Exact same for me! Just ten minutes ago my son opened his Xmas present, his first box of TubeLox. My expectations and hopes are high but he is currently distracted by the flashier presents.
He'll probably find it himself, but if he doesn't, just build something cool in front of him. He may not have unlocked all the possibilities in his brain yet.
It's actually a fun demo, that shows a fairly common difference between Europeans and Americans. The demo is mostly about comparing GDP, while HDI or something else more "human" is left as an exercise to the reader. If someone was doubting Americans only care about money, now you have some more evidence :)
This comment feels in bad faith. There are ~340 million Americans and you draw evidence about all of them from this one thing? It's not even an insight into its single American author. It was a quick weekend hack.
The purpose of the thing is to try to put things into perspective, like "Portugal is about the size of Indiana", or "California's economy is about the size of Germany". It compares three numbers, two of which are not money!
I'm not drawing evidence or making an argument in some parliament, it's an offhand comment about a common behavior I keep seeing repeated, basically me sharing a pattern I seem to notice every now and then.
I'm not trying to claim every American only care about money, only that when Americans compare countries, they tend to compare monetary values like GDP, gross salaries or other similar values, and your weekend hack (cool at it is) fitted that pattern I've seen before.
Again, obviously not all Americans are the same as each other, then elections wouldn't be needed for starters, and I'm sorry if my comment came off as dismissive or harsh, it really wasn't my intention, I just aimed to share a reoccurring pattern I come across.
Yeah, money machine go brrrr is a great sign of "footprint", lets just ignore millenniums of inventions, technology and others things coming from Europe, before the US was even a colony. Texas GDP was $x millions last year, clearly larger footprint on the world :)
It's actually pretty fun and interesting the different bubbles we all live in, for better or worse.
> After the war ended, Cecil Powell, a British physicist, continued the research in England using similar methods with more sensitive plates, detecting a new particle and winning him the Nobel Prize in 1950. Chowdhury and Bose’s work was acknowledged in his book, but their recognition quickly faded.
This is actually the reason why I'm a proponent of the US Federal government doing far _far_ less. Things like Healthcare and other safety net things (along with most other things) should be done at the state level, and the the fact that European nations, which are near universally poorer than all US states, are able to do these things, are the proof that this would work.
I'm convinced that the federal government doing more and more things is the root cause if the increasing toxicity of American politics. The further removed a populace is from their representatives the less control they have and the worse they feel. Everything should always be done at the most local level that it is possible to do it. Some things have to be done at a relatively high level, but Americans have increasingly been jumping straight to "this is a job for the federal government" when very often state, or even city governments in some cases, would be perfectly capable.
> which are near universally poorer than all US states, are able to do these things
What do you mean that the countries are poorer? Are you just thinking about the gross salary people get per month, or is there something else in this calculation?
The fact that people get health care, parental leave, can freely move between countries, able to afford having a child, have emergency services that arrive relatively quick and all those things mean that a country is not poor, and the countries that don't have those, are "poorer", at least in my mind. When I think "poor country" I don't think about the GDP, but how well the citizens and residents are protected by ills.
I know you've made a handful of comments all to this effect throughout the thread, but it's really not helpful in this particular comment chain. Yes, we know your quality of life in Europe is great. Yes, we know life is more than just GDP. "What we mean that the countries are poorer" is obviously GDP in this comment chain, and this comment chain is not disputing your quality of life, it's pointing out that we (collectively) have the money to have that quality of life here in the US, too.
But thats a flawed metric. How much cash do you need saved to send 2 kids to university in US vs typical Europe, without burdening them for their best years of life with crushing debt? How much is left afterwards? How much after acquiring some long term illness with expensive treatment or being in bad accident? Don't think that due to being young this ain't your concern, all elders have messed up health in many ways. Retirement. And so on. These are direct costs and its all about money. Ie US couple with teens just about to go to college with say 500k are same or poorer than similar family in Europe having say 200k savings, or will be after few years. Or maybe not, depends.
I'd say its uncomparable directly, or very, very hard. You can say visit both places and walk around and see the general state of the country and its people, compare capitals. This is where money is spent (or not).
Not going into happiness, stress levels, depression/anxiety and meds consumption, obesity levels or longevity, that would be too easy I agree. Although this is also money related, more than anything else.
80% of US college grads have debt under 30k. Despite the bleak picture painted, servicing that interest at say 7% is $175 a month, or about 3.5% the average salary of a new grad.
This pales in comparison to some of the elephant in the room ways most common ways to go broke, which is to say get something like a child support judgement against you (20% pretax, like 26+% post-tax in middle income brackets) or have an alimony payment (these conveniently don't generally show up in bankruptcy statistics because they are not dischargeable). Medical debt can at least be discharged in bankruptcy.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to provide universal health care, per the 10th amendment which leaves an extremely narrow constraint of enumerated powers to the federal government and the rest left to the people and the states.
However, the feds already siphon about as much tax as the populace can bear just on accomplishing what it is allowed to do, so there is basically nothing left for the states to implement these kind of measures.
Yes, if the states were to take over many of these things, obviously federal taxes would need to dramatically decrease (luckily, the vast majority of federal spending is doing the things that I think states should do anyways, so you'd be simultaneously dramatically decreasing federal taxes and federal spending).
You couldn't just have the states take over these responsibilities and have nothing else change. My suggestion is in fact a pretty radical change in how the US federal government works. I'm not under any illusion that this is likely to happen. The ratchet of power unfortunately only goes in one direction.
Our GDP would drop several percent if we fixed our healthcare system. Part of why we look richer on paper is that we light a lot of money on fire for exactly nothing.
Ah, there’s always zero-sum competition for housing to eat up any excess that might otherwise go to savings. That’s true. Money gets freed up across the board, you spend it on housing or lose ground in the housing competition. Good ol’ red queen’s race.
We already do have universal health care for the most expensive groups to insure (lower income households and the elderly), and technically have it for everyone in that hospitals aren't allowed to deny life saving care to anyone regardless of their ability to pay (which is expensive, short sighted, and quite inadequate overall).
Adding the rest of the population to the existing public insurance system would not cost much financially, but it would be a political catastrophe for whatever party implemented it if it didn't go well.
In short, I don't think anyone seriously argues the US can't afford universal health care, but the real and perceived risk of change is seen as too great politically.
The American government spends an incredible amount on healthcare already. If it were competently administered, it would already be enough money to cover universal healthcare.
Which buyer are you referring to? Consumers paying cash can negotiate as much as they want, and often secure large discounts. Commercial health plans also negotiate hard with their network providers, although some of them play unethical tricks with PBMs to artificially inflate prescription drug prices. Medicare and Medicaid don't really negotiate with providers, they just set rates by arbitrary fiat and providers can take it or leave it. Medicare does have some statutory limitations on how they can negotiate drug prices, though.
Which doctors? Some specialists do quite well but many primary care physicians earn less than software developers, especially once you account for education expenses and ongoing mandatory professional expenses. What is the correct amount for them to earn anyway?
Who is fetishizing GDP? I've never seen public policy be set based on the goal of maximizing GDP to the exclusion of all else. You're arguing against a strawman.
From the title, I first imagined what my favorite math problem was, then clicked on the article -- and they had the same one!
For me, the reason this problem is cool is that it exemplifies mathematical thinking: superficially the problem is about placing individual dominos but the solution is about seeing the underlying structural properties. Similar to Euler realizing the bridges in Königsberg were a graph.
My first job was a dotcom startup who heard via social connections I was a bright high school student who could program. I think I was paid $15/hr to write Windows GUI code. In retrospect I think they were just happy for the cheap labor and I didn’t know any better. There was no mentorship or any other useful growth to make up for the low pay.
On the other hand, you were probably also learning on the job, which meant they were paying you to learn. Not a bad arrangement, especially if they did not demand senior-level code from you.
I was also fortunate to get paid to learn web development in the 90s. This was a work-study job so I was barely paid anything (I think it was something like $100/wk). But I was thrilled to be given a computer in an air-conditioned office. The alternative was to do some other dumb work-study job like making sure students swiped their meal plan cards when they walked into the cafeteria. Although it took me awhile, that job is what set me on the path I’m still on now.
From the OP: "Beyond [the two-year] timeframe, we will keep a subset of Rosetta functionality aimed at supporting older unmaintained gaming titles, that rely on Intel-based frameworks."
This is the real issue. Mac is not a target for a large number of triple A games, and rosetta made that possible. Apple has a vested interest because if they support rosetta you don't need to by Windows laptops to game... you can just use your Mac. Otherwise they are routing money to their competition.
It looks like memories have to be declared up front, and the memcpy instruction takes the memories to copy between as numeric literals. So I guess you can't use it to allocate dynamic buffers. But maybe you could decide memory 0 = heap and memory 1 = pixel data or something like that?
"A client may only access psilocybin at a licensed service center during an administration session in the presence of a trained, licensed facilitator."
I don't think that clear at all at 20. Yes the numbers are mostly meaningless, but there is a lot of value knowing what it means to study, work hard, and care about something.
I appreciate the Go language's general sense of conservatism towards change. Even if you're not a fan of it, I think it's admirable that there is a project staking out a unique spot in the churn-vs-stability design space. There are plenty of other projects that churn as fast as they can, which also has its pros and cons, and it's great to be able to see the relative outcomes.
PS: it's kind of hilarious how the blog post is like "there are hundreds of proposals and miles of detailed analysis of these", vs the commenters here who are like "I thought about this for five minutes and I now have an idea that solve everything, let me tell you about it".
I'd happily come up with criticisms of any specific proposal and bikeshed it, but any one of these proposals would be preferable to the status quo.
I'd understand if they decided they needed more time to continue iterating on and analyzing proposals to find the right solution, but simply declaring that they'll just suspend the whole effort because they can't come to a consensus is rather infuriating.
“Simply declaring” is inaccurate description of the Go team’s decision. The team built several proposals, reviewed dozens more, and refined the process by gathering user feedback in multiple channels.
The Go team thoroughly explored the design space for seven years and did not find community consensus.
1) There isn't consensus that improved syntax for error handling is needed in the first place. If that is the case, they should just say so, instead of obfuscating by focusing on the number of proposals and the length of the process.
2) There is consensus about a need for improved error handling syntax, but after seven years of proposals they haven't been able to find community consensus about the best way to add said syntax. That would mean that improved syntax for error handling is necessary, but the Go team is understandably hesitant to push forward and lock in a potentially inferior solution. If that is the case, then would be reason to continue working on improved syntax for error handling, so as to find the best solution even if it takes a while.
I noticed math_emulate.c comes from Linux (it even has a " * (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds" bit on it). I was wondering what the license on that code is. It looks like Linux adopted GPL in 1992 so maybe this copy predates that, but it was under some other non-BSD license before that.
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
(C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
costs.
This is clearly written by someone who has no business writing software licenses ;) but does not appear to be incompatible with the BSD license and in fact, the code in question originates from 386BSD (https://github.com/386bsd/386bsd/blob/2.0/usr/src/kernel/mat...) and made it from there into the NetBSD mainline.
The GPL has wrongly taught us to focus on “compatibility”. Compatibility is pretty much exclusively a copyleft issue.
There is no reason that you cannot use this code with this license in a larger BSD work. It is “compatible” in that sense.
This specific code has additional restrictions (not charging). That does not add any restrictions to the rest of the code though.
So, if you are charging, you are in violation of the license just for this code snippet. Linus Torvalds, the copyright holder, could try to enforce the license against you. Since he gives it away, no financial damages. Which means the remedy would be that you would not be able to use this code anymore (but could still use the rest of BSD).
I do not expect Linus to pursue enforcement on this one.
It would be a very difficult case to win anyway as you would have to prove that people were being charged specifically for the Linus code and not for other code covered by BSD (which allows charging).
I would argue that this license has not even been violated, unless somebody has put a price tag on this specific code.
True! And if so, that license has clearly been broken many times by everyone selling 386BSD, NetBSD and Linux <0.12 on CD-ROMs etc ;)
Then again -- and IANAL -- the license is worded so vaguely that I doubt any of it is enforcible. "You may not distibute this for a fee" -- what is "this"? Is it the entire kernel or does it apply to small excerpts of it? Because apparently "small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights". But do you mean copyright attribution or are you rescinding your copyright entirely if I only copy "small partial excerpts"? But what is a small partial excerpt? And so on and so forth...
“this” is the code that Linus licensed as he did. Only that code. If you use a snippet, that snippet is governed by the license. The license does not magically extend to other code or even to any modifications that have been made since. This is not the GPL.
But the Linus license has no bearing on the rest of the code base at all.
The entire concept of “compatibility” is an artifact of copyleft. In the rest of the license universe, each piece of code is covered by its own license and it does not matter what licenses other code uses.
This license does not apply to the rest of BSD. The BSD license does not apply to this code.
Why not? BSD style licenses generally just impose constraints around liability and attribution; I can't see any reason why that wouldn't be compatible with a separate constraint on charging money. IANAL, though, so take with grain of salt.
reply