If I read this piece correctly, is that going forward the suppliers are going to develop their own protocols. They find Bluetooth development to onerous.
It feels like the fitness brands need to come together and shut out the BT SIG and all fitness profiles should come out of that new consortium - which would be a formalising of what Wahoo did with the Kickr protocol.
The sequence of event presented by the poster you are responding to is indeed a joke in 2024. Can you however not see a future where it becomes a practical possibility?
> Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Then the claim that the President can in their official capacity assassinate others with impunity and protection from prosecution is no lie.
> That the favoured industry (or company) is doing well isn't necessarily a sign that the policy is overall good for the country's economy.
You are answering specifics with generalities.
If Taiwan didn't support and nurture TSMC so that today it's a national champion that prints money, what development path do you think they could have taken that would've brought at least the same economic success? Please be specific.
There's plenty of other companies in Taiwan already today, and that's without the counterfactual of leaving more money in people's hands.
I can't predict specifically what other things would have happened. If people could do these kinds of predictions well, maybe central planning would actually work?
You are saying planning never works without even the ability to point to any specific cases. Why do you swallow your own ideology so uncritically?
Does Soviet-style central planning work? It didn't seem to work well in the few societies that really tried it.
Dos all planning fail? Seems unlikely, given the amount of fairly centralized planning that went on (and still goes on today) in East Asian countries, countries that are the rare "success stories" of developmental economics.
In fact the original East Asian success story was Meiji-era Japan, basically the only society outside of the West that managed to industrialize itself during the 19th century. And if one sits down to read a history book one quickly realizes that what the Meiji government did was highly top-down and planned with the explicit goal to catch up to the European colonial powers. It did not resemble classical laissez-faire economics.
Huh? Where did I say that planning _never_ works? Please read more carefully, lest you argue against strawmen.
I said that planning and forecasting is _hard_, and that _I_ can't tell you on the spot what counterfactually would have replaced TSMC. Many different options are possible. Or perhaps TSMC would have still happened, but in a different way.
> In fact the original East Asian success story was Meiji-era Japan, basically the only society outside of the West that managed to industrialize itself during the 19th century. And if one sits down to read a history book one quickly realizes that what the Meiji government did was highly top-down and planned with the explicit goal to catch up to the European colonial powers. It did not resemble classical laissez-faire economics.
If I have an ailment and go to a chiropractor to fix that ailment, and later my ailment goes away, that doesn't necessarily mean that the chiropractor helped. In fact, those guys are dangerous and more likely to make things worse.
For another Japanese example, see how eg Sony had to fight and dodge the much vaunted MITI more often than not, especially in the beginning. (Sorry, I'm not up to date on all the Meiji-era stuff. It's a fascinating period of history, though!)
---
Just to be clear, central planning can 'work' up to a point; it doesn't necessarily lead to famine. Eg seen on its own East Germany was the most successful socialist economy ever. Out of the ashes of war torn quarter-country they rebuilt a reasonably high standard of living---the highest among all socialist countries, and pretty decent by global standards---all while paying enormous war reparations to the Soviet Union. (I was born in East Germany.)
Their system had many aspect of Soviet-style central planning. But over most of its life the regime wasn't nearly as totalitarian as Stalin's Soviet Union.
It's just that East Germany pales compared to more market oriented West Germany. (And West Germany pales compared to even more market oriented Switzerland.)
> The government support are a combination of low interest loans, import controls and financial subsidies.
There is a very well-understood formula on how to go for from an agrarian society to an industrial one, which has been used going back to the late 1800s:
https://www.amazon.com/Just-Get-Out-Way-Government/dp/193086... is an alternative view at development economics. The title is a bit provocative, (even the author wasn't really happy with it, when I had a chat with him about it). The main thesis of the book is that honest and competent civil servants are the most rare and precious resource a country has, especially a poor one, so policies should economies on their labour.
So eg you should privatise a state-owned company by auctioning it off in one piece to the highest cash-bidder open to all comers from anywhere, no questions asked. Instead of having your civil servants set up a complex system or worse trying to evaluate proposed business plans. Complexity breeds corruption in the worst case, and in the best case still takes up civil servants' limited time.
> On a trip to Turkey in 2018, I read How Asia Works, by Joe Studwell. Despite the fact that it didn’t get everything right, it’s probably the best nonfiction book I’ve ever read.
> As any longtime reader of mine will know, my favorite book about economic development is Joe Studwell’s How Asia Works. If you haven’t read this book, you should definitely remedy that. In the meantime, you can start with Scott Alexander’s excellent summary.
The book goes over what actually happened: it's not theory, it's history. What worked in each country (often the same/similar things), the variations, and where things were tried but went badly (often with analysis on why).
> The book goes over what actually happened: it's not theory, it's history. What worked in each country (often the same/similar things), the variations, and where things were tried but went badly (often with analysis on why).
Alas, in the absence of randomised controlled experiments, it's very hard to infer causality purely from observations. You need a theory to guide you. But observations are still extremely useful, of course.
Just because countries did X and Y happened later, doesn't necessarily tell you X causes Y. In addition to the usual causation vs correlation dilemma, in economics you can even have what looks like reverse causation that goes back in time, because intelligent actors anticipate the future.
(Silly example, if there's a clear sky, and you see many people carrying raincoats and umbrellas, it's likely to rain later. But that doesn't mean that umbrellas cause rain.)
Many of the successful countries in 'How Asia Works' share some ethnic similarities. (Eg many have at least sizeable Chinese minorities or have outright Chinese majorities.) Many of the success stories also have some land reform in their past. The author decided that the latter 'worked' (ie was a causal factor), and ignores the former as perhaps a mere coincidence. Similarly, the author decided that the bouts of industrial policy and protectionism are praiseworthy causal factors.
He almost arbitrarily excludes Singapore as purely a financial centre, even though we have a pretty diversified economy these days, and in the past during the fast catch up growth, we weren't a global financial hub yet. That early development owes much more to the typical 'sweatshop' model that we see in many successful industrialisers, ie (light) manufacturing for export.
> 'How Asia Works' is not exactly economic orthodoxy, to put it lightly.
And yet it describes the historical record of several countries (in the case of Japan, how they did it twice: post-Meiji Restoration and post-WW2).
It goes over countries deemed 'successful' (Japan, Korea, etc), and others (Philippines).
What (particular?) "economic orthodoxy" would you suggest countries follow? What are countries (if any) have followed them, and what are the results? Are there book(s) that you would recommend on how to implement this/these orthodoxies, with case studies or historical examples of implementations?
'How Asia works' describes the historical record of some examples, yes.
There are some correlations between various factors and 'success'. Alas, it's hard to tease out which of the correlations, if any, are causal factors, and which are just coincidences, or worse. [0]
The book guesses at some of these causal factors, and makes policy recommendations.
I am mostly not really convinced by the full list of causal factors the book presents. On the one hand, the book observes protectionism and argues that it's a causal factor in promoting prosperity. That's just the old and tired 'Infant Industry Argument', so we should require quite some evidence to take it serious. On the other hand, the book ignores the possible impact of having lots of ethnically Chinese people in your country. (I don't know for sure whether that's a causal factor, but it sure looks noteworthy and deserves at least as much consideration and discussion any of the other factors.)
I also think the book is too quick to dismiss Hong Kong and especially Singapore. Singapore did not start out as a financial centre, and especially early on manufacturing was much more important here.
> What (particular?) "economic orthodoxy" would you suggest countries follow?
Much of what the successful countries examined in the book have been doing is worth following.
In any case, if you want an orthodox policy recommendation: the Washington Consensus was pretty decent. Lots of examples there.
Well, to be precise: Washington Consensus with the crucial addition that your central bank (if you have one) should be doing something like nominal GDP level targeting.
What that means is that the total nominal spending in your economy needs to be on a stable path. Don't let it grow too much, or you get inflation and overheat the economy. Don't let it collapse, or you get a recession.
See Scott Sumner's or George Selgin's writing for why that's really important and how that can work. (And why it's more sensible than targeting inflation.)
As a cautionary tale, look at Argentina. They were doing fairly well during their neoliberal / Washington consensus phase, but their currency arrangements led to a collapse of aggregate nominal spending in the economy. Alas, the subsequent recession was blamed on neoliberalism.
For examples with stable total spending, have a look at Israel or Australia. (At least until a few years ago, I haven't checked recently.) Both countries' nominal stability let them avoid recessions. Australia is especially noteworthy, because as a resource exporter you'd expect their economic fortunes to be as volatile as commodity prices. See https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/11/19/the-export-price-nor... for an investigation.
https://www.amazon.com/Just-Get-Out-Way-Government/dp/193086... is an alternative view at development economics. The title is a bit provocative, (even the author wasn't really happy with it, when I had a chat with him about it). The main thesis of the book is that honest and competent civil servants are the most rare and precious resource a country has, especially a poor one, so policies should economies on their labour.
So eg you should privatise a state-owned company by auctioning it off in one piece to the highest cash-bidder open to all comers from anywhere, no questions asked. Instead of having your civil servants set up a complex system or worse trying to evaluate proposed business plans. Complexity breeds corruption in the worst case, and in the best case still takes up civil servants' limited time.
[0] When I say 'worse', I have in mind an example like: empirically we can observe a strong correlation between personal wealth and owning a fancy car. Alas, that doesn't mean getting yourself a fancy car will make you rich. Just the opposite, in fact.
Not a fan of where this is going. Just use Rust instead. All this is doing is making c++ even more unmanageable. When developers are pressed for time they will revert to what they are used to and know. What you get in the end is a mess of code with different ideas at different parts of the system because they are developed at different times by different people. Or you are going to put down very strict guidelines and redevelop everything according to these guidelines. Then you are back to rather use Rust instead. The guidelines is built in the Rust language.
I work in video games, most games use Unreal Engine, most existing toolsets and dependencies are built on C/C++, I have 17 years professional experience and nearly 30 years including hobbyist experience in C++. I often think I'd start new projects in Rust, but the last two large personal projects I started in C++, and one of them has been deployed in iOS, Android, Windows, Linux, Mac, WASM and RPi environments without much trouble. I haven't regretted that choice, even though I do really like Rust. In my contracting work, Rust just isn't an option. In my personal work, Rust is an option but since C++ has been getting better, I see less and less reason to use Rust.
But, you, please keep using Rust. It's a great language and I hope it someday eclipses C++. C++ was never designed as a cohesive language (Bjarne said exactly this in a talk I attended), it was designed as a grab bag of ideas, and I believe much of what's bad about C++ stems from that philosophy. Rust is built from the ground up with good ideas. But there's nothing wrong with improving C++ for those of us who it's really the best or only option.
EDIT: To be clear on this particular article, I agree it's not a great direction. But "just use Rust" is not helpful, and you may not have the problem this is trying to solve.
This is pointless for corporations with 40 years of code in production.
Changing all those 40 years worth of code to the safe subset is equivalent to a total rewrite. Especially since usually the really old parts of the code have never been touched or modernized, so are usually C-like and therefore very far away from the safe subset.
One might as well rewrite it in something properly memory-safe.
I agree that this proposal isn't great. But also that you're not responding to what the comment is really saying - it's responding to the "just use rust" suggestion. If Rust is a good choice, great. But that doesn't mean we should abandon all attempts to improve standardization of C++. And I mean "attempts" - production conversation should be around why something doesn't work and why it fails, "just use rust" is not really relevant here. It's perfectly fine to say when starting a new project or figuring out how to rewrite an existing codebase, but in a conversation about C++ standards it's just not relevant.
I like Rust and very happy it's being used more and more. I am just tired of it constantly coming up in any talks about C++ on HN.
Especially when building the Rust compiler, at least for the time being, requires C++, and many domains Rust wants to play only have C and C++ based industry standards like Khronos APIs, CUDA, consoles,...
That transition from C to C++ isn't really the same kind of transition. When moving over to C++ from C, you get to keep and use all your old code and gain new capabilities for the newly-written parts. Extending stuff like this is easy.
Moving to a subset is very hard, because you loose capabilities. And since this is about memory-safety, you either loose them all at once, or you aren't really memory-safe until you migrated all your codebase to the subset.
So while C->C++ takes 40 years, you get benefits in pieces during the 40 years of migration. With C++->SafeC++, you can only get those benefits at the end of those 40 years. Which usually means that it won't be done at all.
What might be a possible approach is to divide a huge codebase into smaller parts, isolate them from each other (microservices if you want to call it that) and then migrate those smaller parts to SafeC++. But since that would change the whole architecture of the codebase, the viability is always a very big "maybe".
> you aren't really memory-safe until you migrated all your codebase to the subset.
That's true for every gradual migration, even to another language. At the limit any rust code that uses 'unsafe' is not really memory safe for small values of 'really'.
Perfect is the enemy of good. An incremental improvement to the status quo is still an improvement.
Although I'm firmly in the "I'll believe [the practicality] when I'll see it" camp, I'm all in favour of these experiments with memory safety.
It is still much easier to sell than throw away, rewrite in Rust, while the ecosystem is full of growing pains, and not yet taken seriously in many industry critical standards.
1. Interests: We are interested in certain categories(for instance finance and sport), but if you subscribe to a news organisation (say New York Times), you get the whole caboodle, but only their version of finance and sport.
What many people prefer is to have multiple sources of finance and sport, but that means that they need to subscribe to various news outlets to get it.
2. Short: We want the the short and easy digestible version (preferable video, but if you insists audio).
I would argue Australia suffers from a lite version of the resource curse. There's undue control over politicians and resulting political resistance to invest in things that would diversify economic complexity or go against mining interests. Norway however is a strong counter example.
The key is whether or not a country, it's people and their representatives, are in control of the deal making wrt the resources within their boundaries.
Australia and Canada are, their indigenous people less so, and we can argue about the quality of the many resource deals within Australian and Canadian borders - overall they do less well than Norway.
This is in strong contrast to many African countries, Papua, and elswhere about the globe where often the key parts of government are wholly in the pocket of outside transnational corps who frequently have small divisions of PMC's (private militay contractors) for 'security' and land deals are forced through with near zero compensation to former land holders and NSR (Net Smelter Returns) | leasing returns to the country and people are near non existant.
The reality of what another peer commenter in this thread decsribed as
> But this is a boon to a democratic light in ... Africa
is anything but. eg: US PMC's in Africa .. acting for multiple clients, including China .. but not for Africans.
> Australia and Canada are [in control of the dealmaking wrt resources]
It's not a binary. It's a spectrum. The capability of Australians to control the deal making is diminished by the control that the mining industry has over elected representatives.
Please don't incorrectly paraphrase | strawman my comments.
Your point is implicit within:
> and we can argue about the quality of the many resource deals within Australian and Canadian borders - overall they do less well than Norway.
"The mining industry" should include energy extractors who, IMHO, do more harm to Austrlia than mining - many of the mining operations (not all by any means) are majority Australian owned|controlled with that money staying within Australia (even if with individuals rather than spread out across the entire community).
Even significant energy extractors such as Santos are Australian companies .. it's literally an acronym of South Australia Northern Territory Oil Search, but they're no angels although perhaps arguably better than the non-Australian gas operators.
