use Go CoC, so it is fully relevant here.

                                          1. 9

                                            he was accusing them of witch hunts

                                            No, he wasn’t. He was responding to this post, essentially answering the question “what is wrong with CoCs in general?”. /u/zevdg had his own opinion, and /u/gildedlink had answered punctually to his objection.

                                            It looks like he was perfectly correct though.

                                            1. 1

                                              He accused the CoC of being used by “bigoted people…to exclude others based on superficial ideological labels…[and] to bully targets.”

                                              I shortened it to “witch hunt” but the idea’s the same.

                                              Again, if he had said “I fear the language is too vague and might be liable to abuse by people who wish to exclude minority viewpoints” he would’ve been fine. I you act like a jerk when expressing your opinion, people’s reactions might be based on your jerkiness and not the expressed opinions.

                                              EDIT: removed some of my own jerkiness. There was no reason for it, sorry.

                                              1. 9

                                                Your restatement is bad because I (and I think gildedlink) am against outside clause in its entirety, and my primary objection is not vague language. In fact, you seem okay with my “Mainly people digging Twitter to oust someone… Rod Vagg and Node.js”, but I don’t see much difference.

                                                Or do you think I should be banned from Go project for saying the above?

                                                1. 4

                                                  He said “frameworks like this”, he was talking about other CoCs just like this one and how they were used by other people. He wasn’t accusing these people (the Go people) of anything (although, now, I am, in case anyone is keeping score).

                                                  Again, if he had said “I fear the language is too vague […]”

                                                  He was saying what a CoC can do (and what it did do in other communities). He didn’t get a change to expands on his thoughts, or explain in depth how this particular CoC enables that phenomenon because he was banned.

                                                  As a related point, I am sure you realize that some of use are against the very idea of a CoC. While I have specific problems with this particular CoC (which have all been discussed here before by other people, so I won’t repeat them), my main ideological problem is with the existence of a CoC itself in any shape of form.

                                              2. 1

                                                For the record, I appear to have been shadow banned from /r/golang as well. Not just regular ban, but shadow ban.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Any idea why?

                                                  1. 3

                                                    Actually after some more investigation, I wasn’t banned, but they enabled global censoring. Every post now has to be approved by a moderator before it becomes visible to other people. In my opinion, this is a far worse outcome then if they had just banned me…

                                        2. 5

                                          Replying to edit:

                                          They seem to imply that there are people with atypical neurologies who are incapable of refraining from sexist, homophobic, and anti-Islamic speech.

                                          There is no such implication. It’s not about being incapable, it’s about being more difficult. Large text accessibility theme is not about being incapable of using small text.

                                          That’s not how it works, or has ever worked, in any field of human endeavor.

                                          Since humanity never made it fair for Aspies in its long history, humanity shall continue to make it unfair for Aspies forevermore. Got it. If your criteria for social change is “that’s not how it has ever worked”, there would be no women’s suffrage.

                                          1. 4

                                            How does being an Aspie make it more difficult to not be a homophobe? Homophobia is not a symptom of Aspberger’s Syndrome.

                                            1. 4

                                              It makes it more difficult to know what the implicit prevailing social norm is.

                                              But really, that’s not what I think is the core of disagreement. You find The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech objectionable. Got it. Do you find it objectionable enough that tweeting a link to it should constitute a cause for ban for open source projects?

                                              1. 1

                                                Not at all. But if that’s provided as supporting evidence that I lack impartiality to do my job according to the project’s rules and had been the subject of multiple complaints on top of documented violations of procedures and policies….well…

                                                Now, do you think that treating gay people with common respect is purely a social norm that we should ignore if we feel like it?

                                                1. 3

                                                  Yeah it’s also important to remember that a condition may be an explanation but it isn’t an excuse. I have ADHD and I do lack impulse control. That lack of impulse control is not an excuse to act out on others. I still need to apologize for my behavior and describe what steps I might take to avoid it in the future. It does not count as be an asshole free card. I still need to put a good faith effort into having good behavior and if I repeatedly am hostile to others then I may not be able to be involved in a group project.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    This is why I am in favor of Rust CoC. “Moderators will first respond to such remarks with a warning.” Rust CoC is explicitly against instaban.

                                                    Go CoC is not, and above /r/golang case seems Go CoC in fact can instaban. (It is possible that there was private warning, but short time frame makes it unlikely.)

                                                  2. 1

                                                    No, I don’t think so.

                                                  3. 1

                                                    It doesn’t, however, make it difficult to know what one’s values are, or to act accordingly. I don’t know what social norms have to do with it, and I find this argument insulting.

                                              2. 3

                                                And the problem, from what I gather, wasn’t that he tweeted about an article, but that he tweeted screenshots of rude responses about it. He’s a leader of the project, and as such needs to think about his position.

                                                I have an honest question which I hope you to reciprocate by answering. Do you seriously believe it would have been different if just link was tweeted and “Dude, What’s wrong with your head?” screenshot was not tweeted? I really have hard time believing this. “Yes” or “No” would be sufficient. Thanks!

                                                1. 1

                                                  Well, before we go too far down this rabbit hole, we should remember that Node.js and Go are two separate projects and we should judge Go’s policy separately.

                                                  As for your question:

                                                  I don’t know. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think if the person in question has other complaints lodged against them, the scales might tip.

                                                  I personally wouldn’t care, but I’m not the Node.js TSC with their insider knowledge of his past behavior.

                                          1. 8

                                            Pretty ironic that this is on YouTube.

                                              1. 4

                                                See also https://d.tube/, hosted on IPFS.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Hosted on github… ;)

                                              1. 21

                                                First, the new code of conduct makes clear that people who participate in any kind of harassment or inappropriate behavior, even outside our project spaces, are not welcome in our project spaces. This means that the Code of Conduct applies outside the project spaces when there is a reasonable belief that an individual’s behavior may have a negative impact on the project or its community.

                                                I am very disappointed. Go CoC’s restricted scope was a very good decision and protection against witch hunting.

                                                1. 18

                                                  What constitutes “harassment” and “inappropriate behavior” is profoundly political. This is an attempt by the Go project to regulate the political speech of contributors. This is worth forking Go over.

                                                  1. 10

                                                    That is exactly what it is. The 0th and the 1st iterations were the same thing; but they lost a battle going from 0 to 1, and now they are fighting the war.

                                                    A fork is unviable at this point. It will always be a niche project at best, like gccgo is. There isn’t enough Go technical talent outside Google with enough social and political capital to spare to make this work.

                                                1. 15

                                                  world-open QA-less package ecosystems (NPM, go get)

                                                  This is one I’m increasingly grumpy about. I wish more ecosystems would establish a gold set of packages that have complete test coverage, complete API documentation, and proper semantic versioning.

                                                  1. 4

                                                    world-open QA-less package ecosystems (NPM, go get)

                                                    i’d argue that go get is no package ecosystem. it’s just a (historic) convenience tool, which was good enough for the initial use (inside a organization). furthermore, i like the approach better than the centralized language package systems. nobody checks all the packages in pypi or rubygems. using a known good git repo isn’t worse, maybe it’s even better as there is not another link in the chain which could break, as the original repository is used instead of a somehow packaged copy.

                                                    I wish more ecosystems would establish a gold set of packages that have complete test coverage, complete API documentation, and proper semantic versioning.

                                                    python has the batteries included since ages, gos standard library isn’t bad either. both are well-tested and have good documentation. in my opinion the problem is that often another 3rd pary depencendy gets quickly pulled in, instead of giving a second thought to if it is really required or can be done by oneself which may spare one trouble in the future (e.g. left-pad).

                                                    in some cases there is even a bit of quality control for non standard packages: some database drivers for go are externally tested: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/SQLDrivers

                                                    1. 2

                                                      Then you get the curation (and censorship) of Google Play or Apple’s Store.

                                                      Maybe you want more of the Linux package repo model where you have the official repo (Debian, RedHat, Gentoo Portage), some optional non-oss or slightly less official repos (Fedora EPEL) and then always having the option to add 3rd party vendor repos with their own signing keys (PPA, opensuse build service, Gentoo Portage overlays).

                                                      I really wish Google Play had the option of adding other package trees. I feel like Apple and Google took a great concept and totally fucked it up. Ubuntu Snap is going in the same (wrong) direction.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        On Android it’s certainly possible to install F-Droid, and get access to an alternate package management ecosystem. I think I had to sideload the F-Droid APK to get it to work though, which not every user would know how to do easily (I just checked, it doesn’t seem to be available in the play store).

                                                    1. 27

                                                      Agreed wholeheartedly with everything on this list (esp. Docker and Nix) except for the Code of Conduct line. Sadly, we’re living in a time where assholes need to be explicitly uninvited.

                                                      1. 15

                                                        I don’t share the concept of gender with the FreeBSD CoC. When growing up, i observed the world with my own eyes, and found that its an rather arbitrary abstraction not providing value. Should others be allowed to force me to use that concept against my conscience? I’m not rude or disrespectful towards peers (inc. actual transgender persons) because of that.

                                                        Does that make me an asshole that needs to be explicitly uninvited?

                                                        1. 20

                                                          If you do the things that the FreeBSD CoC says you shouldn’t do (calling people by names they’ve explicitly said shouldn’t be used especially) then yes. Otherwise I don’t really see how it affects you?

                                                          1. 10

                                                            Having control over the abstractions people use also limits what those people can express. Achilles and the Tortoise is a good illustration of that.

                                                            Forcing these abstractions over people is what violates their autonomy, which is why the FreeBSD CoC was so controversial in the first place. Its that the proponents argue that you have nothing to fear if you are “a good person”, equating lawfulness with being a good person. Which is fundamentally wrong. Yes, Edward Snowden violated laws, but i doubt he is a bad person because of that.

                                                            1. 11

                                                              Can you be more practical, less philosophical, and provide an example of something you’d say, that the CoC would consider wrong? (No bad intentions or hidden agenda in this question, just generally wondering how a real life example of the issue looks like for you).

                                                              1. 12

                                                                “/me hugs nullp0tr

                                                                “You shouldn’t beat your children tho”

                                                                “I dislike that you program killer robots for the CIA”

                                                                1. 6

                                                                  Thanks for the examples. I understand your frustration with it a bit more now. How would you deal with someone who’s constantly hugging or backrubbing someone else after being asked to stop? and how does your view on gender affect your empathy towards people with a different view and who get offended by someone who’s constantly using the wrong pronoun?

                                                                  1. 11

                                                                    Constantly harassing another user will get you warned, kicked or even banned with our without a CoC. Worst case (if the channel moderation doesn’t care) is that you need to block/set them on your ignore list.

                                                                    I don’t have an generic attitude on that, and i didn’t have IRL conflicts on pronouns yet. The transgender persons i interacted with were respectable persons and individually got me to use their preferred pronoun without force.

                                                                    Conflict is a component of daily life. Persons who handle conflict by getting offended and expecting others to change their mind are akin to the kid in the mall throwing a tantrum because mom wont buy the gummy bears. That’s just shitty diplomacy and wont get you anywhere. Embodying such an attitude into an community law will make your community a toxic place.

                                                                    1. 6

                                                                      I don’t have an generic attitude on that, and i didn’t have IRL conflicts on pronouns yet. The transgender persons i interacted with were respectable persons and individually got me to use their preferred pronoun without force.

                                                                      So is it okay in your opinion to intentionally use the wrong pronoun if the persons in question were not respectable?

                                                                      Constantly harassing another user will get you warned, kicked or even banned with our without a CoC. Worst case (if the channel moderation doesn’t care) is that you need to block/set them on your ignore list.

                                                                      What’s the difference between having a written rule about what would get you banned and not having one?

                                                                      Conflict is a component of daily life. Persons who handle conflict by getting offended and expecting others to change their mind are akin to the kid in the mall throwing a tantrum because mom wont buy the gummy bears. That’s just shitty diplomacy and wont get you anywhere. Embodying such an attitude into an community law will make your community a toxic place.

                                                                      How would you handle conflicts created by racism, sexism, etc in a non toxic way?

                                                                      1. 9

                                                                        So is it okay in your opinion to intentionally use the wrong pronoun if the persons in question were not respectable?

                                                                        If people start interacting with me by insulting me, then i definitely wont let them tell me how to call them.

                                                                        What’s the difference between having a written rule about what would get you banned and not having one?

                                                                        Power. Rulemakers wield extraordinary power because they are the ones who interpret a situation as lawful or unlawful. Not getting in trouble with the law is, to an extent, doing good diplomacy with the rulemakers.

                                                                        How would you handle conflicts created by racism, sexism, etc in a non toxic way? Ideally:

                                                                        • Tell that i did not find it appropriate, explain why
                                                                        • Optional discussion, quite often its just an misunderstanding
                                                                        • Avoid being antagonistic, not calling them sexist or insults (burns bridges instantly)

                                                                        Best case is that i can base my standpoint upon their values. Using authoritative power to deploy sanctions should always be the last resort.

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          If people start interacting with me by insulting me

                                                                          What are the ways you get insulted? What if someone does it by accident?

                                                                          If people start interacting with me by insulting me, then i definitely wont let them tell me how to call them.

                                                                          Didn’t you just say being diplomatic is key?

                                                                          Persons who handle conflict by getting offended…

                                                                          I’m confused why you would revert to being a kid in the mall by not calling someone by their preferred pronoun if they insulted you. I agree with your overall idea of being diplomatic.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Thanks for taking the time to clarify your stand.

                                                                            It seems you’d rather have an environment of mutual respect and no single/few figures that can decide on what constitutes as wrong doing selectively, and you’d rather solve the issues the FreeBSD CoC tries to address through diplomacy and listening to all parties?

                                                                            How would you go about implementing your ideal conflict resolution approach in real communities? (alternatively, do you have an example of a community that already does that or something similar?)

                                                                            1. 4

                                                                              My preference aren’t as exotic at it seems on the first view.

                                                                              I dont need to implement it on my own, its already live in such an community, an local instance of the Chaos Computer Club in germany. Hacker culture tends to be decentral and skeptical of authorities in general, probably because hackers tend to be persons that value personal autonomy high. Socially adjacent communities (alot of artists here!) and companies share alot of the mindset.

                                                                              Edit: These communities are also the ones where most positive feedback about my CoC-critical stuff comes from. I think i hit a nerve there that already bothered quite some people

                                                                  2. 7

                                                                    “I think that the memo that James Damore wrote about gender diversity efforts at Google was by and large correct and that Google was wrong to fire him. He should be considered welcome to contribute in good standing to this open-source software project if he so chooses.”

                                                                    Any code of conduct that allowed me to say that sentence is (probably) fine; any code of conduct that treated me saying that sentence as a violation is not fine.

                                                                    1. 5

                                                                      That is a surprisingly good litmus test. Regardless of your actual view on the Damore memo or subsequent furore, a CoC that can penalize you for expressing your view about a person or situation like that is probably overstepping the mark.

                                                                      It’s not whether someone would agree with you that he should be welcome to contribute to a project, it’s whether you are allowed to say it. In that regard I really like it as an overreach test.

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        I’ve read the whole memo. I think he gets some things wrong and disagree with him here and there, but I’m glad I read it. Overall he does have a lot of good points, and it does show a big problem with the “leftness” of silicon valley tech culture.

                                                                        Instead of trying to get more women in STEM/tech, how about we make it more socially acceptable for everyone, both men and women, to go after things they actually like to do. How many people do you know in tech, both men and women, hate their cubeville life. So many people I know, no matter how enthusiastic they might seem at times, deep down, do not like their jobs. We’ve got Dilbert, Office Space, We the Robots and so many other things in entertainment that show how awful these jobs can be. People want to escape.

                                                                        I feel like there is a lot of pressure on men (and I guess now more on women) to earn enough to provide for a family. We mock people with English or Philosophy degrees with their steamy piles of debt; debt the previous generation would not have had because they could pay for school by working at a grocery store. The cost of education is too high and it’s being turned into a pipeline to the industry that is in demand. The debt locks people in.

                                                                        Want to solve income inequality? Make everyone’s income public. Every employee knows what every other employee makes and that should be a Federal mandate. Why the fuck is there a taboo over income anyway. If you know what people are worth, you know what you should be wroth. I have a hypothesis that if you could somehow measure confidence, people’s incomes would directly correlate with their confidence level and not their genders.

                                                                        I think people are locked into a certain political ideology and the false left/right paradigm that they fail to see the real issues are not the issues they’re addressing. Those are symptoms of a much deeper cause.

                                                                        1. 4

                                                                          I honestly haven’t read the memo. Is it something specific in the memo that you wanna be able to express your agreement with? or do you want to be able to express any opinion regardless of what it entails?

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            I’m still overall confused by James Damore’s memo. It was mostly an incoherent mess when I read it. What part was he right about in regards to Google’s gender diversity efforts?

                                                                        2. 3

                                                                          Ok. What do you do that violates the CoC that isn’t bad? So far all I’ve heard is weird analogies that don’t really make sense. Can you articulate your concrete concerns?

                                                                          1. 9

                                                                            Not fighting for moral autonomy because you agree with it is analogous to not fighting for free speech because you agree with what the state says.

                                                                            I do enjoy my moral autonomy, i exercise it, and i expect other people to let me do it. And the FreeBSD CoC says, “not here”. So i avoid FreeBSD.

                                                                            Like free speech, moral autonomy is an essential part of democratic society (Lawrence Kohlberg: “Moral Development”), even if not everyone needs it.

                                                                            1. 7

                                                                              Not fighting for moral autonomy because you agree with it is analogous to not fighting for free speech because you agree with what the state says.

                                                                              This is entirely disingenuous. FreeBSD is not the state, and requiring that contributors to an open source project not express violent prejudice against other contributors in order to be allowed to contribute is not at all similar to state censorship.

                                                                              I do enjoy my moral autonomy, i exercise it, and i expect other people to let me do it.

                                                                              Thanks for clarifying. You should realize that this is literally the purpose of CoCs like this one. You value your ability to do whatever you like over the productivity and comfort of others, and that’s not the attitude FreeBSD, Rust etc want in their community, because it tends to decrease productivity and cause burnout, not to mention just being a pain in the ass to work with.

                                                                              So, yes, I agree with the others in this thread. Please continue to avoid FreeBSD, and if possible, me as well.

                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                FreeBSD is not the state, and requiring that contributors to an open source project not express violent prejudice against other contributors in order to be allowed to contribute is not at all similar to state censorship.

                                                                                Would you not avoid a project that required you to limit your freedom of speech simply on principle? Or, if you would not, do you at least understand why someone else might on principle?

                                                                                The only difference in this example is that you at least have a reasonable choice of simply not using/contributing to FreeBSD if you disagree.

                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                  Would you not avoid a project that required you to limit your freedom of speech simply on principle?

                                                                                  Assuming you don’t mean “freedom of speech” (as in, freedom from state censorship) and actually mean “freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever forum you want”, this question is so broad as to be meaningless. If you DO mean “freedom of speech”, then it is so narrow as to be irrelevant, since the policies of open source projects don’t affect your legal freedom of speech. In either case, you miss the point.

                                                                                  Community standards exist in order to prevent, in specific spaces, behavior that will adversely affect the community that creates them. All communities have standards. Codes of Conduct formalize and write down those standards, and allow people to examine them. If a community with standards by which one did not wish to abide existed and was otherwise appealing, one might join it and be unpleasantly surprised. On the other hand, a CoC allows one to see, up front, the norms and standards of a community. This is good.

                                                                                  Therefore, it seems like @liwakura doesn’t disagree so much with the existence of a CoC as with the community standards many of them encode - in particular, those of the Node.js and FreeBSD communities. Now comes the critical point:

                                                                                  Rather than engage with specific problems in the CoC (e.g., “[specific rule] is open to serious abuse and provides little protection for the accused”, et cetera), liwakura focused on the “restriction of autonomy”. Yes, community standards restrict autonomy. That is the point. They prevent behavior such as the purposeful, spiteful misgendering liwakura described as a likely outcome with a negative interaction with a trans person, or purposeful ignorance (as in, the noun form of “to ignore”, not as in lack of knowledge) of social structure of gender- and sex-based oppression. By preventing those behaviors from being displayed by liwakura in FreeBSD spaces, the CoC has succeeded.

                                                                                  In other words, the CoC says “If you’re going to be a jerk, such as in these specific ways, stay out”, and liwakura’s response was “How dare you tell me that you don’t want me to be a jerk in these specific ways! I’m going to do what you say and not participate in your community, but also whine about it on the Internet.”

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    Community standards exist in order to prevent, in specific spaces, behavior that will adversely affect the community that creates them.

                                                                                    From what I’ve seen, the CoC being enforced in these specific spaces does not usually happen - they are enforced outside of those spaces as well. If I say some homophobic stuff on IRC, and it gets screencapped and posted on Twitter, do I get kicked out as a member of Project XYZ that uses a CoC which specifically prohibits that sort of language? Obviously I’ve said it, and there is public record of it - but I wasn’t saying it in context of the project, or to any member of the project, and in a (relatively) private setting. If I’m punished for something like that, then I’ve lost moral autonomy outside of the project.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      I would consider that to be a very arguable case. Is it possible that one’s external behavior will negatively impact the project and its community? Yes. Is your objection about moral autonomy outside the project valid? Also yes.

                                                                          2. 0

                                                                            Ok. What do you do that violates the CoC that isn’t bad? So far all I’ve heard is weird analogies that don’t really make sense. Can you articulate your concrete concerns?

                                                                      2. 2

                                                                        To be fair, I fall between the OP and the parent. Aside from one pre-COC level FreeNAS, I don’t use FreeBSD (which is the example) because of the shitty CoC. I’m not opposed to a well-structured one, but FreeBSD doesn’t appear to have one. Using a product means you condone the producer’s practices. I don’t use Facebook. I’m slowly degoogling my life, and I’m getting rid of Linux. Amazon Prime will be a hard plaster to pull off, but I’m working up to that. I see FreeBSD the same way - I don’t support their CoC implementation, ergo I won’t support the product by using it.

                                                                        The very fact that any online discussion quickly devolves into poisonous ad-hominem is reason enough for me to be put off by the presence of one, but they can serve a purpose when well implemented (if GNU had a well-designed CoC then the recent Glibc abort() debacle could’ve been handled through it for example). When they’re poorly implemented like with FreeBSD, it’s not properly serving it’s existing community.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          Why are you getting rid of linux?

                                                                          1. 5

                                                                            It’s a combination of factors, some of which are due to shitshows like systemd, issues with breaking compatibility (e.g. ifconfig) and the realisation after moving to docker that for the most part, I have absolutely no idea what code is running on these systems.

                                                                            I wrote about this in another comment here: https://lobste.rs/s/yxswhm/what_are_you_self_hosting#c_8reclz

                                                                            To be fair, a lot of this is a result of my own poor personal choices, but I now feel like I’m fighting Linux to make it do what I want predictably, and not do things I didn’t tell it to do. It’s very reminiscent of MacOS’s shift a few years back.

                                                                            I’m going to spend some time with Alpine simply because that’s what a lot of my docker containers for public systems run on, but I’m not building new systems to run docker, no longer buying raspberry pis (thanks, binary blobs) and instead of migrating to Linux, I’m migrating a lot of systems to Open and NetBSD. I would’ve chosen FreeBSD, but the CoC debacles mean I’m less comfortable supporting it. My next NAS build may well run Illumos instead.

                                                                      1. 11

                                                                        The handling of the Damore memo and related science should tell us everything we need to know about to what degree we can trust both data and the people who criticize it.

                                                                        The problem with claiming “mathwashing” is that it’s dangerously close to creating a culture that ignores studies if they don’t feel right. This is not scientific governance.

                                                                        1. 6

                                                                          You mean the method of citing a number of irrelevant and/or dubious scientific studies in a ideological rant based on logical fallacies and then claiming these cites bolster the credibility of the rant and indicate that anyone who objects is anti-science? Yep!

                                                                          1. 0

                                                                            The handling of Galileo’s studies should tell us everything we need to know about how science always triumphs over obtuseness.

                                                                            Now, do you know what’s funny?

                                                                            We call “scientific researchers” incompetent people arguing that neural networks’ models are too deep for humans to understand.
                                                                            I mean these people not only rationalize their failures, they sell them as features!

                                                                            This is not scientific governance.

                                                                            1. 7

                                                                              Galileo’s heliocentric theories had reasonable scientific counterobjections based on the observational evidence available at the time, and other contemporary figures (such as Copernicus and Kepler) with heliocentric models of the universe had no particular trouble with the authorities. Galileo’s persecution by the Church was mostly about political and personal conflict between him and the pope, which has been ahistorically re-contextualized as a story about the Catholic church (or Religion in general) persecuting inconvenient scientific truths, by certain modern scientists generally studying different things than Galileo did and offending different authorities than the Catholic church.

                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                I don’t understand what you’re saying here, could you please rephrase it?

                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                  Let’s try (but I’m not sure what is not clear… my English simply sucks, sorry…)

                                                                                  I understand the concerns of @friendlysock, but the fact that we now teach an heliocentric model in the elementary schools show that good science always wins against censorship.
                                                                                  We won’t ignore disturbing studies that “don’t feel right”.
                                                                                  On the contrary, we will verify them carefully, as we should do with anything that is qualified as “Science”. (and we should not qualify as “Science” any unverified claim: it’s just an hypothesis until several independent experiments confirm it!)

                                                                                  However, today in IT there is another issue that is much more dangerous.
                                                                                  Several powerful companies are lobbying to spread the myth of machine intelligence. Not just to collect money or data, but to delegate to machines the responsibility of their errors.

                                                                                  Now, if you tell me that a software you wrote cannot be debugged, I think that you are not competent to develop any software at all. But if you boldly state that your software is not broken, but too smart for me (and even you) to understand its internal working, I would remove you from any responsibility role in IT.

                                                                                  For some strange reason, this is not what happens in AI.

                                                                                  Developers happily admit that they cannot explain their own neural network’s computation.
                                                                                  But they rationalize such failure as if it was not their fault, but it’s the neural network that is “too smart” (they usually mumble that it takes into account too many variables, it finds unintuitive correlations and so on).
                                                                                  So they are not just incompetent developers: they are rationalizing their failures.

                                                                                  And they sell such opacity as if it’s an inherent aspect of neural networks, but an advantage!

                                                                                  They do not say “this software is shitty mess”, they say “this software is too smart for humans!”.

                                                                                  Is this a scientific approach?

                                                                            1. 5

                                                                              Great idea for a thread!

                                                                              I have a physical server in my house comprised of commodity PC hardware, running linux. This runs:

                                                                              • irssi in a persistent tmux session
                                                                              • sshd (and so anything that you can do over ssh, such as push to private git repos or ssh port-forward)
                                                                              • diaspora instance (that I’m unfortunately not doing much with)
                                                                              • cherrymusic music streaming instance, so I can stream my music library to anywhere with a browser
                                                                              • nginx as a frontend for cherrymusic and a few webservices I run for personal experimentation
                                                                              • an instance of a RSS feed reader called Miniflux. I’m not entirely happy with the UI this presents, but I don’t have

                                                                              I plan to run a Matrix instance in the near future that I’d like to bridge to IRC and replace irssi+tmux, but haven’t gotten the software to work properly on my home server yet.

                                                                              My ISP only provides a public IPv6 address, not a public v4 one, so I also have a small $5/month Digital Ocean droplet. The most important thing this does is run a socat instance, which listens for traffic on a select number of IPv4 ports and rebroadcasts it on v6 to my home server, so I don’t have to rely on a connection to the v6 internet existing in order to use my home services. I also run:

                                                                              • nginx that proxy-passes web services to my v6-only home server
                                                                              • a personal Mastodon server
                                                                              • a Pleroma server
                                                                              • a Gittea instance
                                                                              • a bespoke web service for a friend of mine’s project
                                                                              1. 75

                                                                                Capitalism is killing us in a very literal sense by destroying our habitat at an ever accelerating rate. The fundamental idea of needing growth and having to constantly invent new things to peddle leads to ever more disposable products, that are replaced for the sake of being replaced. There’s been very little actual innovation happening in the phone space. The vendors are intentionally building devices using the planned obsolescence model to force the upgrade cycle.

                                                                                The cancer of consumerism affects pretty much every aspect of society, we’ve clear cut unique rain forests and destroyed millions of species we haven’t even documented so that we can make palm oil. A product that causes cancer, but that’s fractionally cheaper than other kinds of oil. We’ve created a garbage patch the size of a continent in the ocean. We’re poisoning the land with fracking. The list is endless, and it all comes down to the American ethos that making money is a sacred right that trumps all other concerns.

                                                                                1. 22

                                                                                  Capitalism is killing us in a very literal sense by destroying our habitat at an ever accelerating rate.

                                                                                  The cancer of consumerism affects pretty much every aspect of society, we’ve clear cut unique rain forests and destroyed millions of species we haven’t even documented so that we can make palm oil.

                                                                                  One can get into a big debate about this, but the concept of externalities has existed for a long time and specifically addresses these concerns. Products do not cost what they should when taken their less tangible environment impact into account. It’s somewhat up to the reader to decide if the inability of society to take those into account is capitalism’s fault, or just human nature, or something else. I live in a country that leans much more socialist than the US but is unequivocally a capitalist country and they do a better job of managing these externalities. And China is not really capitalistic in the same way the US is but is a pretty significant polluter.

                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                    Indeed, it’s not the fault of the economic system (if you think Capitalistic societies are wasteful, take a look at the waste and inefficiency of industry under the USSR). If externalities are correctly accounted for, or to be safe, even over-accounted for by means of taxation or otherwise, the market will work itself out. If the environmental cost means the new iPhone costs $2000 in real costs, Apple will work to reduce environmental cost in order to make an affordable phone again and everyone wins. And if they don’t, another company will figure it out instead and Apple will lose.

                                                                                    Currently, there is basically no accounting for these externalities, and in some cases (although afaik not related to smart phones), there are subsidies and price-ceiling regulations and subsidies that actually decreases the cost of some externalities artificially and are worse for the environment than no government intervention at all.

                                                                                    The easy example of this is California State water subsidies for farmers. Artificially cheap water for farmers means they grow water-guzzling crops that are not otherwise efficient to grow in arid parts of the state, and cause environmental damage and water shortage to normal consumers. Can you imagine your local government asking you to take shorter showers and not wash your car, when farmers are paying 94% less than you to grow crops that could much more efficiently be grown in other parts of the country? That’s what happens in California.

                                                                                    Step 1 and 2 are to get rid of the current subsidies and regulations that aggravate externalities and impose new regulation/taxes that help account for externalities.

                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                      I have talked to a factory owner in china. He said China is more capitalist than the USA. He said China prioritizes capital over social concerns.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        Ok? I can talk to lots of people with lots of opinions. That doesn’t make it true.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          It’s just impressive that a capitalist would say. If China was even remotely communist, don’t you find it interesting that most capitalists who made deals with China seem ok helping ‘the enemy’ become the second largest economy in the world? I prefer to believe the simpler possibility that China is pretty darn capitalist itself.

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            I did not say China was not capitalist, I said it’s not in the same way as the US. There is a lot more state involvement in China.

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              Is your claim then that state involvement means you have more pollution? Maybe I’m confused by what you were trying to get at, sorry :-/

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                No, I was pointing out that different countries are doing capitalism differently and some of them are better at dealing with externalities and some of them are worse. With the overall point being that capitalism might be the wrong scapegoat.

                                                                                      1. 7

                                                                                        I think the consumer could be blamed more than capitalism, the companies make what sells, the consumers are individuals who buy products that hurt the environment, I think that it is changing though as people become more aware of these issues, they buy more environmentally friendly products.

                                                                                        1. 30

                                                                                          You’re blaming the consumer? I’d really recommend watching Century of the Self. Advertising has a massive impact and the mass of humans are being fed this desire for all the things we consume.

                                                                                          I mean, this really delves into the deeper question of self-awareness, agency and free will, but I really don’t think most human beings are even remotely aware.

                                                                                          Engineers, people on Lobster, et. al do really want standard devices. Fuck ARM. Give me a god damn mobile platform. Microsoft for the love of god, just publish your unlock key for your dead phone line so we can have at least one line of devices with UEFI+ARM. Device tree can go die in a fire.

                                                                                          The Linux-style revolution of the 2000s (among developers) isn’t happening on mobile because every device is just too damn different. The average consumer could care less. Most people like to buy new things, and we’re been indoctrinated to that point. Retailers and manufactures have focus groups geared right at delivering the dopamine rush.

                                                                                          I personally hate buying things. When my mobile stopped charging yesterday and the back broke again, I thought about changing it out. I’ve replaced the back twice already and the camera has spots on the sensor under the lenses.

                                                                                          I was able to get it charging when I got home on a high amp USB port, so instead I just ordered yet another back and a new camera (I thought it’d be a bitch to get out, but a few YouTube videos show I was looking at the ribbon wrong and it’s actually pretty easy to replace).

                                                                                          I feel bad when I buy things, but it took a lot of work to get to that point. I’ve sold or given away most of my things multiple times to go backpacking, I run ad block .. I mean if everyone did what I’d did, my life wouldn’t be sustainable. :-P

                                                                                          We are in a really solidly locked paradigm and I don’t think it can simply shift. If you believe the authors of The Dictators Handbook, we literally have to run our of resources before the general public and really push for dramatically different changes.

                                                                                          We really need more commitment to open standards mobile devices. The Ubuntu Edge could have been a game changer, or even the Fairphone. The Edge never got funded and the Fairphone can’t even keep parts sourced for their older models.

                                                                                          We need a combination of people’s attitudes + engineers working on OSS alternatives, and I don’t see either happening any time soon.

                                                                                          Edit: I forgot to mention, Postmarket OS is making huge strides into making older cellphones useful and I hope we see more of that too.

                                                                                          1. 7

                                                                                            I second the recommendation for The Century of the Self. That movie offers a life-changing change of perspective. The other documentaries by Curtis are also great and well worth the time.

                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                              Century of the Self was a real eye opener. Curtis’s latest documentary, HyperNormalisation, also offers very interesting perspectives.

                                                                                            2. 26

                                                                                              Capitalism, by it’s very nature, drives companies to not be satisfied with what already sells. Companies are constantly looking to create new markets and products, and that includes creating demand.

                                                                                              IOW, consumers aren’t fixed actors who buy what they need; they are acted upon to create an ever increasing number of needs.

                                                                                              There are too many examples of this dynamic to bother listing.

                                                                                              1. 12

                                                                                                It’s also very difficult for the consumer to tell exactly how destructive a particular product is. The only price we pay is the sticker price. Unless you really want to put a lot of time into research it is hard to tell which product is better for the environment.

                                                                                                1. 14

                                                                                                  It’s ridiculous to expect everyone to be an expert on every supply chain in the world, starting right from the mines and energy production all the way to the store shelf. That’s effectively what you are requiring.

                                                                                                  I’m saying this as a very conscious consumer. I care about my carbon footprint, I don’t buy palm oil, I limit plastic consumption, I limit my consumption overall, but it’s all a drop in the ocean and changes nothing. There are still hundreds of compounds in the everyday items I buy whose provenance I know nothing about and which could be even more destructive. Not to mention that manufacturers really don’t want you to know, it’s simply not in their interest.

                                                                                                  You’re creating an impossible task and setting people up to fail. It is not the answer.

                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                    “It’s ridiculous to expect everyone to be an expert on every supply chain in the world, starting right from the mines and energy production all the way to the store shelf. That’s effectively what you are requiring.”

                                                                                                    I don’t think it is what they’re requiring and it’s much easier than you describe. Here’s a few options:

                                                                                                    1. People who are really concerned about this at a level demanding much sacrifice to avoid damaging the environment should automatically avoid buying anything they can’t provably trust by default. The Amish are a decent example that avoids a lot of modern stuff due to commitment to beliefs.

                                                                                                    2. There’s groups that try to keep track of corporate abuse, environmental actions, and so on of various companies. They maintain good and bad lists. More people that supposedly care can both use them and join them in maintaining that data. It would be split among many people to lessen each’s burden. Again, avoid things by default until they get on the good lists. Ditch them if they get on the bad ones.

                                                                                                    3. Collectively push their politicians for laws giving proper labels, auditing, etc that help with No 2. Also, push for externalities to be charged back to the companies somehow to incentivize less-damaging behavior.

                                                                                                    4. Start their own businesses that practice what they preach. Build the principles into their charters, contracts, and so on. Niche businesses doing a better job create more options on the good lists in No 2. There’s entrepreneurs doing this.

                                                                                                    So, not all-knowing consumers as you indicated. Quite a few strategies that are less impossible.

                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                      @ac specifically suggested consumer choice as the solution to environmental issues, and that’s what I disagreed with.

                                                                                                      Your point number 3 is quite different from the other three, and it’s what I would suggest as a far more effective strategy than consumer choice (along with putting pressure on various corporations). As an aside, I still wouldn’t call it easy - it’s always a hard slog.

                                                                                                      Your points 1, 2 and 4 still rely on consumer choice, and effectively boil down to: either remove yourself from modern civilisation, or understand every supply chain in the world. I think it’s obvious that the first choice is neither desirable nor “much easier” for the vast majority of people (and I don’t think it’s the best possible solution). The second is impossible, as I said before.

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        “consumer choice as the solution to environmental issues”

                                                                                                        edit to add: consumer choice eliminated entire industries worth of companies because they wanted something else. It’s only worsened environmental issues. That’s probably not an argument against consumer choice so much as in favor of them willing to sacrifice the environment overall to get the immediate things they want.

                                                                                                        “either remove yourself from modern civilisation, or understand every supply chain in the world”

                                                                                                        This is another false dichotomy. I know lots of people who are highly-connected with other people but don’t own lots of tech or follow lots of fads. In many cases, they seem to know about them enough to have good conversations with people. They follow what’s going on or are just good listeners. Buying tons of gadgets or harmful things isn’t necessary for participation. You can get buy with a lot less than average middle or upper class person.

                                                                                                        What you said is better understood as a spectrum to be in like most things. Lots of positions in it.

                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                          I think we might actually be mostly in agreement, but we’re talking past each other a bit.

                                                                                                          That’s probably not an argument against consumer choice so much as in favor of them willing to sacrifice the environment overall to get the immediate things they want.

                                                                                                          I agree with this. But even when consumer choice is applied with environmental goals in mind, I believe its effect is very limited, simply because most people won’t participate.

                                                                                                          This is another false dichotomy.

                                                                                                          Yeah, but it was derived from your points :) I was just trying to hammer the point that consumer choice isn’t an effective solution.

                                                                                                          You can get buy with a lot less than average middle or upper class person.

                                                                                                          Totally. I’ve been doing that for a long time: avoiding gadgets and keeping the stuff I need (eg a laptop) as long as I can.

                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                            “But even when consumer choice is applied with environmental goals in mind, I believe its effect is very limited, simply because most people won’t participate.”

                                                                                                            Oh OK. Yeah, I share that depressing view. Evidence is overwhelmingly in our favor on it. It’s even made me wonder if I should even be doing the things I’m doing if so few are doing their part.

                                                                                                  2. 5

                                                                                                    The blame rests on the producers, not on the consumers.

                                                                                                    Consumers are only able to select off of the menu of available products, so to speak. Most of the choices everyday consumers face are dictated by their employers and whatever is currently available to make it through their day.

                                                                                                    No person can reasonably trace the entire supply chain for every item they purchase, and could likely be impossible even with generous time windows. Nor would I want every single consumer to spend their non-working time to tracing these chains.

                                                                                                    Additionally, shifting this blame to the consumer creates conditions where producers can charge a premium on ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ products. Only consumers with the means to consume ‘ethically’ are able to do so, and thus shame people with less money for being the problem.

                                                                                                    The blame falls squarely on the entities producing these products and the states tasked with regulating production. There will be no market-based solution to get us out of the climate catastrophe, and we certainly can’t vote for a green future with our dollars.

                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                      Consumers are only able to select off of the menu of available products, so to speak. Most of the choices everyday consumers face are dictated by their employers and whatever is currently available to make it through their day.

                                                                                                      That’s not true even though it seems it is. The consumers’ past behavior and present statements play a major role in what suppliers will produce. Most of what you see today didn’t happen overnight. There were battles fought where quite a few companies were out there doing more ethical things on supply side. They ended up bankrupt or with less marketshare while the unethical companies got way ahead through better marketing of their products. With enough wealth accumulated, they continued buying the brands of the better companies remaking them into scumbag companies, too, in many cases.

                                                                                                      For instance, I strongly advise against companies developing privacy- or security-oriented versions of software products that actually mitigate risks. They’ll go bankrupt like such companies often always did. The companies that actually make lots of money apply the buzzwords customers are looking for, integrate into their existing tooling (often insecure), have features they demand that are too complex to secure, and in some cases are so cheap the QA couldn’t have possibly been done right. That has to be private or secure for real against smart black hats. Not going to happen most of the time.

                                                                                                      So, I instead tell people to bake cost-effective security enhancements and good service into an otherwise good product advertised for mostly non-security benefits. Why? Because that’s what demand-side responds to almost every time. So, the supply must provide it if hoping to make waves. Turns out, there’s also an upper limit to what one can achieve in that way, too. The crowds’ demands will keep creating obstacles to reliability, security, workers’ quality of life, supplier choice, environment… you name it. They mostly don’t care either where suppliers being honest about costs will be abandoned for those delivering to demand side. In face of that, most suppliers will focus on what they think is in demand across as many proven dimensions as possible.

                                                                                                      Demand and supply side are both guilty here in a way that’s closely intertwined. It’s mostly demand side, though, as quite a few suppliers in each segment will give them whatever they’re willing to pay for at a profit.

                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                        I agree with a lot of your above point, but want to unpack some of this.

                                                                                                        Software security is a strange case to turn to since it has less direct implications on the climate crisis (sure anything that relies on a datacenter is probably using too much energy) compared to the production of disposable, resource-intensive goods.

                                                                                                        Demand and supply side are both guilty here in a way that’s closely intertwined. It’s mostly demand side, though, as quite a few suppliers in each segment will give them whatever they’re willing to pay for at a profit.

                                                                                                        I parse this paragraph to read: we should blame consumers for buying what’s available and affordable, because suppliers are incapable of acting ethically (due to competition).

                                                                                                        So should we blame the end consumer for buying a phone every two years and not the phone manufacturers/retailers for creating rackets of planned obsolescence?

                                                                                                        And additionally, most suppliers are consumers of something else upstream. Virtually everything that reaches an end consumer has been consumed and processed several times over by suppliers above. The suppliers are guilty on both counts by our separate reasoning.

                                                                                                        Blaming individuals for structural problems simply lets suppliers shirk any responsibility they should have to society. After all, suppliers have no responsibility other than to create profits. Suppliers’ bad behavior must be curtailed either through regulation, public education campaigns to affect consumption habits, or organizing within workplaces.

                                                                                                        (As an aside, I appreciate your response and it’s both useful and stimulating to hear your points)

                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                          “I parse this paragraph to read: we should blame consumers for buying what’s available and affordable, because suppliers are incapable of acting ethically (due to competition).”

                                                                                                          You added two words, available and affordable, to what I said. I left affordable off because many products that are more ethical are still affordable. Most don’t buy them anyway. I left availability off since there’s products appearing all the time in this space that mostly get ignored. The demand side not buying enough of what was and currently is available in a segment sends a message to suppliers about what they should produce. Especially if it’s consistent. Under vote with your wallet, we should give consumers their share of credit or blame for anything their purchasing decisions as a whole are supporting or destroying. That most won’t deliberately try to obtain an ethical supplier of… anything… supports my notion demand side has a lot to do with unethical activities of financially-successful suppliers.

                                                                                                          For a quick example, there are often coops and farmers markets in lots of rural areas or suburban towns in them. There’s usually a segment of people who buy from them to support their style of operation and/or jobs. There’s usually enough to keep them in business. You might count Costco in that, too, where a membership fee that’s fixed cost gets the customers a pile of stuff at a promised low-markup and great service. There’s people that use credit unions, esp in their industry, instead of banks. There’s people that try to buy from nonprofits, public beneit companies, companies with good track record, and so on. There’s both a demand side (tiny) and suppliers responding to it that show this could become a widespread thing.

                                                                                                          Most consumers on demand side don’t do that stuff, though. They buy a mix of necessities and arbitrary stuff from whatever supplier is lowest cost, cheapest, most variety, promoting certain image, or other arbitrary reasons. They do this so much that most suppliers, esp market leaders, optimize their marketing for that stuff. They also make more money off these people that let them put lots of ethical, niche players out of business over time. So, yeah, I’d say consumer demand being apathetic to ethics or long-term thinking is a huge part of the problem given it puts tens of billions into hands of unethical parties. Then, some of that money goes into politicians’ campaign funds so they make things even more difficult for those companies’ opponents.

                                                                                                          “Blaming individuals for structural problems simply lets suppliers shirk any responsibility they should have to society.”

                                                                                                          Or the individuals can buy from different suppliers highlighting why they’re doing it. Other individuals can start companies responding to that massive stated demand. The existing vendors will pivot their operations. Things start shifting. It won’t happen without people willing to buy it. Alternatively, using regulation as you mentioned. I don’t know how well public education can help vs all the money put into advertising. The latter seems more powerful.

                                                                                                          “(As an aside, I appreciate your response and it’s both useful and stimulating to hear your points)”

                                                                                                          Thanks. Appreciate you challenging it so I think harder on and improve it. :)

                                                                                                      2. 2

                                                                                                        Only consumers with the means to consume ‘ethically’ are able to do so, and thus shame people with less money for being the problem.

                                                                                                        This is ignoring reality, removing cheaper options does not make the other options cheaper to manufacture. It is not shaming people.

                                                                                                        You are also ignoring the fact that in a free country the consumers and producers are the same people. A dissatisfied consumer can become a producer of a new alternative if they see it as possible.

                                                                                                      3. 3

                                                                                                        Exactly. The consumers could be doing more on issues like this. They’re complicit or actively contribute to the problems.

                                                                                                        For example, I use old devices for as long as I can on purpose to reduce waste. I try to also buy things that last as long as possible. That’s a bit harder in some markets than others. For appliances, I just buy things that are 20 years old. They do the job and usually last 10 more years since planned obsolescence had fewer tricks at the time. ;) My smartphone is finally getting unreliable on essential functions, though. Bout to replace it. I’ll donate, reuse, or recycle it when I get new one.

                                                                                                        On PC side, I’m using a backup whose age I can’t recall with a Celeron after my Ubuntu Dell w/ Core Duo 2 died. It was eight years old. Attempting to revive it soon in case it’s just HD or something simple. It’s acting weird, though, so might just become a box for VM experiments, fuzzing, opening highly-untrustworthy URLs or files, etc. :)

                                                                                                      4. 7

                                                                                                        Capitalism is killing us in a very literal sense by destroying our habitat at an ever accelerating rate

                                                                                                        Which alternatives would make people happier to consume less – drive older cars, wear rattier clothing, and demand fewer exotic vacations? Because, really, that’s the solution to excessive use of the environment: Be happier with less.

                                                                                                        Unfortunately, greed has been a constant of human nature far too long for capitalism to take the blame there.

                                                                                                        1. 9

                                                                                                          Which alternatives would make people happier to consume less – drive older cars, wear rattier clothing, and demand fewer exotic vacations?

                                                                                                          Why do people want new cars, the latest fashions, and exotic vacations in the first place? If it’s all about status and bragging rights, then it’s going to take a massive cultural shift that goes against at least two generation’s worth of cultural programming by advertisers on the behalf of the auto, fashion and travel industries.

                                                                                                          I don’t think consumerism kicked into high gear until after the end of World War II when modern advertising and television became ubiquitous, so perhaps the answer is to paraphrase Shakespeare:

                                                                                                          The first thing we do, let’s kill all the advertisers.

                                                                                                          OK, maybe killing them (or encouraging them to off themselves in the tradition of Bill Hicks) is overkill. Regardless, we should consider the possibility that advertising is nothing but private sector psyops on behalf of corporations, and should not be protected as “free speech”.

                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                            If there was an advertising exception for free speech, people would use it as an unprincipled excuse to ban whatever speech they didn’t like, by convincing the authorities to classify it as a type of advertising. After all, most unpopular speech is trying to convince someone of something, right? That’s what advertising fundamentally is, right?

                                                                                                            Remember that the thing that Oliver Wendell Holmes called “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” wasn’t actually shouting “fire” in an actual crowded theater - it was a metaphor he used to describe protesting the military draft.

                                                                                                            1. 9

                                                                                                              I agree: there shouldn’t be an advertising exception on free speech. However, the First Amendment should only apply to homo sapiens or to organisms we might eventually recognize as sufficiently human to possess human rights. Corporations are not people, and should not have rights.

                                                                                                              They might have certain powers defined by law, but “freedom of speech” shouldn’t be one of them.

                                                                                                          2. 3

                                                                                                            IMO, Hedonistic adaptation is a problem and getting worse. I try to actively fight against it.

                                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                                              It would be a start if we designed cities with walking and public transportation in mind, not cars.

                                                                                                              My neighborhood is old and walkable. I do shopping on foot (I have a bicycle but don’t bother with it). For school/work, take a single bus and a few minutes walking. Getting a car would be a hassle, I don’t have a place to park it, and I’d have to pay large annual fees for rare use.

                                                                                                              Newer neighborhoods appear to be planned with the idea that you’ll need a car for every single task. “Residential part” with no shops at all, but lots of room for parking. A large grocery store with a parking lot. Even train stations with a large parking lot, but no safe path for pedestrians/cyclists from the nearby neighborhoods.

                                                                                                            2. 4

                                                                                                              The new features on phones are so fucking stupid as well. People are buying new phones to get animated emojis and more round corners. It’s made much worse with phone OEMs actively making old phones work worse by slowing them down.

                                                                                                              1. 7

                                                                                                                There has been no evidence to my knowledge that anyone is slowing old phones down. This continues to be an unfounded rumor

                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                  There’s also several Lobsters that have said Android smartphones get slower over time at a much greater rate than iPhones. I know my Galaxy S4 did. This might be hardware, software bloat, or whatever. There’s phones it’s happening on and those it isn’t in a market where users definitely don’t want their phones slowing down. So, my theory on Android side is it’s a problem they’re ignoring on purpose or even contributing to due to incentives. They could be investing money into making the platform much more efficient across devices, removing bloat, etc. They ain’t gonna do that.

                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                    Android smartphones get slower over time at a much greater rate than iPhones.

                                                                                                                    In my experience, this tends to be 3rd party apps that start at boot and run all the time. Factory reset fixes it. Android system updates also make phones faster most of the time.

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      Hmm. I’ll try it since I just backed everything up.

                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                        I’m still using a Nexus 6 I got ~2.5 years ago. I keep my phone pretty light. No Facebook or games. Yet, my phone was getting very laggy. I wiped the cache (Settings -> Storage -> Cached data) and that seemed to help a bit, but overall, my phone was still laggy. It seemed to get really bad in my text messaging app (I use whatever the stock version is). I realized that I had amassed a lot of text messages over the years, which includes quite a lot of gifs. I decided to wipe my messages. I did that by installing “SMS Backup & Restore” and telling it to delete all of my text messages, since apparently the stock app doesn’t have a way to do this in bulk. It took at least an hour for the deletion to complete. Once it was done, my phone feels almost as good as new, which makes me really happy, because I really was not looking forward to shelling out $1K for a Pixel.

                                                                                                                        My working theory is that there is some sub-optimal strategy in how text messages are cached. Since I switch in and out of the text messaging app very frequently, it wouldn’t surprise me if I was somehow frequently evicting things from memory and causing disk reads, which would explain why the lag impacted my entire phone and not just text messages. But, this is just speculation. And a factory reset would have accomplished the same thing (I think?), so it’s consistent with the “factory reset fixes things” theory too.

                                                                                                                        My wife is still on a Nexus 5 (great phone) and she has a similar usage pattern as me. Our plan is to delete her text messages too and see if that helps things.

                                                                                                                        Anyway… I realize this basically boils down to folk remedies at this point, but I’m just going through this process now, so it’s top of mind and figured I’d share.

                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                          I’ll be damned. I baked up and wiped the SMS, nothing else. The phone seems like it’s moving a lot snappier. Literally a second or two of delay off some things. Some things are still slow but maybe app just is. YouTube always has long loading time. The individual videos load faster now, though.

                                                                                                                          Folk remedy is working. Appreciate the tip! :)

                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                            w00t! Also, it’s worth mentioning that I was experiencing much worse delay than a second or two. Google Nav would sometimes lock up for many seconds.

                                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                                              Maps seems OK. I probably should’ve been straight-up timing this stuff for better quality of evidence. Regardless, it’s moving a lot faster. Yours did, too. Two, strong anecdotes so far on top of factory reset. Far as we know, even their speed gains might have come from SMS clearing mostly that the reset did. Or other stuff.

                                                                                                                              So, I think I’m going to use it as is for a week or two to assess this change plus get a feel for a new baseline. Then, I’ll factory reset it, reinstall some apps from scratch, and see if that makes a difference.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                Awesome. Please report back. :-)

                                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                                  I’ll try to remember to. I’m just still stunned it wasn’t 20 Chrome tabs or all the PDF’s I download during the day. Instead, text messages I wasn’t even using. Of all things that could drag a whole platform down…

                                                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                                                    Sms is stored on the SIM card, right? That’s probably not got ideal I/O characteristics…

                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                      I thought the contacts were but messages were on phone. I’m not sure. The contacts being on there could have an effect. I’d have hoped they cached a copy of SIM contents onto in-phone memory. Yeah, SIM access could be involved.

                                                                                                                          2. 2

                                                                                                                            Now, that’s fascinating. I don’t go in and out of text a lot but do have a lot of text messages. Many have GIF’s. There’s also at least two other apps that accumulate a lot of stuff. I might try wiping them. Btw, folk remedies feel kind of justified when we’re facing a complex, black-box system with nothing else to go on. ;)

                                                                                                                    2. 2

                                                                                                                      Official from apple: https://www.apple.com/au/iphone-battery-and-performance/

                                                                                                                      They slow phones with older batteries but don’t show the user any indication that it can be fixed very cheaply by replacing the battery (Until after the recent outrage) and many of them will just buy a new phone and see it’s much faster.

                                                                                                                      1. 12

                                                                                                                        Wow, so much to unpack here.

                                                                                                                        You said they slow old phones down. That is patently false. New versions of iOS are not made to run slowly on older model hardware.

                                                                                                                        Apple did not slow phones down with old batteries. They throttled the CPU of phones with failing batteries (even brand new ones!) to prevent the phone from crashing due to voltage drops. This ensured the phone was still functional even if you needed your phone in an emergency. Yes it was stupid there was no notification to the user. This is no longer relevant because they now provide notifications to the user. This behavior existed for a short period of time in the lifespan of the iPhone: less than 90 days between introduction of release with throttling and release with controls to disable and notifications to users.

                                                                                                                        Please take your fake outrage somewhere else.

                                                                                                                        1. 5

                                                                                                                          Apple did not slow phones down with old batteries. They throttled the CPU of phones with failing batteries (even brand new ones!) to prevent the phone from crashing due to voltage drops.

                                                                                                                          In theory this affects new phones as well, but we know that as batteries grow older, they break down, hold less charge, and have a harder time achieving their design voltage. So in practice, this safety mechanism for the most part slows down older phones.

                                                                                                                          You claim @user545 is unfairly representing the facts by making Apple look like this is some evil ploy to increase turnover for their mobile phones.

                                                                                                                          However, given the fact that in reality this does mostly make older phones seem slower, and the fact that they put this in without ever telling anyone outside Apple and not allowing the user to check their battery health and how it affected the performance of their device, I feel like it requires a lot more effort not to make it look like an intentional decision on their part.

                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                            Sure, but if you have an old phone with OK batteries, then their code did not slow it down. So I think it is still more correct to say they slowed down those with bad batteries than those that were old even if most of those with bad batteries were also bad which really depended on phone’s use.

                                                                                                                            The difference is not just academic. For example I have “inherited” iPhone6 from my wife that still has a good battery after more than 2 years and performs fine.

                                                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                                                              the fact that they put this in without ever telling anyone outside Apple

                                                                                                                              It was in the release notes of that iOS release…

                                                                                                                              edit: additionally it was known during the beta period in December. This wasn’t a surprise.

                                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                                Again, untrue. The 11.2 release notes make no mention of batteries, throttling, or power management. (This was the release where Apple extended the throttling to the 7 series of phones.) The 10.2.1 release notes, in their entirety, read thus:

                                                                                                                                iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

                                                                                                                                That does not tell a reader that long-term CPU throttling is taking place, that it’s restricted to older-model iPhones only, that it’s based on battery health and fixable with a new battery (not a new phone), etc. It provides no useful or actionable information whatsoever. It’s opaque and frankly deceptive.

                                                                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                                                                  You’re right, because I was mistaken and the change was added in iOS 10.2.1, 1/23/2017

                                                                                                                                  https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US

                                                                                                                                  It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

                                                                                                                                  A user on the day of release:

                                                                                                                                  Hopefully it fixes the random battery shutoff bug.

                                                                                                                                  src: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-releases-ios-10-2-1-with-bug-fixes-and-security-improvements.2028992/page-2#post-24225066

                                                                                                                                  additionally in a press release:

                                                                                                                                  In February 2017, we updated our iOS 10.2.1 Read Me notes to let customers know the update ‘improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns.’ We also provided a statement to several press outlets and said that we were seeing positive results from the software update.

                                                                                                                                  Please stop trolling. It was absent from the release notes for a short period of time. It was fixing a known issue affecting users. Go away.

                                                                                                                                  1. 4

                                                                                                                                    Did you even read the comment you are responding to? I quoted the 10.2.1 release notes in full–the updated version–and linked them too. Your response is abusive and in bad faith, your accusations of trolling specious.

                                                                                                                                    1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: We've never had cause to write a rule about doxxing, but pulling someone's personal info into a discussion like this to discredit them is inappropriate.]

                                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                                        I don’t hate Apple. I’m not going to sell my phone because I like it. The battery is even still in good shape! I wish they’d been a little more honest about their CPU throttling. I don’t know why this provokes such rage from you. Did you go through all my old comments to try to figure out what kind of phone I have? Little creepy.

                                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                                          I’m not angry about anything here. It’s just silly that such false claims continue to be thrown around about old phones intentionally being throttled to sell new phones. Apple hasn’t done that. Maybe someone else has.

                                                                                                                                          edit: it took about 30 seconds to follow your profile link to your website -> to Flickr -> to snag image metadata and see what phone you own.

                                                                                                                            2. -3

                                                                                                                              They throttled the CPU of phones with failing batteries (even brand new ones!)

                                                                                                                              This is untrue. They specifically singled out only older-model phones for this treatment. From the Apple link:

                                                                                                                              About a year ago in iOS 10.2.1, we delivered a software update that improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus and iPhone SE. [snip] We recently extended the same support to iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus in iOS 11.2.

                                                                                                                              In other words, if you buy an iPhone 8 or X, no matter what condition the battery is in, Apple will not throttle the CPU. (In harsh environments–for example, with lots of exposure to cold temperatures–it’s very plausible that an 8 or X purchased new might by now have a degraded battery.)

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                You are making a claim without any data to back it up.

                                                                                                                                Can you prove that the batteries in the new iPhones suffer voltage drops when they are degraded? If they use a different design with more/smaller cells then AIUI they would be significantly less likely to have voltage drops when overall capacity is degraded.

                                                                                                                                But no, instead you continue to troll because you have a grudge against Apple. Take your crap elsewhere. It’s not welcome here.

                                                                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                                                                  You’re moving the goalposts. You claimed Apple is throttling the CPU of brand new phones. You were shown this to be incorrect, and have not brought any new info to the table. Your claim that the newer phones might be designed so as to not require throttling is irrelevant.

                                                                                                                                  Please don’t accuse (multiple) people of trolling. It reflects poorly on yourself. All are welcome here.

                                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                                    You can buy a brand new phone directly from Apple (iPhone 6S) with a faulty battery and experience the throttling. I had this happen.

                                                                                                                          2. 1

                                                                                                                            Google services update in the background even when other updates are disabled. Even if services updates are not intended to slow down the phone, they still do.

                                                                                                                          3. 3

                                                                                                                            The new features on phones are so fucking stupid as well.

                                                                                                                            I think the consumer who pays for it is stupid.

                                                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                                                              It’s both. The user wants something new every year and OEMs don’t have anything worthwhile each year so they change things for the sake of change like adding rounded corners on the LCD or cutting a chunk out of the top. It makes it seem like something is new and worth buying when not much worthwhile has actually changed.

                                                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                                                I think companies would always take the path of least resistance that works. If consumers didn’t fall for such stupid tricks the companies that did them would die off.

                                                                                                                          4. 2

                                                                                                                            Yep. I guess humanity’s biggest achievement will be to terraform itself out of existence.

                                                                                                                            This planet does neither bargain nor care about this civilizations’ decision making processes. It will keep flying around the sun for a while, with or without humans on it.

                                                                                                                            I’m amazed by the optimism people display in response to pointing out that the current trajectory of climate change makes it highly unlikely that our grand-grand-children will ever be born.

                                                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                                                              The list is endless, and it all comes down to the American ethos that making money is a sacred right that trumps all other concerns.

                                                                                                                              s/American/human

                                                                                                                              You can’t fix a problem if you misunderstand what causes it.

                                                                                                                              1. 5

                                                                                                                                Ideology matters, and America has been aggressively promoting toxic capitalist ideology for many decades around the world. Humans aren’t perfect, but we can recognize our problems and create systems around us to help mitigate them. Capitalism is equivalent of giving a flamethrower to a pyromaniac.

                                                                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                                                                  If you want to hash out how “toxic capitalism” is ruining everything, that’s fine–I’m just observing that many other countries (China, Germany, India, Mozambique, Russia, etc.) have done things that, to me at least, dispel the notion of toxic capitalism as purely being American in origin.

                                                                                                                                  And to avoid accusations of whataboutism, the reason I point those other countries out is that if a solution is put forth assuming that America is the problem–and hence itself probably grounded in approaches unique to an American context–it probably will not be workable in other places.

                                                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                                                    Nobody is saying that capitalism alone is the problem or that it’s unique to America. I was saying that capitalism is clearly responsible for a lot of harm, and that America promotes it aggressively.

                                                                                                                                    1. 0

                                                                                                                                      Don’t backpedal. You wrote:

                                                                                                                                      The list is endless, and it all comes down to the American ethos that making money is a sacred right that trumps all other concerns.

                                                                                                                                      As to whether or not capitalism is clearly responsible for a lot of harm, it’s worth considering what the alternatives have accomplished.

                                                                                                                                      1. 0

                                                                                                                                        Nobody is backpedaling here, and pointing at other failed systems saying they did terrible things too isn’t much of an argument.

                                                                                                                            1. 12

                                                                                                                              I recently started running a Mastodon instance on my VPS. It took some doing, since I wanted to run it in docker and the documentation for running Mastodon in docker was incomplete or misleading in a few places, but I eventually got it up and running and talking to the fediverse. I’m excited to explore other technologies that make use of the fediverse, such as PeerTube and Pleroma.

                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                How would you prevent any user of this stack from implementing a programming language and using it to configure a component of itself? Lots of genuine problems to be solved with a computer program involve implementing a language of some kind - the command line flags to ls, even, form something like a small DSL.

                                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                                  Oh, I should clarify that I was never trying to restrict what end users do with the stack. The goal was only to shift the out-of-the-box experience to more parsimonious defaults, and to shift the expectations of end users – if a system is profligate in the number of languages it uses, that should be cause for question. All things being equal, prefer stacks with fewer languages.

                                                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                                                    the command line flags to ls, even, form something like a small DSL

                                                                                                                                    I agree, commandline flag creep is also a problem. It’s been addressed before by people like Russ Cox. The DSL nature is even more apparent with find.

                                                                                                                                    I was kinda always aware that the notion of “language” is not very well-posed, but this doesn’t seem like a big issue. With a little taste we can recognize a language when we see it, and ask if we can use an off-the-shelf alternative rather than brewing new moonshine. Our world is filled with reasoning around terms we can’t precisely define.

                                                                                                                                    I think just considering the number of languages in a system would level up the conversation around what constitutes good design.

                                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                                    I’m working on a toy compiler in Rust right now and making a very concise, understandable main compiler driver is one of my goals for it. One problem that I’ve had is coming up with a concise data structure for a sequence of passes that take in input of one type and output data of a different type, that will in turn be the input type of the next stage. This isn’t something that the Rust type system supports formalizing easily, as far as I can tell, and since I want it to be possible to extend the compiler with arbitrary passes, I don’t want to just encode the concrete input and output types of each pass directly in the data structure.

                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                      Hm but why isn’t the driver just a function with local variables? Why do you need a special data structure?

                                                                                                                                      Is it beacuse you want it configurable at runtime rather than at compile time?

                                                                                                                                      That is, if you want to “extend the compiler with arbitrary passes”, you just insert a couple lines of code in the 100-line function. Or are you saying this won’t support turning passes on and off with command line flags?

                                                                                                                                      I think it will at least for passes that are truly optional. If a pass is optional, then its input and output types should be the same.

                                                                                                                                    1. 16

                                                                                                                                      The Montréal metro system uses RFID cards to pay, but as I understand it, without centrally tracking the buyer. Instead, the card itself records the number and type of fares bought.

                                                                                                                                      This has an inconvenient downside: the only way to recharge the card is at kiosks in the metro. If you want to do it online, you have to buy a USB card reader that the Montréal transport society will sell you, so you can recharge your RFID card online.

                                                                                                                                      I like this, but a lot of people are unhappy about the inconvenience of not being able to recharge the card online. So I think we’re going to be moving into a system where the cards are centrally managed, along with everyone’s purchase history of them.

                                                                                                                                      It’s always so convenient to allow surveillance on ourselves.

                                                                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                                                                        The OPUS cards themselves are anonymous, but purchase info could be tracked if you don’t pay with cash. Cards can also be registered with STM at a service centre. This kills the anonymity factor but is useful if you lose it. I’ve gotten a free replacement this way without having to pay for a full fare again.

                                                                                                                                        I found the USB card reader setup the STM came up with to be kinda lame overall. The last time I tried it (admittedly a couple of years ago), it required some deprecated NPAPI plugins that were no longer supported by their vendor and I had to whitelist them in my web browser, following instructions that would probably scare an average end user. The browser plugin mechanism they used has since been removed by the major browsers. The plugin also only worked on Windows and Mac when I tried it. The next time I tried to set it up, there were a lot of dead links on their website.

                                                                                                                                        However, I get around the renewal hassle by signing up online for a yearly subscription. In this case, they send you a new OPUS smart card, which comes with some benefits (like only paying 11 of 12 months each year and getting a decent discount off of the Bixi bike sharing and/or Communauto car sharing programs, one free guest on evenings and weekends, and free rides on RTC in Quebec City after your first year).

                                                                                                                                        This card is auto-renewed and you can access your account online, so you avoid waiting at the kiosk, and it saves you from having to buy the $16.66 USB card reader. Of course, it only works if you’re a frequent enough STM user to justify a yearly subscription. The yearly subscription cards are also automatically registered with the STM. If you want to take advantage of some of the benefits (free rides on RTC), you have to have your picture taken and stored on the back of the card. Before I did this, I would lend my yearly subscription out to my friends to use when I was travelling out of town but now I can’t anymore.

                                                                                                                                        Since OPUS cards have been hacked several times, an artificial life span of 3 years is imposed so they can push out new revisions using different encryption methods.

                                                                                                                                        I bought the USB card reader, anyway, because I like to collect gadgets. It was cheap and I wanted to mess around with OpenSC in Linux. It’s a Watchdata W1981-Plus and I believe it is the same device used by STIB/MIVB (Brussels) and RATP (Paris).

                                                                                                                                        I had originally thought OPUS was a province-wide smartcard system but STO in Gatineau uses a different card, MULTI. To make things even worse, Ottawa’s OC Transpo, which overlaps some services with STO, uses yet another competing card- Presto, which is also used in the Greater Toronto Area. I’m really disappointed that a country with a population the size of Canada can’t get their smart card act together to standardize on one system. In the Netherlands, you use one card for all transit systems and it seemed to work beautifully.

                                                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                                                          Did you know “carte OPUS” is a pun on “carte à puce”?

                                                                                                                                          (Not really, but it’s too good of a factoid to not tell it.)

                                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                                            Yep, it’s too close not to be intentional.

                                                                                                                                        2. 3

                                                                                                                                          we have a similar system locally which allows recharging on the buses themselves (smaller buses let the driver access it, bigger buses have a vending machine) and in train stations, so you don’t have to go out of your way. It might be more convenient than online payments.

                                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                                            The problem with the Montréal system is that for whatever reason the fares are tied to calendar dates. If you want to buy a monthly pass, it can only start at the first day of the calendar month and ends at the last one. Weekly passes can only be bought from Monday to Sunday. This creates long lines at the start of the month, hence the desire to buy online.

                                                                                                                                          2. 2

                                                                                                                                            It also makes it easier for people to hack their own cards in their possession to give themselves free rides. There’s possibly a cryptocurrency-like solution to this problem, that would make it possible for the transit system to centrally store the amount of money a given patron has loaded onto their card and used for farepaying, without tracking exactly where they go within the system, but I don’t think it’s a straightforward problem at all. Unfortunately, centralized tracking of where and when people get on and off the system is actually a very natural fit to the problem at hand of letting people pay for use of a public transit system.

                                                                                                                                            Besides, public transit cars generally have security cameras, right? You can get tracked that way too.

                                                                                                                                            1. 6

                                                                                                                                              It also makes it easier for people to hack their own cards in their possession to give themselves free rides.

                                                                                                                                              At least for the Montréal situation, it’s probably far easier to just jump the turnstiles than to attempt any sophisticated trickery. I see people jumping turnstiles frequently enough.

                                                                                                                                              I think if you have a system that most people will not abuse, it can all work out. No need to make it absolutely draconian and tamper-proof unless it’s an actual problem.

                                                                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                                                                That was the main risk that critics said about the Mondex card from what I read. Too bad since it was one of only high-assurance, security developments in commercial sector.

                                                                                                                                              2. 2

                                                                                                                                                Japan has a similar cash-card system (Suica, among others) that you can buy using cash and recharge online (although I think online recharging needs it to be tied to a bank account/mobile account, or to own a special, if common, card-reader/writer for your computer). I don’t see why the Montréal system wouldn’t be able to do the same, other than perhaps the slow-moving nature of the STM and the relatively small (compared to Japan) usage.

                                                                                                                                                It is a pretty heavily used cash card though, so perhaps all the vendors (other than just transit) accepting it helps things like that along. Probably not as decentralized as I think it is, either, now that I’ve spent some time puzzling it out.

                                                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                                                What I’m most interested in knowing is what is Reddit written in now, and what specific business or technical problems made them switch away from Lisp? Reddit is a very popular website, and if Lisp was not in fact used to get it to where it is today, that says something about how we ought to evaluate Lisp as a language.

                                                                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                                                                  what is Reddit written in now,

                                                                                                                                                  They moved from lisp to python, though I don’t know if it’s still in python.

                                                                                                                                                  and what specific business or technical problems made them switch away from Lisp?

                                                                                                                                                  They posted a lengthy blog about why they ported away from lisp at the time. Unfortunately, it looks like the blog post is gone. There’s a bunch of discussions still around, though. Also some other evidence of the lisp community response.

                                                                                                                                                  Short version: it was technical. Libraries didn’t exist or weren’t sufficient, lisp implementations didn’t work cross-platform, so development was painful, and they continued to have difficult-to-debug slowdowns and site crashes. Stuff like that.

                                                                                                                                                  Of course, this was over a decade ago, so I strongly suspect the lisp situation has changed.

                                                                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                                                                    Of course, this was over a decade ago, so I strongly suspect the lisp situation has changed.

                                                                                                                                                    It’s currently powering Grammarly (circa 2015) so it sounds like it.

                                                                                                                                                    One of the common complaints about Lisp that there are no libraries in the ecosystem. As you see, 5 libraries are used just in this example for such things as encoding, compression, getting Unix time, and socket connections.

                                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                                      Looks like they’re not actually using it for a webapp, but instead for a back-end process. That’s a different use case than reddit had.

                                                                                                                                                      Also, I note that they’re still using two different lisp implementations, one for production, and one for local development. That was a big issue for reddit at the time. I wonder how much energy goes into implementation difference issues.

                                                                                                                                                  2. 2

                                                                                                                                                    Lisp still powers Hacker News, afaik.

                                                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                                                      I thought HN was arc, Paul Graham’s take on scheme?

                                                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                                                        Indeed, that’s my understanding. I should have been more clear, by “Lisp” I was talking about the Lisp family of languages, not Common Lisp specifically.

                                                                                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                                                                                      Core is still Python, newer components are being written in Node.js. PostgreSQL was historically the main datastore, with Cassandra serving a secondary role, but data is being re-homed to Cassandra due to scale.