I think you knew this, but for clarity: the man project is being reported on by Linux Weekly News (LWN), but it's not run by them. They're just the news outlet. And an excellent one, that you should totally support and subscribe: https://lwn.net/subscribe/
The exact same thing can be said about "folio bias", or "bcachefs bias", or "git bias", or "RCU bias", or anything else that's really important for the development of the Linux kernel. I don't have strong opinions about Rust (either for or against it), and, having read the site since about 2016, don't see anything out of the ordinary. Its primary target audience always were Linux kernel developers, and Rust is becoming increasingly important for them whether they like it or not. Would ignoring its integration into the kernel be an example of "unbiased reporting"?
This is going to spin out but Rust is not a fit for kernel development. It is a language fueled by what feels like a perpetual hype cycle. To say that there is nothing out of the ordinary means you haven't compared the site before and after. Out of all the languages and actual things for kernel developers to become increasingly concerned with, Rust is not one of them. To ignore this practicality and suggest that having the Rust agenda carried forward is incorrect. The current experimentation with Rust will end and what will you say when that happens? Many already falsely claim the kernel ships with Rust when it does not. How does that not indicate that a bias is leading to the spread of misinformation? Why is this okay for Rust but maybe not in other areas? Would you feel the same if it were AI articles instead?
you're half right, i thought otherwise, but not firmly, and when i followed the link to the site and found a discussion that looked like a project discussion, it dispelled my doubt, which turns out was a righteous doubt
Yes, and Idris actively encouraged iterative development that was based around its holes -- the book by Idris' creator Edwin Brady, Type-Driven Development[1], is an eye-opening introduction to this style of coding.
Just because they're both books that are hard to stumble upon and are a bit out of the usual recommendations, and yet everyone I have recommended them to have /deeply/ enjoyed them:
well, except for the fact that, as the article states, it doesn't scale. Or rather, it scales poorly: the quality of care provided by a nation state is going to differ in degree and quality compared to the 1:1 care that humans probably need (and certainly traumatised humans).
I'm not sure this comes as a surprise to anyone except for those who have had no interaction with state-provided social services. I'd also say that a level of care that does not reach to that 1:1 standard is still appreciably better than no care, which may be what one might otherwise receive.
The open question is can we work out better, decentralized ways of providing support that take advantage of the new social technologies that we've developed since the construction of the modern state and its welfare services in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Care doesn't scale, but a lot of activities around care should be scalable. A caregiver can be helped so they can spend as little time as possible on auxiliary tasks like admin or logistics.
I don't think there is any contradiction here. Government care can work, but it simply cannot benefit from economies of scale. Gonna need to double the income tax to pay for elders that have been abandoned by their children.
He means that they messed up by investing in their children and providing them a good life instead of putting everything in an index fund. They didn't realize the rug pull they were about to eat.
Just because the government does something, doesn't mean it has to be centralised. Eventually the care has to be given from one human to another human. On the other hand, it shouldn't matter where you live to receive care or how good the care is.
And the week in which private companies will be able to provide this, is the same week which has two Tuesdays.
So, just for the record, I'm not being paid to write this, but I read the literature on minimum wages, and while I think they are probably mostly ok, I'm not sure of their long-term efficacy and there are probably other interventions that may achieve the same effect more efficiently.
I'm unlikely to change my mind by someone who simply accused their opponent of being a paid shill, but other than that I'm probably a fairly marginal "opponent" of minimum wages that you could win over with a few cited well-written sources. See if you can better model what would convince me!
I wonder what the author thinks of Nix/Guix-type distributions? Seems like that's something that gets the best of both worlds, with a minimum (but not non-zero) amount of futzing around.
For IPFS, I'm fairly sure you can now serve from your normal filesystem, rather than load it into their blockstorage -- or at least the blockstorage has pointers to real data blocks that are part of your existing files (it's the nocopy option[1]; it's marked as experimental, so there may be some sharp edges.)
For Filecoin, if you want fast access, you do need to keep a second hot plaintext copy, as well as the sealed Filecoin copy. But that works for the backup case for IA, because the hot copy would be served from the archive's existing infrastructure (and/or a distributed IPFS hot cache) -- you'd just use Filecoin for the proven safe backup.
The project to back up IA to Filecoin is still ongoing. The IA dashboard that shows the current state is (perhaps predictably) down at the moment, but it crossed the 1PiB line last year[2], and they've been optimising the onboarding flow recently.
(Disclosure: I work at the Filecoin Foundation/Filecoin Foundation for the Decentralized Web, which partners with the Archive on this project, as well as supporting other Internet Archive backup projects.)
Needing to keep a separate hot copy at 220PiB is already ~$7M/yr, and multiples much more than that if you factor in labor and redundancy. The --nocopy option looks great though, I didn't see it last time I was looking around for an MFS/FUSE solution, I'll try it.
I appreciate your effort and I hope the project continues.
Odd that communism pulled that off the moment that it adopted the market reforms documented and explored by western academics (and eastern ones too, to be clear -- just not doctrinaire Marxist and Maoist academics)
Odd for you to cherry pick two different time periods and regions to compare against. At least comparing china pre/post market liberalization you're not comparing between two countries.
You have no idea about conditions on the ground in the USSR in the 1980s. No meat, no consumer goods, people queued up for everything. The only thing that the regime could produce, besides weapons, were throughly false impressive statistics. Relying on Moscow for its growth figures is like relying on Charles Ponzi to multiply your savings.
There is enough Eastern Europeans here on this forum that this kind of pro-Soviet misinformation won't fly here. We know precisely how things were.
reply