I don't think this was super important given the core goals of the project. I agree that effortless tagged unions are a very valuable feature in a language, but it's also one that is paradigm shifting and requires a different set of goals.
Without naming names, there is a language out there with some overlap with Zig's domain that does have really good tagged unions. But that project has a different set of goal than Zig's and that's okay. They're both good projects.
An alternative: `zellij` is better is better. With `tmux` I never get the sense that I have "mastered" it. I simply don't know all the controls - I only have a few of my most commonly used ones. Stepping into `zellij`, I feel like I've mastered it within a few hours of using it.
I've been using tmux for some time now and have gotten pretty good with it, but the other day I got fed up with small problems of copy mode and how it displays tabs, so i tried zellij.
First impression: way too much visual clutter. Second, way too many key bindings I don't need. And one configuration file later: a perfect replacement for tmux, with just the right amount of features for me.
How does copyleft license work in this case? Aren't they legally required to open-source their sources and publish it publicly or can they hide that behind a request system?
Unlike the full GPL, the LGPL doesn't require applications of the library be licensed under the same. It would apply only to improvements to the library itself.
No, the main requirement is that they link to libfprint dynamically or provide object files such that effectively you can replace libfprint with a different version of libfprint of your choosing, but there's no requirement to open source the work that makes use of libfprint.
Partly because it's an ecosystem that I'd like to see grow. More people using it means that the other Rust-based projects I use will be better too.
Partly because it is the "carbon fiber" of programming languages. Just its use is something you can use to market to other engineers.
Partly because it's very ergonomic and I enjoy working with it. I'd much rather dive into esoteric Rust code than esoteric C code.
Partly because code written in of Rust will have less errors than code written inside of C. It isn't just memory safety - it's all of the type theory/best practices we figured out in the last 50 years.
I understand why it was written in C. It's an easier language to work with and they probably needed something out quickly. But coding in Rust is a sign (not proof, but a sign) that a program is of quality make.
For this type of unikernel project C makes sense. I’m a fan of both C and Rust. I like that Rust prevents typical code safety problems, but I like that C hardly changes over time whereas younger languages like Rust are constantly changing. It’s plenty possible to write correct, clean, memory-safe, and understandable code in C, especially if verified by extensive fuzz testing and code scanning.
It’s really small. I know c doesn’t translate to rust, but it would be a good template for someone doing that. You need the state in an os, and using threads as memory containers is a bad idea here. But you could certainly do the array thing or arc everything steal the interrupt notion from the embedded rust community, write a different async runtime and that would get you most of the way
Making the world a worse place? If you look carefully you’ll realize most of the harms and negative effects of technology are due to it being primarily funded by advertising and trying to maximize ad revenue.
I see again and again this non-argument on HN. Yes, if you get robbed but not killed then it is a better outcome than getting killed but this doesn't make robbing good by any measure.
But what if you make the punishment for robbing harsher than murder? Maybe people start killing you after robbing you to get a lesser sentence. It happens in some parts of the world, if they accidentally hit you with their car they'll run over you again to finish the job because if you sue or go after them it'll be real bad.
Point is we have to be careful about how we regulate things or we can shift things in an even worse direction.
Mobile games are only harmful to a relatively tiny group of addicted gamers, while internet ads have very serious consequences acting on society as a whole.
I don’t think mobile gaming companies have a potential to destroy free press, or negatively affect mental health of wide population of teenagers, or invade privacy of billions of people. They simply don’t have the scale for any of that.
Ads are harmful, no doubt, but I do not think they are more harmful than the normalization of gambling in our society.
'I watched an ad, and then [my entire life was destroyed]' is quite hard to imagine, unless it's an ad for an MLM, crypto, entrepreneurship scam, or gambling.
On the other hand, I absolutely know people who started out in soft gambling who then proceeded to throw their life (and sometimes families) away trying to catch the next high with higher and higher stakes gambling until they lost everything, and then some.
We also don't really know the impact gambling is going to have in the near future. Loot boxes, online gambling, internet celebrity gambling, etc. really only became popular around ~2010 or later, and the kids who have been growing up with low-risk gambling as a daily accessible thing on their iPads have not come into adulthood yet.
> Mobile games are only harmful to a relatively tiny group of addicted gamers, while internet ads have very serious consequences acting on society as a whole
It is still unethical to even play "free"-to-play games. You are entertained at the expense of a small group of addicts that are often spending more money than what they can afford, and, at least in many games, just being logged in helps create a nicer environment that lures in those people. If you are not there to be a whale you are there to be lure for them. It might not be harmful to you to play, but you are being harmful to the addicts.
All those mobile games frequently require advertising in the first place to race their customers/victims. We should definitely ban a lot of the dark patterns which would coincidentally improve AAA games which use similar patterns (eg increasing duration of gameplay because of grinding mechanics).
And the largest benefit of modern technology comes from the fact that so much of it is "free" (ad-supported). Without ads, there would simply be no effect at all.
Wikipedia and stack overflow and forums like reddit and chat and similar are the biggest benefits of the internet and they are very cheap to run, you could run them based on donations. Reddit is more expensive than it has to be since they try to pivot to more ads and media, but a text forum is very cheap.
The biggest benefit from ad supported tech are search and video, the rest would be better without ads. Reddit would be a better place if they didn't try to get ad revenue etc, in those cases them chasing revenue makes user experience worse instead of better.
I don't have the study at hand but this was proven false: the impact was negligible (% points) as the fundamentals are extremely good for the big platforms. Take FB and Google: they already have extremely strong (and legitimate) profiles of users without following you around the web.
If this is true, then there's a chance that there's no secret sauce to GPT4 that [Google doesn't already know about](https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16668).
I think that whole thing was a bit overblown. RHEL is free for individuals. When I need the stability of a server OS, I'd rather just use the real thing.
Correct because it’s free if you agree to the terms. Amazing concept.
It’s like if you let me in your house, let me use your stuff, and then you ask me not to break something and then I break something and you kick me out and I get upset.
It’s in the EULA. They don’t deny it and it’s their right.
The problem is RMS and all the people supporting FOSS and the GPL say Red Hat, and any other company, are well with in their rights to have that clause.
And this causes people, who didn’t pay for RHEL, won’t pay for Rocky or Alma or any other clone to hate a company they never supported.
Do people on social media believe that all employees should freely share confidential internal information? Or is it that this is an email from a frustrated person and no one should ever share "bad feelings"? Or is it that CEOs should never be aggressive and "how dare he punish someone who broke the rules"?
Am I crazy for thinking that this is completely reasonable in context?
I worked there at the time and got this email when it went out. It was completely reasonable in context. I assume these days, everyone just knows that you can't openly share something within a tech company without it getting leaked, but that change was just starting to happen in 2010 (at least at FB), and everyone could tell something nice was getting lost. C'est la vie.
The email reads like a tantrum, mostly because of one unneeded paragraph. The employee should be fired but the CEO sending a company wide email blast that boils down to "Quit or we'll find you and fire you" is just....bizarre and immature?
If you change the subject line and cut the 3rd paragraph it comes across as pointless but standard corporate nonsense where they feel the need to reiterate common sense stuff and ignore the fact that most people work for money not ideals, but having such a petty line reeks of playground bullshit.
It wasn't really "Quit or we'll find you and fire you."
The real threat went unmentioned because it's illegal. It was "Quit or we'll find you and fire you and every other company/startup in SV will know why we fired you."
Why would that be illegal in the USA? It's not slander or libel if it's true.
There are plenty of good reasons for companies to not honestly describe bad behavior of former employees, but I don't see that one of them is that it's illegal.
I think a number of people misunderstand that the reason why a lot of companies have a "Don't talk about why someone left" de-facto policy is because if there's any ambiguity it's probably not worth the cost of having to defend yourself from a possible libel lawsuit, and not that it's against any law.
The cost/benefit of that changes if there's no ambiguity, evidence of truth is after all a good defense against libel charges (in most sane jurisdictions...), and if the reason is "big" enough they may feel obliged to make it known.
Defamation that questions someone's ability to do their profession is in a special class. You don't want to be the slightest bit wrong about anything in that, i.e. were they misquoted or overheard instead of talking directly to a reporter? Might some employer somewhere who would hire them view any such distinction as different?
Similarly, they leaked data but didn't or he lied and they were entering the phone market? Details wrong could be a long civil case, all the details right could still be a long case.. The only reason to engage in that kind of behavior is to sabotage yourself.
The sentiment is totally ok to think and feel. But it makes you look like an insecure loser to blast the entire directory with you latest grievance.
If you want to project power as a ceo you have the communication task delegated to someone who specializes in company communications and information security.
Honestly I cannot express how much I don't understand this idea.
He has some extremely important message to pass to entire company (failed projects due to lost trust in mobile sector can easily shake company).
Why on earth delegate that and have yet another canned corporate email that will be forgotten 20 minutes later? You can always run content by someone experienced if you want to round up the edges, but if you have something to say to people usually it's best to just say it.
Agree 100%. When I read this sentence "If you want to project power as a ceo you have the communication task delegated to someone who specializes in company communications and information security" I literally had to read it like three times because it seemed so obviously backwards to me I thought I must be missing a negative somewhere.
I hear on HN 99% of the time how folks don't like corporate speak and that they wish leaders were more forthcoming and honest, and here someone is arguing that they just want the corporate-speak version of it. It is completely baffling to me.
Corporate leaks are pretty serious, and maintaining a culture of no leaks is a CEO-level priority.
Handling these at the CEO level feels far more appropriate and effective than delegating it to a security specialist nobody's heard of before and whose e-mail will mostly just be ignored.
I don't see "insecure loser" at all, I see a CEO acting correctly to nip a problem in the bud.
Except for the "please resign" subject line which is a bit hyperbolic.
Corporations aren't the only non-individual entity you can sue, and the ability to sue could be extended separately from other person-like rights or responsibilities (see, for instance, that corporations can't vote).
I was at Facebook shortly after this. Zuck was very present in internal comms, regularly posting on the internal Facebook and holding a weekly Q&A. To me it felt transparent and authentic, and I felt aligned with company strategy.
This email was famous, the clickbait subject gave some people a fright, but overwhelmingly people were strongly aligned with the sentiment and spoke about it in a positive way.
Now at another big tech co and I hear from my CEO and CVPs via mainstream news instead of internal channels. I feel very little connection to the culture and have no idea what our strategic direction is.
Yeah. The head of corporate comms or someone in that chain of command would be very justified in sending something along of the lines of:
This was shared externally from our internal company meeting. I'd like to remind everyone that keeping the information shared in these meetings confidential allows us to be more open with all our employees. etc.
There may be times for the CEO to send the message but, especially at a high visibility company, it's probably inevitable it will become more of a personal thing.
No decent mobile app, no groups, no Messenger, no Instagram, no WhatsApp, no real advertising product. It isn't 35x better, but there is no way the product offering is worse.
The Facebook experience feels worse, but that's because the novelty wore off and people don't share anywhere as much as they did back in the heyday.
The timeline changed into the monster we experience today. We had pokes, games that interacted with our profiles, pictures and albums that all displayed. We still have the network concept where if I went to MIT I was part of that group. This is golden age facebook peaking around facebook graph 2012.
WhatApp came with 55 employees, instagram had 13. They introduced groups October 2010. No messenger or mobile app.
People have stopped sharing but many shares are suppressed and ads appear every 3rd post. Things haven't improved.. but I see they are selling verified profiles now I guess some people were looking forward to that product offering
I don't even use WhatsApp or Instagram so I judge Facebook on the basis of Facebook alone. I still use it but there are literally only maybe a dozen people I know who use it with any regularity. I certainly won't pay Facebook to use it.
We could discuss whether it is reasonable for an actual leak: information which is accurate in its details, so as for to be vanishingly improbable that it's anything but a leak.
Information that is false isn't a leak; it's rumor anyone could have started, pretending to be a Facebook insider. Someone could have forged an e-mail, which someone else believed and so it goes.
You can't simultaneously say that it's a fabrication, and imply that it's a real leak by calling for someone to be let go.
Everyone who received the e-mail would have first seen the subject line "Please Resign" and that it's from Zuckerberg, before seeing that it has many recipients. That doesn't seem very reasonable, even in case of an actual leak.
My line is drawn at bona fide business concerns. Sharing details about an upcoming product is a hard no in my book, unless that product is illegal to the point that whistleblower protections would apply. But this response where Zuck is flipping out (and sent everybody an email with the heart-stopping subject line of "please resign")? It's borderline, in my mind -- I wouldn't share it, personally, but it doesn't seem particularly wrong that it was shared.
It makes sense to address information leaks in an a cc:all email. And it makes sense to give the leaker a polite way out of an awkward and difficult position by suggesting they resign quietly. The email tries to command the employee to leave or face consequences. Offering the employee the option to leave (as a way to avoid implied consequence) is better.
The CEO calling it 'an act of betrayal', appealing to the social good and appealing to building a company culture, is an admission to my ears that company structure and his authority is not his primary concern.
The CEO already has the authority to remove someone/everyone for this behaviour, so the appeals to the good and to not betray a personal relationship with Mark Zuckerberg himself or cultural connection that Mark wants, just ring hollow. If the leaker-employee sees benefit in revealing secrets to the public, losing the relationship to a billionaire he's never going to meet, or cutting down a company culture he is willing to lose, is not a deterrent.
Setting up a tone and example for future leakers, is better done by establishing the reaction authority will have to the behaviour in the future.
You're using a lot of absolutes ("all", "ever", "never"). You're implying there are a few absolute positions, but, as commenters have pointed out, that's not the case (it never really is).
You're not crazy for thinking it's reasonable in context, but it's also not crazy to disagree with you.
> Let's commit to maintaining complete confidentiality about the company—no exceptions. If you can't handle that, then just leave.
It's like a teacher dressing down the entire class for something one student did. A single person at the company made this fireable offense. Why is he treating the rest of them like naughty children? Especially since he's so sure he'll be able to catch the guilty party. Catch the person who did it, send a professional email to the rest of the company reminding them that leaking confidential info will get you fired. Treat the adults in your company like adults.
It’s reasonable to not want your employees to share internal information. It’s perhaps less reasonable to put an entire company on blast because one person violated that expectation.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's only the subject line the parent is referring to. There are practically infinite possible choices for a relevant subject line on any topic, with varying degrees of specificity and tone. Zuckerberg chose super-low-specificity, super-high-negativity. It reads to varying degrees as impetuous, petty, vindictive, ominous, drunk on power, and emotionally retarded (in my personal opinion). It's also unfortunately not terribly surprising/rare in situations like these.
Even something as crap as "to the leaker: please resign" would be infinitely better. At least that won't give the entire recipient list a heart attack.
General population/society has become soft and promotes freely sharing confidential internal information to solicit outrage and/or support. Back then this wasn't the case
Just because certain behaviors are common among CEOs, doesn't mean those behaviors have no elements that can be criticized (i.e. "everybody does it" does not equate to "good"). Also, "snowflake" is pretty meaningless by now. In most cases, it's simply used as a synonym for, "people I hate."
We're not talking here about being overly critical in a code review, or even criticizing someone who pushed bugs to prod. This is someone who intentionally violated company policy in a way that harms everyone who works there. It is not business as usual. Getting mad about this sort of thing is like getting mad about somebody keying your car or spreading false rumors about you: entirely reasonable and justified and not an interaction where professionalism is expected.
Sometimes corporations face tough intense competition, where margins are pressured and products need to be shipped or media/government/bad actors go on a propaganda. If you can't handle that please join a steady, stable electric company or join the government.
This leak wasn't about violating labor laws. It was a leak about a potential future product which they were no longer considering pursuing. This wasn't sharing something bad being done by the company. It was leaking internal information that simply damaged the company with no societal benefit.
As someone who has been using ChatGPT to code recently - code reviews are one of the worst ways to use ChatGPT. Sure, it'll catch some stuff every now and then, but realize that it's still just a language model and things like design or code reviews require real understanding.
Using ChatGPT to code review is very much like posting a picture of your code on StackOverflow or Reddit.
The bot is not meant to completely replace code review but to improve the code to be more production ready and catch any errors that might not be caught by the developers. In my experience more than 40% of code review comments relate to the specific changes and do not need a global context from the project.
This actually reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately. What we call honesty is actually two different things: truthfulness and openness. Americans are probably truthful and not open.
Without naming names, there is a language out there with some overlap with Zig's domain that does have really good tagged unions. But that project has a different set of goal than Zig's and that's okay. They're both good projects.