> Unfortunately, even now, it seems that there is a lot catching up to BK still to be done. To be fair, we had kernel level programmers working on it, we don't think anyone will pick up our code, you pretty much have to be a top 1-2% programmer to work on it, it's all in very disciplined C, people don't seem to like that any more.
All the layers that I see Rust and Zig are introducing have to do with the compiler. And if advanced compilation is a “layer” then Mr. zero-cost-abstractions C++ shouldn’t throw stones.
The Result type is specifically designed to store value-or-error. One may use it diffently but that’s what it’s made for.
The library designers had a choice between making a generic this-or-that type or a value-or-error type and they chose the latter because they thought that that would be the common this-or-that use-case.
Even Haskell’s more generic-sounding “Either” type is made for the same purpose: the “right” (as in correct) variant is the value while the left side is the error, by convention.
It took Java until Java SE 14 (last year) to produce NPE stacktraces which actually tell you which variable was null. At least in Rust third parties could have created a library to remedy a similar situation.
Bringing up points like the second/third world wages in a conversation about first-world pay will benefit neither first-world workers nor any other worker (which begs the question -- qui bono?).
Their arguments are not even consistent:
1. They claim that it is just about bringing an awareness to the issue.
2. It’s not about stiffing any worker (so-called first-world or otherwise).
3. You shouldn’t be a hypocrite.
4. But in order to be consistent (not to violate (3)) you need to also argue that you yourself shouldn’t be able to, say, work remotely for a Bay Area company and get the same pay as the locals. Therefore (1) can’t be true since you actually have to forfeit the negotiation on the altar of your own relative privilege (see (2)).
Then they close this new article by saying that:
1. We shouldn’t argue against location-based pay.
2. Then they approvingly quote someone who claims that “we should reject the notion of Location-Based Pay”. But that contradicts (1) since this means that you should actively combat the idea of location-based pay.
I didn’t say something about the progress of space travel. I made an observation about how technological progress and centralization are correlated. And I don’t think societies in the age of space travel (with the technology that that entails) will be less centralized than what we have now.
I won’t call you crazy, but I will call you naive. Modern civilization was what brought us centralized states and corporations. And yet we always seem to think that that next hill, just over the horizon is where everything will flip on its head and we will be back to some mythical past where we could roam wherever we please—all enabled by technology of course.
But it isn’t a coincidence that you chose to single out the janitors as those who are “down”.