thats like saying you should learn enough french to write an instruction manual and then you "know french".

its like saying that "english class" is only for learning enough english to write the instructions on how to repair a refrigerator.

when you study a human language, properly, you are also studying culture, history, linguistics, grammar, social interaction, psychology, geography, and many other things - you will pick these things up even if you are just trying to learn a pop song. learning that some other country has 5 levels of formality and you cannot mess them up - that is a profound experience and teaches you something about humanity. learning that some languages have multiple genders or different concepts of time. that is learning a language. the final level of human language study is to study the human condition itself through a different world view than the one you grew up in.

when you "study" a computer language, you are usually studying syntax and basic scientific method (does this work, why not, will this work, why not, repeat ad infinitum), mmmaybe you study organization like with object oriented programming - which of course is being replaced in many domains by lesser-obect languages like Go. because most computer languages are basically the same. there is no 'computer condition' that you learn about after years of comprehending the powerpc processor altivec instructions or whatever. if you go on rosetta code and look up an algorithm , no one implementation is radically different from another. they don't even use different character sets - almost everyone is still using a base of ascii.

there might be an art to being an expert in a specific computer language, like the obfuscated c contest or code golfing, but even that is much closer to something like drawing, painting, music, or sculpture (actually probably closest to kinetic sculpture) than it is to human language study. but none of those should count as foreign language study - and they don't.

designing a user interface - now you are getting closer to the same ballpark. but not really.

q - but how does it touch the ground?

a - it has a generic repetitive ground contact generator

q - yeah but.. so like wheels?

a - those are implementation details that can be left to the operations people

q - so u bought a car with no wheels

a - think about how efficiently we can create vehicles if we don't have to care about how they touch the ground

hold the line!

and you if you live to tell your children's children, you were there on the day the abstract types attacked, and stood side by side and said you would not fall before the hordes and hordes of runtime type errors

they know the number of machines it will impact, and they link to an analysis in their document, but the document says "sorry, Googlers only". it's a literal secret.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocume...

tldr is that they want to use fast features of modern processors features like SSE3 and to do that while also supporting older CPUs they claim they have to use dynamic dispatch, (in other words loading different binary code at runtime), and the "Engineering Cost" is too high, and there are a "very small number" of processors that will be impact - then they link to a secret document that shows exactly what number "very small" is.

Alphabet only has about 150,000,000,000.00 dollars cash on hand so it is understandable they need to cut down on costs.

compile with release mode and then strip the binary.

c++ apps have drifted away from filespace-saving usage of dynamic libraries a long time ago, which is why we have things like flatpack, appimage, macos "apps" which are all the dependencies shoved in a subfolder, and finally the trend towards people saying "here, download my docker image - it would take you like forever to install all the same versions of the same dependencies"

static linking is there because it prevents an enormous amount of problems with dependency versioning in dynamic link languages. things like reproducible builds become realistically possible rather than a sort of unattainable goal.

yes it is slower to compile and the binaries are bigger. for the Rust audience, that is what we want. if someone doesnt like that, there are 9023984024982093 other languages where they have made the opposite choices.

"but if only Rust had dynamic linking" --> then it would not be rust, and none of us who like rust would continue to like it. we wanted to get away from that stuff which is the whole point of moving to rust.

its like going to a vegetarian restaurant and saying "well this food is not bad but ...if they could just put some meat in it, it would be really great' - this perspective while common, is missing the whole point and not understanding the customer base or the business model.

the embedded project just needs a bunch of elbow grease. there is some movement for embedded llvm targets. its not impossible. gcc didnt become embedded overnight either. took many years.

there is an OS built on rust. i have rewritten several C things in rust and it was fine. you just cant throw pointers around willy nilly and its slower to do things. i dont care. it takes less time overall in the complete development cycle and everything that modern work needs, like built in build system and regression testing, is just right there. you dont have to deal with any of that junk.

the source code of cat in C is over 700 lines. it could be re-written in rust in probably a few dozen lines.
that alone would make it worth it to have an extra 150k of binary size. hard drives are pennies a megabyte nowdays and phones come with 8 gigs of ram. the difference between 30k for cat and 150k for cat is meaningless in comparison to the difference between being able to know cat will run without a buffer overflow vulnerability and look at the whole code on almost a single sheet of paper.

thats awesome... you know whats funny is i heard the abbreviated version which just said he was good at olive farming. i didnt know about the contracts until your comment educated me.

wonder how many other historical stories are basically about the flow of money . . . .

The name "bear" in the stock market is linked to the old story of someone who tried to sell a bearskin before actually having killed a bear and taken it's skin. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F... https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.co...

i go on reddit and everyone is saying "dont buy silver, nobody is buying silver, its a lie"

then i go on cnn, reuters, wsj, and they say "small traders on reddit are buying silver"

i am rather befuddled.

does anyone have any links to the actual scientific research paper being involved in this?

implement cross checks and dual or triple control on risk you can make sure the few psychopaths dont destroy the business for everyone else.

just like at a manufcaturing factory with 10,000 workers. its just work.

maybe increase it to 30 seconds and put it in a work queue with 10,000 people on the clock watching it.

take the giant brains that solved 10,000 problems to build google and make them solve the 10,001st problem.

its not hard.

hence why the government needs to get involved, to force them.

instead of making a better product and/or service, somehow they are allowed to help scam artists, frauds, criminals, and other malevolant actors to permeate their marketplace, target children and the elderly and other people who cannot be expected to know better... .... and they get defended by the people who should be most critical of them.

all of the tech giants have the money on hand to hire hundreds of thousands of people to police and moderate their marketplaces and they refuse to do it.

the government needs to come down on them just like it would come down on a shopping mall that allowed a criminal gang to take up residence in one of the booths and go around robbing people

modern missiles can kill a target from 100 miles.

which begs the question why we need airplanes with human pilots in the first place.

when they decided that Credit Default Swaps didn't need to be regulated very carefully back in the late 90s

This is when they told Brooksley Born that she was wrong (she thought the government should examine the question). So they all got to keep their jobs and be on magazine covers and she didn't. Nobody knew about her until after the crash and Frontline made a documentary about her.

Their decision about CDS led to cds on cdo

which led to synthetic cdo

which led to the great recession.

Notice that these decisions allowed institutions to write insurance contracts against assets that nobody knew how to value where the ratings agency was essentially being bribed to say the assets had no risk.

This was all perfectly acceptable to Summers, Greenspan, etc. They claimed they had no idea it would happen despite numerous warnings from numerous people they just chose to ignore.