1. 10

    I support workers of Google to unionize. Naver, the #1 tech company in South Korea, recently unionized.

    1. 3

      Working in large tech companies can be depressing enough even without compensation determined by union seniority.

      1. 1

        This kind of outcome entirely depends on how you unionize.

        1. 4

          In theory, sure. In practice tho it’s really hard to find examples of strong unions without formalized payscale.

          1. 1

            FYI, Naver union is one such strong union without formalized payscale.

        2. -1

          are you american?

          1. 2

            No. Why?

        3. 1

          They would definitely benefit from a union.

          But they have stronger challenges in this process then most other employees around the west.

          First the individualistic culture/propaganda they have been fed for years could prevent them from trading the promise of individual benefits for the reality of shared ones.

          But most relevant is the distribution of the company around the world. There are different legal and economical environments out there and it’s likely that several different unions will compete for Google employees, each focused on the local issues and interests people see most.

          OTOH Google guys are pretty smart, they could learn how to think globally and how to balance long term benefits with short term local ones more easily than other workers.

          1. 3

            First the individualistic culture/propaganda they have been fed for years could prevent them from trading the promise of individual benefits for the reality of shared ones.

            I would say this is widespread in the tech community. This is not just Google or the USA. The same situation is very common here in Europe. That’s why ideologies like libertarianism or identity politics are more easily spread in the tech community.

            That said, I believe people like the Tech Worker Alliance are getting it right in the way they communicate: they disguise the unionist message as something else, avoiding “problematic words” and basically working around the prejudice of the average programmer. I believe this is the key for a new unionist movement around the West, because the old one cannot be revived and it’s tainted by its own problems and by years of anti-unionism.

            1. 0

              First the individualistic culture/propaganda they have been fed for years could prevent them from trading the promise of individual benefits for the reality of shared ones.

              The xkcd “sheeple” comic was given to the contrarian in this thread, but it applies to this too. Your hubris is just less overt and more civilized, but almost as off-putting from my perspective.

              1. 3

                Your hubris…

                Can you please elaborate?

                I just noticed two issues that a union in Google would face: a cultural bias and the legislative/economic complexity due to the multinational nature of the company.

                The cultural bias against the unions is well known in the USA, mainly because of the country narrative is based on the competition and on the solo hero/entrepreneur. In other states the country narrative value cooperation a lot more, for example in families (that are large group of people), in tribes, in church and so on…
                This is an historical and sociological observation that could be false, but doesn’t look like hubris.

                The multinational observation is also self evident: in different states around the world, laws are different, cultures are different, economical issues are different and so on… the tendency to only focus in the local space could be exploited by the ownership of the company to divide and conquer the employees.

                Finally, while I do not like the Google’s corporate culture that I’ve found among engineers, I acknowledge they hire very smart people and what happened with Project Maven show how much they care about their work.

                So I think they have an unique chance to overcome these difficulties.

                The fact is that in a company that has built an internal narrative based on knowledge and intelligence, now face the fact that the employees hold collectively more knowledge and intelligence than the ownership by several orders of magnitude.

                If knowledge is power, in Google, the employees are more powerful than the ownership.

                They still call the ownership as “leadership”, but they will soon realize they are the true leaders there.

                1. -2

                  Your hubris is in the implication that individualism is not a reasonable stance to hold. Why would anyone knowingly choose “promises” over reality?

                  I’m not interested in having a long drawn conversation with you on this topic. I’m just saying, as someone who disagrees with you, your comment is deserving of the “sheeple” xkcd. You might want to reconsider your approach.

                  1. -1

                    Your hubris is …

                    I’m not interested in having a long drawn conversation with you …

                    your comment is deserving of the “sheeple” xkcd …

                    You might want to reconsider your approach

                    Yo, post something worthwhile or don’t post at all.

          1. 2

            Google will continue to finish the current contract they have to design AI that better automates targeting for killer drones.

            Of course, Google employees, including Kim, will continue to work for Google like the slaves and sheep they are*, even after Google lies to them, about, of all things, building Skynet for the Pentagon:

            Kim: [..] They also tried to downplay the scope and involvement of the project. But that rhetoric dissolved when we found out that leadership had been lying.

            BT: What were they lying about?

            Kim: From the beginning, they told us that Project Maven was a small contract purely for non-offensive purposes. They said that we weren’t building anything custom. They said that this was a one-off project only worth $9 million, and that it wasn’t part of any further collaboration with the Pentagon.

            Those all turned out to be lies. On April 12, DefenseOne published an article that landed like a bombshell in the company. Drawing on conversations with Pentagon officials, it revealed that Project Maven was actually a pilot project for future collaborations between Google and the military. In particular, Project Maven was part of Google’s push to win the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract.

            JEDI is the military’s next-generation cloud that will network American forces all over the world and integrate them with AI. It’s basically Skynet. And all the big cloud providers want to win the contract because it’s worth $10 billion.

            When we found out that Project Maven was an audition for JEDI, people started becoming extremely concerned. And as the media attention to the story increased, we learned a lot more. For instance, Diane Greene had told us that the Project Maven contract was only for $9 million, but internally they expected it to increase to $250 million per year. And they weren’t just giving the Pentagon access to open-source software — they were going to build a massive surveillance system that gave military analysts real-time information on people, vehicles, and buildings in a Google Earth–style interface.

            Exposing all of those lies damaged leadership on this issue just as much as anything else that we did. That loss of trust really hurt them.

            * Except for a few “dozens [who] resigned.” Kudos to those people.

            1. 14

              Google will continue to finish the current contract they have to design AI that better automates targeting for killer drones.

              If it leads to fewer accidental bombings of wedding parties and civilians, I think one can make the case that this is not without benefits.

              Of course, Google employees, including Kim, will continue to work for Google like the slaves and sheep they are*, even after Google lies to them, about, of all things, building Skynet for the Pentagon

              Please have some consideration for people who have different situations or value systems than you–calling people slaves or sheep because they have made a moral tradeoff is just as insulting as people calling you a crackpot for being a 9/11 truther, assuming Lobsters is infested with trolls, being willfully ignorant of how Bitcoin actually interfaces with the economy, or any of a number of other views you’ve professed that are baffling.

              Angry namecalling lowers the quality of discourse for everyone.

              1. -3

                Angry namecalling lowers the quality of discourse for everyone.

                So then why do you engage in such practices here all the time, instead of having calm discussions about facts, especially with me, even here, now?

                or any of a number of other views you’ve professed that are baffling.

                Any time you’d like me to clear up some question you have about any of my views, you are more than welcome to ask.

              2. 5

                Of course, Google employees, including Kim, will continue to work for Google like the slaves and sheep they are

                If only everyone was as morally superior and enlightened as you are

                1. -4

                  You’re absolutely right. When your employer is one of the top dystopian tech builders and lies to you about taking that dystopian fantasy to the next level, the right thing to do is keep working for them.

                  And you’re also right, when, for example, a woman is in a physically abusive relationship she should stick with the guy.

                  Those who have the gall to suggest otherwise need to have XKCD shown to them straight away, because an XKCD comic means all actions are equal, good is, eh, really about the same thing as evil (who can tell the difference?). One man’s psychopath is another man’s saint.

                  Who needs a moral compass? Walk in whatever direction you please, it’s all ok. Rape someone or bomb civilians. If someone questions your life choices, you’ll always have that XKCD comic to fall back on to make a convincing argument.

              1. -10

                Since joining Lobsters you’ve contributed virtually nothing but your own blog posts, a one man propaganda campaign attacking proof-of-work ad nauseam.

                It reminds me of Mike Hearn, famous for spreading disinformation to socially attack Bitcoin.

                I’m always curious about people who spread disinfo while censoring comments to their blogs that correct or disagree with them, and repeating ad nauseam, arguments that have been proven false/misleading multiple times. It seems you create problems in other communities too, whether it’s Wikipedia or RationalWiki.

                1. 12

                  For the benefit of anybody who skims the parent comment without checking, I’d like to mention the following:

                  • It doesn’t link to Wikipedia or RationalWiki, but to wikipediareview.com and matthewhopkinsnews.com.
                  • Following the links and allegations on those two pages does not turn up any actual misdeeds on either Wikipedia or RationalWiki.

                  @itistoday: have you noticed that you act very different on Bitcoin posts? Here’s what it looks like from the outside: most of your comments are helpful and courteous, a credit to any forum. But when you have commented on posts that criticise BitCoin, your comments seemed upset (and I don’t mean passionate, I mean hostile); you cited tweets and rants (above); and one comment even came across as mistrusting anyone who questions you. You don’t have to reply to me, but is a different attitude on Bitcoin something you’ve noticed yourself?

                  1. -7

                    Following the links and allegations on those two pages does not turn up any actual misdeeds on either Wikipedia or RationalWiki.

                    OK, what is this then?

                    Gerard also had his CheckUser and Oversight flags revoked on Wikipedia. According to the Register, after legal threats, a deal was brokered – Wikipedia removed their critical ruling explaining their decision on advice from their lawyer (who conceded it might appear procedurally and in some respects factually unfair) but in return Gerard agreed to resign the user rights. A full Register article is here (archive here).

                    And how is libel not a misdeed?

                    Mr Gerard has not responded nor denied any of the asserted facts. Gerard was offered an extension of the deadline if he had any concerns. It was explained that UK law requires libel claimants to mitigate losses (See Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 1780 (QB)). Being offered the facts before publication (and an extension to take advice), a subject has the opportunity to 100% mitigate losses. Mr Gerard is a press officer and is familiar with his rights.

                    Re:

                    You don’t have to reply to me, but is a different attitude on Bitcoin something you’ve noticed yourself?

                    Of course. Most of the other subjects I engage on do not involve banks and/or intelligence agencies spending millions/billions on hiring troll farms and saboteurs to spread disinfo or in some other way sabotage the work in question. 😂

                    1. 5

                      Downvote, move on, and remember the Streisand Effect.

                      1. -8

                        Downvote,

                        OK, I’ve downvoted you for being off-topic.

                        move on

                        I think that would miss the point of having an online discussion community. If someone were spreading disinfo (as David is gallantly doing) in a subject area I’m not familiar with, I would very much appreciate commenters who pointed that out.

                  2. 5

                    Thanks for your contribution! Anything to discuss on the topic at hand? You have the knowledge to bring to the subject.

                    while censoring comments to their blogs that correct or disagree with them

                    No, I’m still not letting your random abusive comments through, sorry. (He tries to comment on my blog like he comments here.) There are plenty of other places for you to comment.

                    1. -2

                      Anything to discuss on the topic at hand?

                      Yeah, how about you fix this sentence and the blog post it links to:

                      Proof-of-work is a horrifying disaster.

                      You keep saying that, and people keep telling you why you’re completely mistaken, and you just ignore them. So, you are knowingly, deliberately misleading people.

                      1. 3

                        Your previous attempt to show I was wrong, and Proof-of-Work was good actually, was to link some tweets and to be abusive when people told you that wasn’t really much of an argument.

                        Anything to say about this exciting new wave of not-a-blockchain coins? Just to get back onto the current topic, rather than some other topic, ad hominems or random abuse.

                        1. -2

                          was to link some tweets and to be abusive when people told you that wasn’t really much of an argument.

                          Wrong. This is me linking to some tweets.

                          In the link you just posted, are links to technical arguments explaining why “proof-of-work is wasteful”, is nonsense. It’s not like you are the first person to say this, so instead of copy/pasting a whole bunch of text, I linked you to it.

                          That you’re playing dumb proves again you’re here to troll.

                          You’re taking a feature of a currency — its ability to transparently and easily measure how much energy it’s using for its security — something no other global currency-system has been able to provide — and are pretending this feature is a bad thing. That’s your entire, bullshit argument. It’s nonsensical to the extreme.

                          Anything to say about this exciting new wave of not-a-blockchain coins?

                          One thing at a time! There’s no sense in talking with someone who can’t demonstrate they’re capable of honest conversation. Let’s wrap up that “proof-of-work is wasteful/bad” nonsense before wasting more time.

                    2. 4

                      Contributing ones own work is not against the rules for this site. In fact there’s a checkbox indicating whether one is the author of a submitted link.

                      It’s up to the community to decide whether the link is on topic or not.

                      1. -3

                        Contributing ones own work is not against the rules for this site.

                        Nobody said it was.

                    1. 11

                      Use a wifi gun to connect base-stations to each other. You can use similar point-to-point antennas to build cheap ISPs.

                      1. 5

                        That is amazing. I’ll have a look at point to point but looking at the specs on some of the point to point they can reach 12+ kms, but not sure that would be enough. Although in remote clusters it might work where we have lots of villages settlements clustered in a small region where at least one of the locations has a data connection.

                      1. 7

                        I always laugh when people come up with convoluted defenses for C and the effort that goes into that (even writing papers). Their attachment to this language has caused billions if not trillions worth of damages to society.

                        All of the defenses that I’ve seen, including this one, boil down to nonsense. Like others, the author calls for “improved C implementations”. Well, we have those already, and they’re called Rust, Swift, and, for the things C is not needed for, yes, even JavaScript is better than C (if you’re not doing systems-programming).

                        1. 31

                          Their attachment to this language has caused billions if not trillions worth of damages to society.

                          Their attachment to a language with known but manageable defects has created trillions if not more in value for society. Don’t be absurd.

                          1. 4

                            [citation needed] on the defects of memory unsafety being manageable. To a first approximation every large C/C++ codebase overfloweth with exploitable vulnerabilities, even after decades of attempting to resolve them (Windows, Linux, Firefox, Chrome, Edge, to take a few examples.)

                            1. 2

                              Compared to the widely used large codebase in which language for which application that accepts and parses external data and yet has no exploitable vulnerabilities? BTW: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html

                              1. 6

                                Your counter example is a smaller, low-featured, mail server written by a math and coding genius. I could cite Dean Karnazes doing ultramarathons on how far people can run. That doesn’t change that almost all runners would drop before 50 miles, esp before 300. Likewise with C code, citing the best of the secure coders doesn’t change what most will do or have done. I took author’s statement “to first approximation every” to mean “almost all” but not “every one.” It’s still true.

                                Whereas, Ada and Rust code have done a lot better on memory-safety even when non-experts are using them. Might be something to that.

                                1. 2

                                  I’m still asking for the non C widely used large scale system with significant parsing that has no errors.

                                  1. 3

                                    That’s cheating saying “non-c” and “widely used.” Most of the no-error parsing systems I’ve seen use a formal grammar with autogeneration. They usually extract to Ocaml. Some also generate C just to plug into the ecosystem since it’s a C/C++-based ecosystem. It’s incidental in those cases: could be any language since the real programming is in the grammar and generator. An example of that is the parser in Mongrel server which was doing a solid job when I was following it. I’m not sure if they found vulnerabilities in it later.

                                2. 5

                                  At the bottom of the page you linked:

                                  I’ve mostly given up on the standard C library. Many of its facilities, particularly stdio, seem designed to encourage bugs.

                                  Not great support for your claim.

                                  1. 2

                                    There was an integer overflow reported in qmail in 2005. Bernstein does not consider this a vulnerability.

                                3. 3

                                  That’s not what I meant by attachment. Their interest in C certainly created much value.

                                4. 9

                                  Their attachment to this language has caused billions if not trillions worth of damages to society.

                                  Inflammatory much? I’m highly skeptical that the damages have reached trillions, especially when you consider what wouldn’t have been built without C.

                                  1. 12

                                    Tony Hoare, null’s creator, regrets its invention and says that just inserting the one idea has cost billions. He mentions it in talks. It’s interesting to think that language creators even think of the mistakes they’ve made have caused billions in damages.

                                    “I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn’t resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years.

                                    If the billion dollar mistake was the null pointer, the C gets function is a multi-billion dollar mistake that created the opportunity for malware and viruses to thrive.

                                    1. 2

                                      He’s deluded. You want a billion dollar mistake: try CSP/Occam plus Hoare Logic. Null is a necessary byproduct of implementing total functions that approximate partial ones. See, for example, McCarthy in 1958 defining a LISP search function with a null return on failure. http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/AIM-001.pdf

                                      1. 3

                                        “ try CSP/Occam plus Hoare Logic”

                                        I think you meant formal verification, which is arguable. They could’ve wasted a hundred million easily on the useless stuff. Two out of three are bad examples, though.

                                        Spin has had a ton of industrial success easily knocking out problems in protocols and hardware that are hard to find via other methods. With hardware, the defects could’ve caused recalls like the Pentium bug. Likewise, Hoare-style logic has been doing its job in Design-by-Contract which knocks time off debugging and maintenance phases. The most expensive. If anything, not using tech like this can add up to a billion dollar mistake over time.

                                        Occam looks like it was a large waste of money, esp in the Transputer.

                                        1. 1

                                          No. I meant what I wrote. I like spin.

                                      2. 1

                                        Note what he does not claim is that the net result of C’s continued existence is negative. Something can have massive defects and still be an improvement over the alternatives.

                                      3. 7

                                        “especially when you consider what wouldn’t have been built without C.”

                                        I just countered that. The language didn’t have to be built the way it was or persist that way. We could be building new stuff in a C-compatible language with many benefits of HLL’s like Smalltalk, LISP, Ada, or Rust with the legacy C getting gradually rewritten over time. If that started in the 90’s, we could have equivalent of a LISP machine for C code, OS, and browser by now.

                                        1. 1

                                          It didn’t have to, but it was, and it was then used to create tremendous value. Although I concur with the numerous shortcomings of C, and it’s past time to move on, I also prefer the concrete over the hypothetical.

                                          The world is a messy place, and what actually happens is more interesting (and more realistic, obviously) than what people think could have happened. There are plenty of examples of this inside and outside of engineering.

                                          1. 3

                                            The major problem I see with this “concrete” winners-take-all mindset is that it encourages whig history which can’t distinguish the merely victorious from the inevitable. In order to learn from the past, we need to understand what alternatives were present before we can hope to discern what may have caused some to succeed and others to fail.

                                            1. 2

                                              Imagine if someone created Car2 which crashed 10% of the time that Car did, but Car just happened to win. Sure, Car created tremendous value. Do you really think people you’re arguing with think that most systems software, which is written in C, is not extremely valuable?

                                              It would be valuable even if C was twice as bad. Because no one is arguing about absolute value, that’s a silly thing to impute. This is about opportunity cost.

                                              Now we can debate whether this opportunity cost is an issue. Whether C is really comparatively bad. But that’s a different discussion, one where it doesn’t matter that C created value absolutely.

                                        2. 8

                                          C is still much more widely used than those safer alternatives, I don’t see how laughing off a fact is better than researching its causes.

                                          1. 10

                                            Billions of lines of COBOL run mission-critical services of the top 500 companies in America. Better to research the causes of this than laughing it off. Are you ready to give up C for COBOL on mainframes or you think both of them’s popularity were caused by historical events/contexts with inertia taking over? Im in latter camp.

                                            1. 7

                                              Are you ready to give up C for COBOL on mainframes or you think both of them’s popularity were caused by historical events/contexts with inertia taking over? Im in latter camp.

                                              Researching the causes of something doesn’t imply taking a stance on it, if anything, taking a stance on something should hopefully imply you’ve researched it. Even with your comment I still don’t see how laughing off a fact is better than researching its causes.

                                              You might be interested in laughing about all the cobol still in use, or in research that looks into the causes of that. I’m in the latter camp.

                                              1. 5

                                                I think you might be confused at what I’m laughing at. If someone wrote up a paper about how we should continue to use COBOL for reasons X, Y, Z, I would laugh at that too.

                                                1. 3

                                                  Cobol has some interesting features(!) that make it very “safe”. Referring to the 85 standard:

                                                  X. No runtime stack, no stack overflow vulnerabilities
                                                  Y. No dynamic memory allocation, impossible to consume heap
                                                  Z. All memory statically allocated (see Y); no buffer overflows
                                                  
                                                  1. 3

                                                    We should use COBOL with contracts for transactions on the blockchains. The reasons are:

                                                    X. It’s already got compilers big businesses are willing to bet their future on.

                                                    Y. It supports decimal math instead of floating point. No real-world to fake, computer-math conversions needed.

                                                    Z. It’s been used in transaction-processing systems that have run for decades with no major downtime or financial losses disclosed to investors.

                                                    λ. It can be mathematically verified by some people who understand the letter on the left.

                                                    You can laugh. You’d still be missing out on a potentially $25+ million opportunity for IBM. Your call.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      Your call.

                                                      I believe you just made it your call, Nick. $25+ million opportunity, according to you. What are you waiting for?

                                                      1. 4

                                                        You’re right! I’ll pitch IBM’s senior executives on it the first chance I get. I’ll even put on a $600 suit so they know I have more business acumen than most coin pitchers. I’ll use phrases like vertical integration of the coin stack. Haha.

                                                  2. 4

                                                    That makes sense. I did do the C research. Ill be posting about that in a reply later tonight.

                                                    1. 10

                                                      Ill be posting about that in a reply later tonight.

                                                      Good god man, get a blog already.

                                                      Like, seriously, do we need to pass a hat around or something? :P

                                                      1. 5

                                                        Haha. Someone actually built me a prototype a while back. Makes me feel guilty that I dont have one instead of the usual lazy or overloaded.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            That’s cool. Setting one up isn’t the hard part. The hard part is doing a presentable design, organizing the complex activities I do, moving my write-ups into it adding metadata, and so on. I’m still not sure how much I should worry about the design. One’s site can be considered a marketing tool for people that might offer jobs and such. I’d go into more detail but you’d tell me “that might be a better fit for Barnacles.” :P

                                                            1. 3

                                                              Skip the presentable design. Dan Luu’s blog does pretty well it’s not working hard to be easy on the eyes. The rest of that stuff you can add as you go - remember, perfect is the enemy of good.

                                                              1. 0

                                                                This.

                                                                Hell, Charles Bloom’s blog is basically an append-only textfile.

                                                              2. 1

                                                                ugh okay next Christmas I’ll add all the metadata, how does that sound

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Making me feel guilty again. Nah, I’ll build it myself likely on a VPS.

                                                                  And damn time has been flying. Doesnt feel like several months have passed on my end.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          looking forward to read it:)

                                                  3. 4

                                                    Well, we have those already, and they’re called Rust, Swift, ….

                                                    And D maybe too. D’s “better-c” is pretty interesting, in my mind.

                                                    1. 3

                                                      Last i checked, D’s “better-c” was a prototype.

                                                    2. 5

                                                      If you had actually made a serious effort at understanding the article, you might have come away with an understanding of what Rust, Swift, etc. are lacking to be a better C. By laughing at it, you learned nothing.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        the author calls for “improved C implementations”. Well, we have those already, and they’re called Rust, Swift

                                                        Those (and Ada, and others) don’t translate to assembly well. And they’re harder to implement than, say, C90.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          Is there a reason why you believe that other languages don’t translate to assembly well?

                                                          It’s true those other languages are harder to implement, but it seems to be a moot point to me when compilers for them already exist.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            Some users of C need an assembly-level understanding of what their code does. With most other languages that isn’t really achievable. It is also increasingly less possible with modern C compilers, and said users aren’t very happy about it (see various rants by Torvalds about braindamaged compilers etc.)

                                                            1. 4

                                                              “Some users of C need an assembly-level understanding of what their code does.”

                                                              Which C doesnt give them due to compiler differences and effects of optimization. Aside from spotting errors, it’s why folks in safety- critical are required to check the assembly against the code. The C language is certainly closer to assembly behavior but doesnt by itself gives assembly-level understanding.

                                                        2. 2

                                                          So true. Every time I use the internet, the solid engineering of the Java/Jscript components just blows me away.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            Everyone prefers the smell of their own … software stack. I can only judge by what I can use now based on the merits I can measure. I don’t write new services in C, but the best operating systems are still written in it.

                                                            1. 5

                                                              “but the best operating systems are still written in it.”

                                                              That’s an incidental part of history, though. People who are writing, say, a new x86 OS with a language balancing safety, maintenance, performance, and so on might not choose C. At least three chose Rust, one Ada, one SPARK, several Java, several C#, one LISP, one Haskell, one Go, and many C++. Plenty of choices being explored including languages C coders might say arent good for OS’s.

                                                              Additionally, many choosing C or C++ say it’s for existing tooling, tutorials, talent, or libraries. Those are also incidental to its history rather than advantages of its language design. Definitely worthwhile reasons to choose a language for a project but they shift the language argument itself implying they had better things in mind that werent usable yet for that project.

                                                              1. 4

                                                                I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I don’t think the best operating systems are written in C because of C. I am just stating that the best current operating system I can run a website from is written in C, I’ll switch as soon as it is practical and beneficial to switch.

                                                                1. 2

                                                                  Oh OK. My bad. That’s a reasonable position.

                                                                  1. 3

                                                                    I worded it poorly, I won’t edit though for context.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            This is yet another project that has piqued my curiosity, only to find it participates in open source vendor lock-in by requiring Docker. Due to that, I’m unable to use it.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              it participates in open source vendor lock-in by requiring Docker

                                                              Can you explain what is “vendor lock-in” about Docker?

                                                              Isn’t Docker now part of an “open container initiative” or something?

                                                              AFAIK, it’s usually not too difficult to de-Dockerify something.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                Because Docker isn’t supported everywhere and won’t be. It’s not supported on the BSDs. Unless there’s a business requirement to run Linux, I only run BSD.

                                                                1. 3

                                                                  I’ve never heard of “vendor lock-in” meaning “it doesn’t run everywhere”. By that definition almost all software is “vendor lock-in”. Mostly I’ve heard the phrase used to refer to data formats and data in general. But whatever the case may be, the Dockerfile doesn’t mean Docker is required. You’re free to try building it and running it on BSD without Docker.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    The old definition of cross-platform code meant it runs on the widely-used platforms regardless of what a vendor chooses. The project itself controls it. This code, if tied to Docker, will only use the hosts and targets Docker supports. Its locked into what that project chooses. I haven’t heard of open-source, vendor lock-in before but it makes sense: many OSS foundations are easier to use than modify heavily.

                                                                    These people probably have no intention to put Docker on BSD or take over Docker development. They’ll depend on upstream to do that or not do that. So, they’re locked in if the Docker dependency isn’t easily replaceable by them or their users. If it is easily replaceable, I’d not call it lock-in: just a project preference for development and distribution with cross-platform being limited to Docker’s definition of platforms. Which maybe be enough for this project. I can’t say any more than that since I’m just glancing at it.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      This code, if tied to Docker, will only use the hosts and targets Docker supports

                                                                      For probably the third time now: this project is not “tied to Docker”, and the concept of “tied to Docker” for a single piece of code is borderline nonsensical.

                                                                      There are projects that are “tied to Docker”, but that most likely means they assemble multiple software pieces together via a docker-compose.yml file, not a Dockerfile file.

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        It does appear that I misread the project. I looked at their deployment guide and Docker is front-and-center. However, it appears that the project does not have a hard dependency on Docker.

                                                                        For those projects that do have a hard dependency on Docker, my statement still stands. Docker, in those cases, is a form of open source vendor lock-in due to deliberate non-portability.

                                                                        1. 0

                                                                          Docker, in those cases, is a form of open source vendor lock-in due to deliberate non-portability.

                                                                          Let’s Internet rage at non-portable BSD-specific features as well then.

                                                                  2. 2

                                                                    Docker, in fact, literally only runs on Linux. It uses a wide variety of Linux-specific functionality, and all extant Docker images contain Linux x86 binaries. On Windows and OS X, Docker runs on Linux in a VM (a setup which is impressively fragile and introduces an incredibly variety of weird edge cases and complications).

                                                              1. 0

                                                                Nothing in this article shows that Bitcoin’s energy expenditure is wasteful, and a lot of the claims in this article are completely false. You continue to spread debunked nonsense. Your entire “But what about the entire financial system and everyone in it?” section is proof of that. People have pointed out the flaws in your arguments, I have done that multiple times now, but you don’t seem to care, if anything you are proud.

                                                                But, you keep doing you, David! Lots of people make careers out of misleading people.

                                                                1. -2

                                                                  Proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining is bad, stupid and damaging.

                                                                  In the words of the author, people who spread this nonsense without substantiating it and addressing the arguments why it’s wrong are “bad, stupid, and damaging”.

                                                                  1. 5

                                                                    Your link doesn’t make a claim, it’s just a link to a Twitter search saying proof of work is good. Did you mean another link?

                                                                    1. -2

                                                                      Your link doesn’t make a claim

                                                                      I posted four links.

                                                                      1. 10

                                                                        So you did, sorry!

                                                                        One link compares, literally, the entire financial system and everything it does to Bitcoin, and asserts - without numbers - that surely Bitcoin is more energy efficient than the existing system. (The other links are blank slogans.)

                                                                        Since you can’t be bothered making an effort post, I will:

                                                                        In 2015, there were approximately 430 billion cashless transactions.

                                                                        The world produced about 24,000 TWh of energy in 2015 - oil, gas, coal, renewables, the lot.

                                                                        If Bitcoin handled all of those transactions at 215 kWh per transaction, that’d be about 10,000 TWh - or about 40% of all the energy in the world.

                                                                        Does the existing financial infrastructure consume close to 40% of all energy? I strongly suspect it doesn’t.

                                                                        Those numbers are, of course, fuzzy as hell. Feel free to post better ones, or indeed any.

                                                                        1. -6

                                                                          without numbers

                                                                          This was addressed in the second and third links, which you haven’t really responded to. I’ll wait for that thank you.

                                                                          The other links are blank slogans.

                                                                          No, they aren’t. They make very technical arguments on a variety of topics. This is self-evident to anyone who bothers to visit the links. So, this shows you’re a dishonest person, with no argument.

                                                                          If Bitcoin handled all of those transactions at 215 kWh per transaction, that’d be about 10,000 TWh - or about 40% of all the energy in the world.

                                                                          That’s not how Bitcoin handles such a volume of transactions. Bitcoin’s blockchain is literally designed to not be capable of handling that many transactions. Thus, your point is again moot.

                                                                          And yet, pretty soon “Bitcoin” will be handling that number of transactions, and it will be doing so at far less than “215 kWh per transaction” or whatever number you invent. It has already begun.

                                                                          Again, you’re just showing your immense ignorance of this subject.

                                                                          1. 3

                                                                            And you’re being rude. Please either engage positively or don’t post at all.

                                                                            1. -2

                                                                              You and the OP are the ones being rude.

                                                                    2. 5

                                                                      A bunch of Twitter links do not an argument make.

                                                                      1. -5

                                                                        If you know how to read they do. I see Lobsters has been infested with trolls.

                                                                      2. 4

                                                                        You’d have done better just highlighting the one link that makes your points best. That’s this one. It actually has good points if we’re comparing Bitcoin to the existing financial system. It’s misleading, though, given it counts every card or chip used in the main financial system… tiny, cheap things… without counting all the devices that would be necessary to securely do Bitcoin. I bet the computers or embedded devices Bitcoin users use cost more to make than smartcards with 16-bit MCU’s connecting to standard servers over secure tunnel.

                                                                        The no branch and cash advantages do exist against most banks. Your comparison leaves off those where they don’t: branchless banks (i.e. online banks) or digital payment systems (i.e. Venmo or Paypal). Unlike the cryptocurrencies, those centralized alternatives grabbed plenty of the bankers’ market with one becoming a transforming force when partnering with eBay. PayPal achieved its goals by fixing real problems people had with the financial system using easiest methods possible reusing what was already proven to work. That’s what alternatives should be doing. The cryptocurrencies seem to only look much better in performance and energy usage if compared to the most inefficient, wasteful models in centralized finance. Compared to the digital ones (esp lean ones), they don’t have strong advantages for most users: only disadvantages like slower transactions, more energy use, more costly computers, riskier protocols due to higher complexity, lower longevity, and unclear risk on disputes if it hits a court.

                                                                        (@David_Gerard, you might find this last one useful later.)

                                                                        I’m saving the best part about your comparison for last: it should be an AND instead of an OR. It’s totally wrong to compare them in isolation. Bitcoin is a failed currency primarily used for speculation with intent to get someone richer in an existing currency (i.e. the financial system). It and most cryptocurrencies also use the existing financial system for investments into them, payments, the devices they run with, their energy use, cash backing of some assets, conferences/meetups, and probably your personal account on Patreon. The crypocurrencies are using the current financial system to bootstrap their vision of the future (or just defraud people… it varies). Until a transition happens, crypocurrencies need their energy use and the existing financial system’s energy use. They combine. It’s not one or the other until cryptocurrency users or developers are no longer using the financial system. That is quite a long shot even harder to believe than crypocurrencies going mainstream to begin with.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          thank you! I have a lengthy effortpost in the works on proof-of-work and the bad excuses for it, and will definitely be noting that point :-)

                                                                          1. -2

                                                                            You’d have done better [..]

                                                                            It’s absurd Lobsters allows this deceitful nonsense at all. The dude is spreading disinfo and knows he’s doing it.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              I just pointed out your link was spreading disinfo given it pretended Bitcoin operated in isolation instead of with the financial system. It’s a wasteful system that depends on and adds to everything you mentioned. It can only be said to use less energy if it’s self-sustaining and eliminated the other stuff by replacing it in the large. Instead, most Bitcoin use is happening side-by-side with it sustaining both systems. They add together.

                                                                              1. -2

                                                                                It’s a wasteful system that depends on and adds to everything you mentioned.

                                                                                That’s not true. Bitcoin doesn’t have a single branch for example. I could go on, but I tire of arguing against liars. It’s not productive.

                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                  If it’s not true, then at least the following would be true:

                                                                                  1. All personnel and hardware involved in Bitcoin are paid for only in Bitcoin. That’s development, mining, promotion, meetings, etc. It has replaced the financial system for at least its own needs among its own supporters.

                                                                                  2. People move money into Bitcoin. It then stays there since the use Bitcoin as a currency. Most aren’t moving things into and out of the financial system to profit off of Bitcoin. It would just be a financial instrument in the regular, financial system being used like many others. It’s also fairly stable so your money isn’t here today and gone tomorrow.

                                                                                  3. Bitcoin isn’t backed by physical cash at any level. You’d need the banks, Brinks, Fort Knox, etc at that point behind the scenes. Bitcoin could still vastly reduce amount of that but still depends on some of it. Hasn’t eliminated it.

                                                                                  If any of these aren’t true, then Bitcoin is using the current, financial system to operate because it hasn’t replaced it or eliminated need for it. If No 1 is true, that’s especially interesting given they’re the people who say it will replace the current financial system. If it hasn’t for them, then why should rest of us depend on it?

                                                                                  1. -2

                                                                                    Bitcoin doesn’t depend on the current financial system. I’m not going to waste any time convincing someone as smart as you about that.

                                                                        1. -2

                                                                          A lot better is to not use bash at all, and use newlisp instead.

                                                                          1. 10

                                                                            This suggestion misses the point of why people use bash so much: it’s there. I know of no-one who uses bash a lot that thinks it’s a good language.

                                                                            1. 0

                                                                              I’m not missing that point at all. newlisp compiles and installs on virtually all systems easily. Its binary has almost no dependencies. To run scripts you only need the ~300kb executable, which can be shipped with them.

                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                Not as easy as using somehing that is already there on virtually all systems. Would you rather write an installation script in Bash or Newlisp?

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  It’s not as easy as using something that’s already installed… it’s easier.

                                                                                  Would you rather write an installation script in Bash or Newlisp?

                                                                                  I don’t know, but I do know that each time I’ve written pages of shell script I end up regretting it and wishing I had done it in newlisp.

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    It’s not as easy as using something that’s already installed… it’s easier.

                                                                                    Could you explain how is it easier to ship a binary for every platform the thing will be run and have a shim which discovers the platform type and selects the right binary? I think most people would disagree that that is easier.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      There’s a million different ways you could choose to do it depending on what you’re doing. Not all of them require doing what you just described. If you’re writing something non-trivial in bash you’re going to likely need a package manager for something anyway. You can install newlisp with a bunch of package managers. You can compile it. You can ship a binary with it. You can do one of a million things and in the end it’s always easier than writing thousands of lines of ugly hairy bash nonsense, which, btw, if you’ve ever done, you’ll notice that there are always system-specific things you end up doing with bash anyway.

                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                        But, again, I don’t believe you’ve addressed the actual criticism: bash is already there so why make life even harder. I think what you’re saying is newLISP is so much better than bash that any deployment problem is actually non-problematic. If that is your claim then I hope you can find a way to convince people because for most people the convenience is bash being available is going to override any possible language win. And a blanket statement of “just use X, cause itistoday says so” is not very convincing (at least to me).

                                                                                        FWIW, my bash scripts almost never require knowing what environment they are running on so I cannot relate to your argument.

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          I think what you’re saying is newLISP is so much better than bash that any deployment problem is actually non-problematic.

                                                                                          Yes, the amount of time you will fight with bash will in the end be more trouble than learning newlisp (which can be done in less than a day), installing it, and writing whatever you wanted instead in it.

                                                                                2. 2

                                                                                  It also assumes you have access to and control over those systems.

                                                                                  1. -1

                                                                                    Pretty sure that’s a safe assumption when you’re writing bash scripts as well. And as I said, you can ship the tiny binary with the scripts if you need to. Not sure where or why this pushback is coming. OK, I will not share useful tips with you people, lol.

                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                      Pretty sure that’s a safe assumption when you’re writing bash scripts as well.

                                                                                      Most bash scripts I use do not require full control of the system to be used.

                                                                                      Not sure where or why this pushback is coming.

                                                                                      How are you not sure? Commenters have been pretty clear that they think using something that already ships on a vast majority of systems is easier than shipping something with the package. Nobody is arguing that bash is a superior language, just that convenience is hard to trump.

                                                                                      OK, I will not share useful tips with you people, lol.

                                                                                      I don’t understand this statement. You made a suggestion, you got people that disagreed with you, life moves on. Why do you think you need to with hold other suggestions?

                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                        I think it’s three things combining:

                                                                                        1. You’re telling UNIX folks to replace a key tool of theirs with another. They rarely give them up if it’s a shell or key tool they value.

                                                                                        2. That other is a LISP. That brings its own resistance despite being more powerful, safer, more self-contained, and potentially higher performance. I’m with you given few if any probably moved from a LISP machine to terminal UNIX happily. ;)

                                                                                        3. You were ignoring the already installed widely argument. That’s basically the by default and convenience arguments in one. Very powerful principles of psychogy powering billions in economic activity and lots of inertia in tech. Your alternative can’t be equivalent if it requires extra effort to get started.

                                                                                        So, they’re right that what’s their and/or idiomatic for UNIX will be a safer bet due to ecosystem effects. Then, they resist the LISP’s since the UNIX ecosystem almost always does. It aint happening for the masses but LISPy shells might havs their niche. I have some ideas on how to make that more interesting. Way into future, though.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          I see no evidence of point (1) or (2) in this thread. People have been pretty clear that convenience is a powerful motivator. Nobody has said bash is a good tool and nobody has shot LISP down.

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            They’re not things people will actually state. You just watch what they do individually or as a whole. Most UNIX folks here or in general aren’t giving up their main tools for substantially different ones outside of UNIX style. Most things people bring up are standard UNIX fare. They usually resist learning or using LISP despite its productivity advantages. You don’t see anyone trying to embrace the newlisp recommendation or posting other LISP-on-UNIX things they found.

                                                                                            So, I’m assuming the default behavior is still going on since I haven’t seen anything to the contrary.

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              They’re not things people will actually state.

                                                                                              You’re saying that regardless of what anyone on this thread says you know what is in our hearts. That is not a very evidence-based statement. I’d prefer it if you stuck to what people actually said rather than your unfalsifiable beliefs.

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                Now you’re just making stuff up. My claims about keeping with legacy tools like bash or using LISP’s are easy to falsify. Here’s a few things you can try:

                                                                                                1. Looking at what the defaults are in config for most sys administration of UNIX boxes. Was it legacy ones like bash or LISP’s? And is that true for things like UNIX training manuals and StackOverflow questions?

                                                                                                2. After LISP benefits were established, did most non-performance-critical software in UNIX start getting written in LISP’s? And performance-critical in a non-GC, C-like LISP? Or is it mostly in C or C++?

                                                                                                3. Are most of the distros bringing in LISP’s by default or other stuff that’s weaker?

                                                                                                4. Were the big companies pushing new and improved LISP’s or ALGOL’s?

                                                                                                There’s all kinds of ways to test whether the majority of UNIX software or admins leverage defaults or have an anti-LISP bias. There’s a few. Go look. You’ll find a lot more bash and C despite LISP able to have done what both did at a faster pace and memory-safe in C’s case.

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  Those arguments have nothing to do with this thread though. The claims in this thread were about item (3) of your original list, that’s all.

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    I just mentioned what was widely installed vs widely used. No 3 was specifically about that. So, do you see more Common LISP or Scheme in use by UNIX developers and admins out there than bash, C, Perl, and Python that are the defaults in a lot of distros? And did this change after the piles of CVE’s in C apps or the studies showing LISP developers outpaced C developers?

                                                                                                    Did they start massively investing in and standardizing on the thing that did better in many ways? Or keep making excuses to stay on what performed worse and/or use more stuff as similar as possible to it?

                                                                                        2. 1

                                                                                          Pretty sure that’s a safe assumption when you’re writing bash scripts as well.

                                                                                          This is an incorrect assumption.

                                                                                          For example, you may be hired as a consultant to do bash scripting, in which case you have zero mandate to require an entire new piece of software to be installed on the client’s system.

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            Lol. You got me there! You should stick with bash.

                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                  Wow, this is a very thorough and well written exposé of something I had no idea was going on. Thanks for sharing! I hope this turns out well. I especially liked this quote:

                                                                                  Someone once said:

                                                                                  “If we don’t make things ultra clear, people draw their own conclusions and they become facts even if we never said anything like that.”

                                                                                  Which is funny also because the source of that quote appears to come from the Arduino mailing list.

                                                                                  1. 4

                                                                                    As this affects a lot of apps people use day-to-day, here’s how to protect yourself in the meantime:

                                                                                    • You can use Slack in your up-to-date web browser by visiting [you-slack-group-name].slack.com
                                                                                    • You can use an editor other than Atom or VSCode (I’ve re-aquainted myself with the fast Sublime Text)
                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                      Why we even tolerate a closed-source, proprietary text editor in XXI century?

                                                                                      1. 10

                                                                                        Nobody’s holding a sword to your throat and forcing you to use it.

                                                                                        1. 7

                                                                                          You might want that intolerance looked at, it sounds like it’s reducing your quality of life.

                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                            Could you elaborate? I wouldn’t say most ST users are tolerating anything. They are in fact enjoying the experience with the editor, perhaps more than an open source editor. Unless you are one of the small minority who are forced to use an extremely esoteric development setup you have some degree of choice in how you work, which might even include using a proprietary editor if that’s what you prefer. FWIW I think ST has actually jump-started some of the wider interest and innovation in text editors in recent years.

                                                                                            My personal favourite closed-source editor is EmEditor (https://www.emeditor.com/). If I need to work in a Windows environment, it’s the first software I install, but it’s not the editor that I spend most of my time coding in. I often have to deal with huge CSV and other text files which the developer specializes in handling. They added features for opening CSV files in an Excel-like way which is a huge boon if you need that. It can open Visual Studio solutions and is extremely fast. It lacks all of the useful plug-ins that editors I prefer to code with have, but it really knows it’s niche. Perhaps there are equivalent capabilities with other open source products, but it doesn’t seem a problem that these proprietary products exist and innovate.

                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                              The dude might need money.

                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                Being paid to program? gasps Only I’m allowed to do that.

                                                                                            1. 10

                                                                                              Just kakoune.

                                                                                              • No interwebz in text editor (because why? it’s stupid)

                                                                                              • Fast as hell (it contains own regexp engine instead of std::regex from Boost)

                                                                                              • Not resource-heavy (still able to render in what-your-screen-needs FPS when loaded with 4GB XML file)

                                                                                              • Easy to sandbox (can be built as static binary, has a client-server model so you can control it from anywhere)

                                                                                              • Respects user privacy (it doesn’t disclose any data for 3rd parties, developer is not a twat, but very friendly and helpful person)

                                                                                              • Totally not malware (has a user-friendly Clippy to help you all the time)

                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                I have slowly migrated from vim to kakoune. The design document spells out a lot of what I like about it, which I will repeat a bit here.

                                                                                                In addition to what is great about kakoune is what I have grown to dislike about vim. Neovim added a terminal to it, which I thought was a great fit for it and I had hoped vim would stick to being “just an editor” – but it didn’t – it chased neovim despite mocking such things as a terminal in an editor right in its help file. /rant

                                                                                                Anyway, kakoune isn’t perfect, and it isn’t even 1.0. But the author of it has very firm goals for what he wants it to do – and as importantly what he doesn’t want it to do.

                                                                                                So things I love (again, a lot of this is also in the design document):

                                                                                                • Multiple cursors: a lot of editors have this feature, but it is the only operating mode of kakoune. When you have a single char under the cursor, that is a single 1 char selection.
                                                                                                • Limitations: it doesn’t manage windows, tmux or i3 or (other thing) does; it doesn’t try to be multithreaded; it isn’t a file manager; it isn’t a terminal; it doesn’t have its own scripting language; it doesn’t support binary plugins; it avoids being “clever” based on context confusing the user. It makes no attempt to be all things to all people, it is a fantastic editor… this ties into composability.
                                                                                                • Composability: it makes no effort to implement a sort or have its own scripting language, it outsources this stuff to the existing sort command and gives tools for interacting with system tools. This is a bit of a mixed bag at this point – you get a bit of escape hell in shell scripts.
                                                                                                • Client/Server: a core part of the architecture.
                                                                                                • Powerful primitives: built right in is stuff for selection rotation, case manipulation, alignment, and tons more.
                                                                                                • Info boxes: last but not least, the info box feature is fantastic, when you are using a command it lets you know the parameters, when you hit like “g” for goto, it shows all the stuff that can follow “g” (like “f” for file). This is easy to add to your own custom commands as well and makes learning the editor interactively amazing.

                                                                                                It isn’t all great (yet) from my perspective:

                                                                                                • Documentation: it exists, there is a :doc feature. But a lot of it is thin and a bit hard to find. I suspect some of this is because people lean on the info boxes feature a lot and it doesn’t get as much use as it would in Emacs or Vim. But I consider it a great place for improvement. Would love a :doc changelog for example.
                                                                                                • Breaking changes: it isn’t 1.0 yet, and the author is still trying to improve some core features, which means breaking changes will happen, and they will break your workflow for a bit. Thus far most of these breaking changes only take minutes to fix.
                                                                                                • Binaries: it isn’t 1.0 yet, it moves fast, so the best way to stay up to date is absolutely to build it yourself. The good news is this only takes a few minutes at most, and its library/etc requirements are relatively low.
                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  Limitations: it doesn’t manage windows, tmux or i3 or (other thing) does; it doesn’t try to be multithreaded; it isn’t a file manager; it isn’t a terminal; it doesn’t have its own scripting language; it doesn’t support binary plugins; it avoids being “clever” based on context confusing the user. It makes no attempt to be all things to all people, it is a fantastic editor… this ties into composability.

                                                                                                  I like this, except that I want my text editor to give me some way to manage buffers. Managing splits in Vim is infinitely nicer than managing splits in Tmux.

                                                                                                  If I remember right, this is the main reason I dropped Kakoune. So if this has improved (as in, there’s some implementation somehow that works closer to Vim), then I can probably give it a serious try again.

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    It has lots of ways to manage buffers, it just offloads the windowing/pane stuff to others, you can use :tmux-new-horizontal or :tmux-new-vertical, and :tmux-repl-vertical, and there is similar stuff for x11 windows, i3 windows (via a small plugin) etc.

                                                                                                    Bind to the same keys you would bind to in Vim and barely tell the difference (except now you can have a properly tmux pane in the bottom right and the other three be kakoune). I haven’t missed anything from vim in terms of window management.

                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                      I think the problem was that I wanted the tmux splits and the editor splits separated, but still in the same window. Say in Vim I have 3 horizontal splits and then in Tmux there’s two horizontal splits, one with Vim and its splits and the other with a terminal.

                                                                                                      Tmux is really not good at managing the splits, or at least not when I got into it, so if it’s all in tmux then it’s horrible (in my experience).

                                                                                                      So in the case of tmux, it’s more a limitation of the medium for me.

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        I would have to know your specific complaints about tmux’s pane/window handling to be able to respond. But on the upside you aren’t limited to tmux!

                                                                                                        I personally once I got over the learning curve really like tmux handling, specifically stuff like choose-tree which is amazing if you have many tmux windows and panes, window and pane rotation, etc. It has a learning curve like Vim or Kakoune – but similar to them, the curve has non-trivial payoffs.

                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                          All right. I’ll have to take a more serious look at it soon then. Thanks! :)

                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                            V.v.V! Awesome.

                                                                                                            When I first started using tmux I really didn’t dive in and learn it properly and it made me hate it a bit. But then when I started to dig deeper and found like choose-tree, and then that choose-tree had a search mode inside it, and I could bind a key to put me right in search mode… then I started making bindings to like fire up ranger in a way that made sense, yada… I was hooked.

                                                                                                2. 1

                                                                                                  Along these lines, I also found micro.

                                                                                                1. 8

                                                                                                  How about a tools tag; which covers other things a programmer would use, like build systems and editors?

                                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                                    I feel like tools would get too noisy because of how general it can be.

                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                      What description would you write for tools that wouldn’t include pretty much everything tagged with software or release, and a big chunk of unix?

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        Tools for developing software.

                                                                                                        • release is for new release announcements

                                                                                                        • unix is for tools already a part of the Unix toolbox

                                                                                                        The kind of articles you would submit to it are things about non-vi/emacs text editors, build systems, etc.

                                                                                                      2. 1

                                                                                                        I really like this approach. We have a lot of stories that would benefit from such a tag, and if we get a large enough volume of just text editor stuff we can break it into it’s own tag.

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        Also consolidate Java and JavaScript while at it.

                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                          So we’re keeping the emacs tag, right? ‘Cause, this doesn’t fit in the proposed editors tag. :)

                                                                                                          With that caveat, I support the tag proposal. (Feel free to merge vim into editors unless there is some reason not to. ;) )

                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                            To be fair, emacs is big enough to almost be an operating system so it deserves its own tag.

                                                                                                            And I appreciate a separate vim tag so I can block all wrong-think in my feed. C-u 1 0 0 0 hail-emacs!

                                                                                                          2. 2

                                                                                                            Also consolidate Java and JavaScript while at it.

                                                                                                            Point noted. Edited title + request from:

                                                                                                            Can we consolidate “vim”/“emacs” to a general “editors” tag?

                                                                                                            To:

                                                                                                            Tag proposal: editors

                                                                                                            Just how we have a general programming tag.

                                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                                            release tag would be good here.

                                                                                                            Also, they still don’t have an easy way of viewing the console and errors–very important when figuring out why certain plugins are broken. You have to get a plugin.

                                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                                              release tag would be good here

                                                                                                              Thanks, added!

                                                                                                            1. 5

                                                                                                              TLDR:

                                                                                                              Since then, the other partner Chris AlJoudi (who owns uBlock) has made some questionable decisions.

                                                                                                              Long story short, use uBlock Origin, NOT uBlock. uBlock Origin has no association with uBlock.org.

                                                                                                              1. 8

                                                                                                                Except that the article is mainly talking about AdBlock and Adblock Plus, not uBlock. It mentions the uBlock shenanigans only in passing. So not a TLDR.

                                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                                  I figured the AdBlock (Plus) shenanigans are very old news and fairly well known. shrug

                                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                                While OP does not make it clear anywhere, it only applies to searching in settings.

                                                                                                                Background: https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2018/04/25/bing-settings-search

                                                                                                                Disable with "workbench.settings.enableNaturalLanguageSearch": false.

                                                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                                                  While OP does not make it clear anywhere, it only applies to searching in settings.

                                                                                                                  Maybe. Maybe not. How do you know for sure, have you checked? And if you have, how do you know it will always be that way?

                                                                                                                  Personally I see no reason to trust this company at their word about anything given their long history of ignoring user’s privacy, and ignoring privacy settings, and immediately closing privacy related issues.

                                                                                                                1. 16

                                                                                                                  If you try to build it yourself, their build script also appears to download and inject additional code into the built artifact from marketplace.visualstudio.com during the build. I opened one two three issues.

                                                                                                                  1. 11

                                                                                                                    My guess is that these practices that disrespect or completely ignore users privacy, like requiring an internet connection (whether to build or just to use a piece of software - even the OS itself) are so deeply baked into Microsoft’s mental culture now there’s no going back. It’s just a given now that they assume they are entitled to grab and record whatever information they want from your machine just in order to use their software.

                                                                                                                    It’s not just Microsoft, many companies seem to be jumping on the same or similar bandwagon.

                                                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                                                      The same thing happens when you try compiling coreclr (called from here), there’s no way to properly bootstrap it. (And of course, there’s some “telemetry” in there as well, enabled by default during the build, before you have a chance to turn it off.)

                                                                                                                      1. 7

                                                                                                                        The same thing happens when you try compiling coreclr

                                                                                                                        Wow, now I wonder whether this pattern happens in other Microsoft “open source” projects.

                                                                                                                        And you gotta love this comment:

                                                                                                                        # curl has HTTPS CA trust-issues less often than wget, so lets try that first.

                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                      Amazing. I kind of can’t believe they built integer overflow into the etherium vm. But then I also totally can.

                                                                                                                      Do the authors of those “contracts” have enough political clout to get a hard fork that patches & reverts or are they outside of the eth oligopoly?

                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                        I’ve heard rumblings that they’re planning to replace the EVM with a WebAssembly based vm.

                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                          Link? Have not heard Ethereum guys looking at WebAssembly…

                                                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                                                            Sorry, on my phone, don’t have a conical link, just do a search for “Ethereum webassembly” on DDG/reddit/twitter

                                                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                                                              WebAssembly integer operations also overflow.

                                                                                                                              1. 0

                                                                                                                                Oh god.