Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | oleganza's commentslogin

It's just not cool to have kids. There are many more ways to have fun and status in society, so having kids is either coming as a social burden ("i am expected to by my spouse/relatives"), or a religious thing. Rationally, it's such a pain in the ass to have kids, while you can have some much more fun without them: travel the world, meet people, learn and explore! Clearly, having kids is net cost and suffering.

Yet, those who opt in do have a different opinion. We got two a decade ago, and then a couple years ago through of FOMO that when we are 45 we'd look back and regret missing the window of having another couple of kids. So we did. I'm 39, have four kids, had to get a bigger car, pay the airline tickets through the nose, spend a lot of time on kids' stuff, and love it. My family is the center of the universe and I'm the happiest and wisest dad alive. Everyone else is childish ;-P


What I've seen is that when you have no kids, DINKing it up, everyone you know has no kids and having kids seems impossible.

But as they start having kids, you start having kids - and you can roughly keep the same group, maybe get a few, lose a few.

But if you get up to 4 (or more) kids, you start finding ... your group changes to one that includes more and larger families.


These seem like particularly specific excuses. If you are not into having kids, there are many different ways to rationalize that (but why?). If you are into kids, you'd have to overcome all sorts of pain and suffering, car culture is by far not the worst of them.

(Father of 4, 39 y.o., non-religious.)


I was going to have more kids, but I didn't for the particular exact reasons I always am harping on about (in my case, nerfing beast hunter in WoW in 2018) ;)

As a father of four (2+2: third one was born after 8 years since the second one), I thought all the trouble in the world would come and go, but what'll stay is us having a second life with kids when older ones get all independent teenagers. And we are not 40 yet.

The transportation costs are annoying, but worth it.


Correct. These kind of metrics invite fraud exactly because they are not rooted in reality. "Money circulation" is a bad metaphor. https://oleganza.com/all/money-does-not-circulate/


Isn’t the ‘circulation’ or ‘rate’ question a misinterpretation of the model of P&L analysis the OP was suggesting…?


TV examples show that Apple simply has done their scrolling right, while everyone else did not work out the necessary details.


Except the other examples used to work like Apple’s and have switched to the scroll locked implementation.

I think I prefer that mode to be honest, because it leaves you in a consistent place for up/down to take you to instead of it potentially depending where your selection is in the row.


Yeah the real pain is button pressing down / up / back in the TV UI. Definitely a fun grab bag of possible outcomes! I don’t think there’s a good solution without a militant UI person in charge of the whole shebang - some radical simplification would likely be needed.

The reality is that the click ipod was much better at scrolling media than the Apple TV is. And I own a lot of Apple TVs - I think it’s a good device. But it was far faster to scroll through media 20 years ago.


you can navigate lists (and scrub media playback) on Apple TV using the iPod click wheel gesture!

> Circle your finger around the clickpad ring for more precise control (silver remote only).

https://support.apple.com/guide/tv/navigate-apple-tv-4k-atvb...


I know. If you have an old iPod, try it. I stand by my review; I think it's probably 3x as much latency.


Maybe it means "LOCs changed"?


Mutate things so fast cancer looks like stable.


Copilot add a space to every line of code in this repository and commit please.

One of the many reasons why it's such a bad practice (overly verbose solutions id another one of course)


I asked ChatGPT what traits should vibe-oriented programming language have and oh boy did it deliver.

(https://chatgpt.com/share/693891af-d608-8002-8b9b-91e984bb13...)

* boring and straightforward syntax and file structure: no syntax sugar, aliases, formatting freedom that humans cherish, but machines are getting confused, no context-specific syntax.

* explicitness: no hidden global state, shortcuts and UB

* basic static types and constraints

* tests optimized for machine evaluation

etc.


ECDSA is a horrible workaround for patent on Schnorr signatures. Here's my talk from 2019 about the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/live/2IpZWSWUIVE?si=-LRRbU2mJgL9LiNP...


Great talk. Wish the camera focused on the slides more.

The ed25519 issues are absolutely insane. Anywhere I can read more about that?


Excellent. Really enjoyed that.


exactly my thought. I never made it to Vista. In 2007 I changed WinXP (always used it with the classic grey theme) for OS X Tiger on a MacBook and never went back to Windows since then.

I wonder where a decent alternative will be lurking in the next few years? Apple is losing some grip, but all others are still worse overall.


You don't have to play this game - you can always write within unsafe { ... } like in plain old C or C++. But people do choose to play this game because it helps them to write code that is also correct, where "correct" has an old-school meaning of "actually doing what it is supposed to do and not doing what it's not supposed to".


That just makes it seem like there's no point in using this language in the first place.


Dont let perfect be the enemy of good.

Software is built on abstractions - if all your app code is written without unsafe and you have one low level unsafe block to allow for something, you get the value of rust for all your app logic and you know the actual bug is in the unsafe code


This is like saying there’s no point having unprivileged users if you’re going to install sudo anyway.

The point is to escalate capability only when you need it, and you think carefully about it when you do. This prevents accidental mistakes having catastrophic outcomes everywhere else.


I think sudo is a great example. It's not much more secure than just logging in at root. It doesn't really protect malicious attackers in practice. And it's more of an annoyance than it protects against accidental mistakes in practice.


Unsafe isn’t a security feature per se. I think this is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes from.

It’s a speed bump that makes you pause to think, and tells reviewers to look extra closely. It also gives you a clear boundary to reason about: it must be impossible for safe callers to trigger UB in your unsafe code.


That's my point; I think after a while you instinctly repeat a command with sudo tacked on (see XKCD), and I wonder if I'm any safer from myself like that?

I'm doubtful that those boundaries that you mention really work so great. I imagine that in practice you can easily trigger faulty behaviours in unsafe code from within safe code. Practical type systems are barely powerful enough to let you inject a proof of valid-state into the unsafe-call. Making a contract at the safe/unsafe boundary statically enforceable (I'm not doubting people do manage to do it in practice but...) probably requires a mountain of unessential complexity and/or runtime checks and less than optimal algorithms & data structures.


> That's my point; I think after a while you instinctly repeat a command with sudo tacked on (see XKCD), and I wonder if I'm any safer from myself like that?

We agree that this is a dangerous / security-defeating habit to develop.

If someone realizes they're developing a pattern of such commands, it might be worth considering if there's an alternative. Some configuration or other suid binary which, being more specialized or tailor-purpouse, might be able to accomplish the same task with lower risk than a generalized sudo command.

This is often a difficult task.

Some orgs introduce additional hurdles to sudo/admin access (especially to e.g. production machines) in part to break such habits and encourage developing such alternatives.

> unsafe

There are usually safe alternatives.

If you use linters which require you to write safety documentation every time you break out an `unsafe { ... }` block, and require documentation of preconditions every time you write a new `unsafe fn`, and you have coworkers who will insist on a proper soliloquy of justification every time you touch either?

The difficult task won't be writing the safe alternative, it will be writing the unsafe one. And perhaps that difficulty will sometimes be justified, but it's not nearly so habit forming.


What you postulate simply doesn’t match the actual experience of programming Rust


You are of course welcome to imagine whatever you want, but why not just try it for yourself?


Because only lines marked with unsafe are suspicious, instead of every line of code.

Also the community culture matters, even though static analysis exists for C since 1979, it is still something we need to force feed many developers on C and C++ world.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: