This is an at-a-loss, public service created by volunteers who are not necessarily professional software developers. The first version of the website parsed PDFs. It's not obvious at all what exactly they are doing behind the scenes.
I don't see how this is the correct reaction to have, nor whether most of us can claim to have made such a positive social impact with a website.
I would think a much more interesting question is who is targeting a public service informing about wildfires when these get particularly bad.
In just two weeks (with an August 15 peak of almost 70 million requests), fogos.pt handled over 550 million requests (more than 25 million per day) 9 TB of data transfer, nearly 100 million page views, 15 million visits, and 240 million API calls.
just shy of 60k(fire fighters,government,public) users, during actual fires,in a massive heat wave
It’s an operation run entirely by volunteers, with no funding, no formal team — just passion, and the help of partners.
Ginga is a Brasilian Portuguese word. I spent all of the day of the blackout listening to the radio (as you might guess) and not once heard the terms "ging" or "ging-induced". Also, ginga would not be swing as in cable swing, it would be swing as in swing dance (rhythmic movement specifically to music). When possible explanations were put forward in the media, they were attributed, usually either to the portuguese representative of REN (the Chinese company supplying power structure to the country) or to an analogous representative of Spain (where the fault originated). It was always pretty clear that the fault was unknown, since this was stated plainly by the aforementioned representatives and the prime minister. I respect the language barrier, but it would be good to take it into account.
"Typst Overleaf" sounds like a fine business idea to me, if you give the user the option to export TeX (so that they can then submit it to a journal).
(If you support both LaTeX and Typst, and improve the Overleaf experience somewhat -- which is definitely possible -- I can't imagine you wouldn't steal some market share from Overleaf.)
The Typst webapp [1] seems like it is already pretty similar to Overleaf.
LaTeX output seems not to be on the roadmap [2], which I can respect.
The amount of weirdness you would have to workaround to get good Typst to LaTeX translation sounds like a pain. I guess the hope is that the publishing industry starts adopting Typst...
I'm sorry if you felt that addendum was aggressive. However, I still feel like I'm justified in making it absolutely clear how (and if) I want to be contacted. I am in a complicated position where I'm speaking to a niche -- not an imaginary niche, by any means -- but actually addressing every reader. In the face of this, my option was to clearly state my boundaries, regardless.
I list an email address at the end of every article, for the purposes of discussing the content of the article. I add a "+ext" to every email I list (including the one on my personal home page). I had people ignore the email I stated in the article, find a different email, strip it of the + tags, and email me there in a foreign language and opening with "I assume you speak X" (presumably because of my name?).
I disagree with you that it's fair game to do the above. OSINT is, well, legal, and I'm not trying to hide my identity, clearly. But I would still be upset if, for example, someone wrote to my university email (which is not hard to find out, by your own procedure) regarding this post.
Nonetheless, again, it is not my goal to sound rude, but simply to set boundaries and expectations. I will remove the second sentence towards this goal, but stand by its objective meaning, and will keep the rest as is.
The sentiment you have is fine, but if you really wanted to you could rewrite it like this:
If you wish to contact me by email, by all means do so to miguelmurca+autoref [æt] cumperativa.xyz - I may not be able to respond. If I don't please don't try to find other emails to send to me, as I'll not respond to those, either, and just delete them. This post is in English. If you wish to write me, please do so in English. Other languages will be deleted.
(The key is assholes won't read it anyway, so there's no reason to snark them, just delete.)
> However, I still feel like I'm justified in making it absolutely clear how (and if) I want to be contacted.
> I list an email address at the end of every article, for the purposes of discussing the content of the article.
I am maybe blind, or because of adblockers, or because of cloudflare, but they don't show up for me, in edge, and in firefox.
You definitely should make it easy for the people to contact you in your preferred way. Put it under the articles, under the blog home page https://commutative.xyz/~miguelmurca/blog/ , and maybe under your HN about section.
My previous message was under the impression that you don't put a contact info in this blog, and I tried to demonstrate that getting messages at your other contact is your fault, not the public's fault or "HN reader"'s fault. (I wonder if
But, 1. famously, HN can be quite predictable in some of their responses (by what I expect is, essentially, a meme effect), and 2. I’ve had some unexpected experiences resulting from previously reaching FP in HN.
has any truth in it, and the readers from HN are worse than the other readers?)
> I will remove the second sentence towards this goal
Your critic decided their negative emotions about a miniscule matter are more important than the actual contents of your post and worthy of derailing the conversation. And then they called you rude.
There is really no need to cater to such people. It obviously has zilch to do with you in actuality.
While I agree that it's very questionable that Nature would invite someone to write an obituary (or what have you) and then reject it, I fail to see what's so controversial about the text being overly technical. I work in Physics, and "[...] locus of solutions of sets of polynomial equations by combining the algebraic properties of the rings of polynomials with the geometric properties of this locus, known as a variety" is still an incredibly tough sentence to parse on the first pass. I cannot imagine how it would read for someone who is either unfamiliar (or only passingly familiar) with, for example, the concept of a ring; "algebraic properties of a ring of polynomials"? This just seems like a case of https://xkcd.com/2501/ , with a hint of arrogance in thinking everyone working in STEM must be as comfortable with abstract concepts of mathematics as mathematicians are.
this is unfortunately, author keep talk about this is useful in phylogeny, but biologists who work on phylogeny is not popular in the group of biologists who frequently publishing articles on Nature.
This should be the link. As is, currently, you get a PDF viewer that does not allow zoom (without zooming surrounding UI), and with a weird comments integration.
This is bound to get some criticism (or some tangent-at-best discussion), but it seems like a pretty fair discussion to me.
What I'm missing at the end of the article is the author's point: I believe they're advocating for the use of raw threads and manual management of concurrency, and doing away with the async paraphernalia. But, at the same time, earlier in the article they give the example of networking-related tasks as something that isn't so easy to deal with using only raw threads.
So, taking into account that await&co. are basically syntactic sugar + an API standard (iirc, I haven't used Rust so much lately), I wonder about what the alternative is. In particular, it seems to me like the alternative you could have would be everyone rolling their own "concurrency API", where each crate (inconsistently) exposes some sort of `await()` function, and you have to manually roll your async runtime every time. This would obviously also not be ideal.
I thought the author's point was relatively clear: Rust might not be a good fit for the kind of tasks that need more concurrency than raw threads can give you. Such programs should be written in some other language instead.
> Maybe Rust isn’t a good tool for massively concurrent, userspace software. We can save it for the 99% of our projects that don’t have to be.
Anything that waits on I/O needs concurrency (but not necessarily threads). Web backends, web frontends, deeper backends, desktop GUIs, that's probably 90% of software right there.
I interpreted the 99% thing as referring to all software. If it's just Rust projects then sure, then again anyone who needs async has probably been avoiding a language that lacked async until recently.
The author's point is that Rust is not a good language for software like that example. But very, very little software is like that, and you can always divide it up in large blocks inside of what Rust fits quite well.
Personally, I'm a bit more radical than the author. You won't be able to write software like the example correctly. It should just not be done, ever. Machines can still optimize some sanely organized software into the same thing, maybe, if it happens to be a tractable problem (I'm not sure anybody knows). But people shouldn't touch that thing.
Maybe not your point, but a lot of programmers like to take this as "I should invent the Python of quantum computing", which is just about as silly as trying to approach anyone in 1960 and telling them they shouldn't be thinking about electronics at all.
I don't see how this is the correct reaction to have, nor whether most of us can claim to have made such a positive social impact with a website.
I would think a much more interesting question is who is targeting a public service informing about wildfires when these get particularly bad.