> The concurrent applies isn’t that big of a deal?
That depends. There are many organizations (we talk to them) which have plans and applies that take 5 - 10s of minutes, some even close to an hour. That's a problem. We talked to one customer that a dev can make a change in the morning and depending on the week might have to wait until the next day to get their plan, and then another day to apply it, assuming there are no issues.
If you're in that position you have two options:
1. Just accept it and wait.
2. Refactor your root module to independent root modules.
(2) is what a lot of people do, but it's not cheap, that's a whole project. It's also a workflow change.
Stategraph is trying to offer a third option: if your changes don't overlap, each dev can run independently with no contention.
Even if one doesn't think contention over state is a big deal, I hope that one can agree that a solution that just removes that contention at very little cost is worth considering.
> There are many organizations (we talk to them) which have plans and applies that take 5 - 10s of minutes, some even close to an hour. That's a problem. We talked to one customer that a dev can make a change in the morning and depending on the week might have to wait until the next day to get their plan, and then another day to apply it
That's us. Especially because our teams are distributed across NA/Eastern Europe/Japan. So getting a lock is a problem because you have to wait for someone else to finish, then getting the required reviews is a problem because you have to wait for people from other timezones to come on, then by the time you're ready to re-plan after the reviews someone else has taken the lock, then you have to wait for them,...
I’m also fine with git, and have used mercurial and p4 before. I think simplicity is better in this case. I do think with more and more generated code inflating the codebase with high velocity, we need to find a better way to merge conflicts.
I was entertaining an offer from Discord and also stumbled upon the founder’s former company debacle. The platform vision pitched to me in the interview seemed similar and seeing as how he started to implement spyware I decided to bail.
I’m not particularly sympathetic to retirement home narratives that paint each person as a lonely, incompetent senior wasting away. I witnessed first hand how my mother spent her adulthood partying instead of providing and now it’s become a critical issue for our family to provide for her. Ultimately I don’t expect my children (or staff-journalist) to project pity on me for my circumstances.
I run a weekly route with MealsOnWheels and deliver food/perform wellness checks to many people whom are homebound. There are much worse fates for seniors than a community home with social programs and meal service.
I think it is everyone’s duty to buy long-term care insurance (perhaps the government should provide this, as we will all need it). I also believe you must provide for the retirement you expect.
My company offers one that claims to be reliable (owned by an insurance company that's been around for over 100 years, albeit not in the LTC space).
The one thing I didn't like about them: They don't adjust for inflation. So if you sign up for a $100K plan, you'll get $100K - which will worth a lot less by the time I need it.
The problem with LTC insurance is it’s likely to go belly up and you are at the end of the day dealing with an insurer whose business model involves denying valid claims. All of that is assuming you can actually get LTC insurance. Good luck if you are over 50. It’s like the private form of social security, a Ponzi that’s approaching its moment of truth.
You’re probably correct (I’m 30 and don’t have a policy) but I can’t think of any financial instrument that would guarantee skilled nursing ($4-8k/month in MCoL) for 10-20 years. No one in the bottom 90% of American earners can afford that drawdown even if they saved considerably.
That’s sorta the point, and the problem. There’s a dependency ratio problem brewing: there are simply not enough working-age people to care for the old people who will need care. No amount of financial instruments can paper over this reality - they will just go bankrupt (eg insurance policies, social security) or steadily drop in value relative to the cost of care (401ks and other financial instruments) until the price of LTC equilibrates to actual capacity. Anyone not in the percentile that actually has eldercare capacity will simply have to go without, much like the price of housing has risen to shut out Millennials that are not in the income percentile needed to get one of the few scarce houses for sale.
No worries, the EU (and UK) governments have gone ahead and taken the only real way out of this conundrum: researching robotic labor to take over for this ... and defunded it.
That’s not the only solution, curing dementia would largely solve the manpower issues here.
Rapid population decline is a separate issue that makes this problem seem much worse. In other words, if elderly care works in a steady state population then it’s a symptom here not a cause.
Increasing the retirement age isn’t necessary. It increases overall prosperity in exactly the same way all those things that increase productivity do by allowing you to use extra labor on other problems.
Instead changing demographics means retirement benefits may need to alter their payout formulas, but more prosperity means more money for retirees in absolute terms even if they keep receiving the same percentage of GDP. IE X% of per capita GDP in 2025 is way higher than X% of per capita GDP in 1975 adjusted for inflation easily offsetting increased lifespan. The same is nearly guaranteed in another 50 years.
Most people won't need it for long and so the risks average out to a more reasonable cost. However it is still thousands and people buy cheap not best coverage when they need it so that is what the market provides.
One of my Grandfathers just stopped taking medication and going to the docs. And died quite peacefully within a couple years of retiring. Death and decay is just natural and quick. While my other grandfather has been kept alive 30-35 years post retirement popping a tray full of pills everyday, having gone through dozens of surgeries and has had hopeless quality of life post retirement.
The med-industrial complex is a run-away train that is detached for any moral system. It can't even produce any morality anymore. Because its not efficient or rational to do so :)
Perhaps it's the idea that we all must work full time with 10 days of annual leave until we reach the point of needing pills and medical assistance to live comfortably that is the issue.
That depends. Retirement as passage into idleness? Sure. Many people who retire piss away the remainder of their lives because they don't know what to do with themselves. They get depressed, and they become lonely, because they become isolated. Children move away, spouses die, friends move away or die. Couple this with suburban planning where you can't do anything without a car (something the elderly are less likely to be able to operate) and where there is no town center, certainly not one congenial to the social life of the neighborhood or town. With the decline in church membership, you don't have that option anymore, one that also dealt with questions dealing with the end of life (if you view death as the absolute end, then your life was hopeless to begin with; retirement and old age simply strip distractions and illusions effectively).
But this is separate from the question of retirement as such, or the question of aging. Your grandfather, I presume, only refused to take medication and medical treatment, which falls under "extraordinary care", and this is morally licit. Had he refused food or offed himself intentionally (or with "assistance"), that would have been a different matter.
It sounds like you have not had much off the record contact with members of the medical community. Perhaps a summary of the beliefs of the community I grew up in would help:
Some of us get old and tired. Retirement is a necessity. Your opinion will change with age on this one I expect. retirement has existed really since humans lived past their 40s. (1700s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement
"If one’s thirties were a decrepit old age, ancient writers and politicians don’t seem to have got the message. In the early 7th Century BC, the Greek poet Hesiod wrote that a man should marry “when you are not much less than 30, and not much more”. Meanwhile, ancient Rome’s ‘cursus honorum’ – the sequence of political offices that an ambitious young man would undertake – didn’t even allow a young man to stand for his first office, that of quaestor, until the age of 30 (under Emperor Augustus, this was later lowered to 25; Augustus himself died at 75). To be consul, you had to be 43 – eight years older than the US’s minimum age limit of 35 to hold a presidency."
"As a result, much of what we think we know about ancient Rome’s statistical life expectancy comes from life expectancies in comparable societies. Those tell us that as many as one-third of infants died before the age of one, and half of children before age 10. After that age your chances got significantly better. If you made it to 60, you’d probably live to be 70."
Neanderthal elders probably took on lighter-duty tasks as they aged just like today's elders do.
Humans have always lived past their 40s. You've misunderstand life expectancy statistics, because human age-at-death forms a bimodal distribution: A lot of kids and infants die (especially historically), and then your body starts falling apart in your 50s. So while the average life expectancy at birth for a lot of history might have been in the 30-40 year span, it has never been common for people to die in their 30s. Because once you make it to ~15, your life expectancy is another 30-40 years. And if you make it to 30, your life expectancy was still another 25-30 years.
I quite frankly will just read the code. Go generally discourages abstractions so any code you jump into is fairly straightforward (compared to a hierarchy of abstract classes, dependency injected implementations, nested pattern matching with destructuring etc etc).
Regarding your IDE issues- I’ve found the new wave of copilot/cursor behavior to be the culprit. Sometimes I just disable it and use the agent if I want it to do something. But it’ll completely fail to suggest an auto complete for a method that absolutely exists.
> Go generally discourages abstractions so any code you jump into is fairly straightforward
This is a really anti-intellectual take. All of software engineering is about building abstractions. Not having abstractions makes the structure less easy to understand because they're made implicit, and forces developers to repeat themselves and use brittle hacks. It's not a way to build robust or maintainable software.
I think the more charitable interpretation is "Go generally discourages metaprogramming." Which I would agree with, and I think positively distinguishes it from most popular languages.
Go mostly only have abstractions that the language designers put into the language. It is (mostly) hostile to users defining their own new abstractions.
A case in point is that arrays and maps (and the 'make' function etc) were always generic, but as a user until fairly recently you couldn't define your own generic data structures and algorithms.
Go discouraging abstracts is sorta just... wrong anyways. Go doesn't discourage building abstractions, it discourages building deep / layered abstractions.
That is a key point in my opinion. A typical stack trace of a Spring (Java) application can easily be 1000 to 2000 lines long. That is not so common in Go, as far as I know (I'm not a Go expert ...).
Not really, it's more like it encourages "wide" abstraction (lots of shallow abstractions) that get pieced together vs heavily nested abstractions that encapsulate other abstractions. It's a very imperative language.
Did you cherry pick that part of the sentence and ignored "(compared to a hierarchy of abstract classes, dependency injected implementations, nested pattern matching with destructuring etc etc)." on purpose or?
Of course, you'll probably retreat and say "Go is better for small projects", but every large project started as a small one, and it's really hard to justify rewriting a project in a new language in a business context.
You don't need a hierarchy of abstract classes, dependency injected implementations, nested pattern matching with destructuring, etc for any project. If one decides to implement these techniques in an ad-hoc basis in Go to solve problems, that's more to do with trying to apply principles and techniques from other languages in Go.
Really, there is nothing in the language that prevents you from creating crazy AbstractFactoryFactories or doing DI. What really prevents this is the community. In enterprise C# / Java, insanity is essentially mandated.
I really disagree. I think hentai is a flimsy wrapper around child fetishization and needs to be heavily regulated. I think having rape or torture simulators are extremely harmful in multiple ways.
Really would prefer the government outlaw these things but I don’t mind companies protecting themselves from liability.
In my opinion, this content has a net positive effect on society.
While of course I cannot approve those activities, we cannot ignore the fact that there exists people who are sexually attracted and aroused by children, torture, rape and many other things. And we know that you don't get to choose your sexual orientation, it just happens.
As a parent, I find it reassuring to live in a country where those people can relief their pulsions through fictional content. Stripping them from this option would only make them suffer through this pain and shame until a point where they cannot endure it anymore and end-up harming real people.
We know that harassing and witch-hunting minorities doesn't work and actually makes the situation worse. As uncomfortable as this specific case is, I believe that it's much better to help them find a way to live peacefully in society.
We can't go banning things just because they can, potentially, be used for "child fetishization".
Movies can be used for that purpose, and certainly Hollywood knows that. Books. TV. Any form of media.
Not to mention, rape and torture "simulators" (do you by change mean media?) are integral to our understanding of those things. What if rape survivors could not speak it, for it is too shameful?
And, the elephant in the room, sex is alone on this pedestal. Sex, alone, is uniquely stigmatized to a degree that nothing even comes close. Violence, no matter how gruesome and vile, does not reach even 1/1000th the scorn of even modest sex.
This is a purity game, plain and simple. The shame around sex and the extreme desire to control it comes from the patriarchy and religious ideals. These should not be humored.
I looked up the word 'hentai', and the way you used it is incorrect. It's like using the word 'porn' to mean 'child pornography.'
There is also a problem with your argument itself. Child pornography is illegal because it involves harm to children, not to suppress people with certain preferences. If there are no victims and it’s just a fictional depiction, there’s no reason to ban it.
Personally I don’t really like people who are into that but that doesn’t give anyone the right to oppress them.
Well, at least in the US, it's legal to draw, sell, and purchase those drawings—no wrapper needed it can be explicitly cp. And while I have negative infinity desire to consume or encounter this kind of content I nonetheless think it should exist as a 'methadone' for folks whose sexual frustration might otherwise drive them to do something horrible.
And if we allow it at all I don't think it makes sense to pick and choose what artistic mediums it's allowed to take no matter how abhorrent I might personally find it.
reply