Why does Rust attract this drama, pettiness, and immaturity? It's hard to take it seriously when these public tantrums are so frequent, I can't help speculating about the potential psychological disorders of those involved, and wonder how/why Rust, in particular, is a magnet for such people.
I think it’s because the project has pitched itself as one that appeals to strong ideals. Technical ideals like safety and cultural ideals like inclusion and community driven.
Because it strives to those ideals, many of the people who flock to it hold them dearly as well. So when those tenets are broken, no matter how small or big, it sows distrust.
Other languages don’t wear those ideals on their sleeves. The closest ones are zig (which categorically says that some technical aspects are non-goals) or Swift (which has the same ideals but is more restricted in scope and appears corporate led).
The problem with community led is that you have your community issues aired in public.
I’d therefore argue rust isn’t any more or less dramatic than other language projects. It’s just more public and vocal when those happen, and when it happens it goes against ideals it states which makes it worse
I think it stems from Rust's emphasis on safety. The logic is, memory errors in other languages lead to people's passwords being stolen, bank accounts compromised, etc. Those are Bad Things. Ergo, programming in anything but Rust is morally wrong and makes you a bad person.
A similar thing happened in the Ruby community, I think. Ruby was advertised as a language that would "make you happy". Its fans talked about how much fun it was to program in Ruby. Thus, anyone suggesting programming in any other language was actively trying to make you unhappy and thus a bad person.
That kind of moralizing about a choice of programming language is naturally going to attract people who think in moral terms, so every conflict becomes a battle between Right and Wrong.
Rust's pitch is that something is wrong with how other people choose to make computers do things, and we will single-handedly fix it.
That's the perfect setup to attract those who are born to be perpetually dissatisfied with everything in their surroundings.
Take a mentally balanced, low-drama individual such as, oh, random example, ... myself. I can make the machine stand on its hind legs and beg for a milk bone using nothing but C. I don't have a problem. I have nothing to run from. I don't blame any of my tools for anything. If I did, what would that be?
As an "activist language" born in an "activist organisation" (Mozilla) Rust seems to attract "activist developers" who are intent on "creating a better world". Since it is close to impossible to define "better" in an objective way - every activist knows where the world should go but they all have slightly different views on where that should be - and since many of these people have built their identity around their activism and are convinced they are right and often are somewhat lacking in interpersonal skills this is a recipe for (to use a phrase often bandied about in these circles) a toxic environment. The introduction of codes of conduct was supposed to improve on these problems but in practice they have made things worse by amplifying small 'missteps' into 'serious issues'. Combine this with the presence of a number of seemingly ever-offended individuals claiming to be 'oppressed' or 'disadvantaged', some 'toxic femin(ism)inity' [1] claiming things about 'white toxic masculinity' and you quickly end up in a mire.
Freedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense. Including the freedom to trade the "right to repair" for other benefits, such as a superior vehicle due to higher integration, reliability and peace of mind knowing that any work will have been done by authorised repairers, lower up-front cost afforded by vendor lock-in, etc.
If people wish to voluntarily trade vehicles without the "right to repair", that's their choice, that's capitalism. The state intervening in transactions one way or the other is a violation of the capitalist ideal.
I think this ignores the complexity cost on the consumer. If every product has a different set of rules, the consumer will not be able to know them or follow them. This is already a big problem with long and unique EULAs for software. This is a market failure due to an inherent information asymmetry between supplier and consumer, favoring the supplier. A similar effect is present in the healthcare industry. It harms consumers and makes the market less efficient. It makes sense to regulate against this effect for that reason. Standardization efforts have yielded a great deal of value for society.
> Freedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense.
Competitive markets and price information are also key components of capitalism - and the "right to repair" enhances both. Empirically, manufactures don't like competing for repairs, and they also obfuscate the cost of those repairs so customers would never know the total cost of ownership ahead of time.
State intervention does not violate capitalist ideals when it enhances competition, I'll go further and say coercive monopolies are anti-capitalist. Just because I bought a widget from you shouldn't force me to have it solely fixed by you at a price of your choosing.
Yes, coercion of any kind is anti-capitalist, yet you advocate for coercion by the state.
No coercion (voluntary transaction, no state involvement):
"I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok."
Coercion (state intervention):
"Hi, I see you are about to sell your widget to that other guy who would like to buy it, knowing only you can perform any future repairs. If you go ahead, I will use the full force of the justice system to punish you, up to and including death."
I realise this is unrealistically ideal. The language is very important to get right though. You are advocating for coercion for the common good, not the absence of it. The state is impotent without violence, you don't need to shy away from it. State == force.
> I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok."
I don't see how you don't see how this all-or-nothing approach as coercive. Maybe if I change the actors it'll become more apparent to you:
"You can sell your widget in our jurisdiction, but only if you agree to our laws." "Ok."
The power imbalance and lack of choice is what makes it not great. Clearly, you see the power of the state, but somehow ignoring the power of corporates over individuals; they might not be legally able to end your life, but they can ruin it (e.g. how recently-convicted eBay executives hounded their victim, or thr list of dead companies that "agreed" to work with Apple or Walmart).
I am unashamedly for using state power as a counterbalance to corporate power. Unregulated profit-seeking has never resulted in good outcomes for humans.
History is driven by theory tempered by pragmatism. The market cannot set its own rules, and standardization helps markets thrive by reducing the risk to the participants. It sounds like you've recently read Ayn Rand, so perhaps you're not ready to hear this, but an unregulated market will quickly fall apart because of rampant fraud. In a way there is a market for markets, and buyers and sellers both generally prefer a regulated market to an unregulated one. Not for ideological reasons, but for practical ones.
I don't know about Sodom... but the level of decadence in the Weimar republic was possibly over exaggerated a bit by the you know who.
Besides the widespread poverty and sexual exploitation (which was a pretty common thing in most places back in the day) I doubt even Berlin was that much more 'decadent' than many places in the west are now.
Even homosexuality remained illegal in Germany during the 20s (unlike in France or Belgium for instance) and since about 500-1000 men were still convicted per year being too public about it probably wasn't the best idea.
Distinction without a difference. Just because we give our unhappy youth's misery a name and send them home with a bottle of pills doesn't mean they're not unhappy.
IIRC there are water cooled cables that can do 350kW, the charging is generally done at pretty high voltages so you "only" need like 50 amps or something totally reasonable. Obviously the power delivery to a station simultaneously charging 10 of these would be challenging, but it's not outside of the realm of possibility.
No 350kW charging only needs 50 amps. That would mean charging at 7000V, which no car supports.
The existing 250kW charging from Tesla maxes out at 400V, which is 625 amps. The EA 350kW chargers run at 800V, so they use ~437 amps. The cables are thick, but not that thick honestly.
What is the appeal of this game? (Beyond exploiting addictive personalities with a very thinly-veiled gambling simulator that is rightly being banned.)
It looks so boring. I can't tell if the reviewers proclaiming this as an "innovation" in the "roguelike" (?) genre are trolling or not. It's an ugly slot machine game where you click a buttonn to spin. This would have been uninspired trash in 1993. What am I missing?
As someone with several dozen hours in it, I think of it as the purest distillation of the "deck builder" game genre. In a deck builder, you often shuffle your deck and the order in which you draw the cards influences the stuff you're able to do on each of your turns. This works the same way. You slowly build up a set of symbols which can appear in some random order. The first 20 of them show up on the slot board and their adjacency to other symbols causes various effects to happen. You're trying to make the 20 symbols that appear on each spin be as profitable as possible so you can keep up with the escalating rent payments.
I adore this game and I tell everyone I can about it.
The game is very much a deckbuilder like dominion or slay the spire, and the slot machine is just fluff, except maybe adding a two dimensional aspect to it.
The main appeal is: You accumulate symbols into your deck, and the slotmachine arranges a random selection of your symbols up to 20ish (don't recall 100%) onto a 4x5 grid. Afterwards, symbols interact with symbols, combos happen and it just becomes funny to make a couple hundred thousand gold in a single spin. This is very similar to the fun of having an engine go off in dominion.
And then that appeal changes as you realize that there is very little luck necessary in the game. If you try hard, you can get win streaks at highest ascension levels. If you learn the different combos beyond the obvious ones, the weird interactions you can have with items and essences and so on.
It takes some 3-4 runs to appreciate the depth the game actually has. And then the fun begins.
You're missing the rougelike part. This game is more about deck building and rougelike elements than it is about gambling. The button to spin is indeed the least interesting part of the game.
Items which start unidentified, but can still be used (with some risk of being cursed).
Ability to save and exit at any time to resume later, but no ability to save without exiting. Character death deletes the save file and requires starting from the beginning.
Combat-based gameplay, with monsters becoming more difficult as the player progresses through the map levels.
Character can level up by gaining experience, encouraging them to stay at a given level to gain power.
Food must be consumed to avoid dying of starvation. Food is not particularly common, forcing the player to keep progressing to future levels to avoid starvation.
If it's missing one or more of those elements it's a roguelite at most. It's not just random maps, or "permadeath", or item identification, or the tension between starvation and experience, it's the combination of all those elements.
By your definition "roguelike" feels exteremely narrow, maybe this is why the terms have become so conflated. When I think of rogue-like or lite games (since let's continue to conflate the terms), which are my most played on Steam, I think Spelunky, Risk of Rain, Slay the Spire, Isaac, Noita, FTL, Unrailed!, Spider Heck, maybe even PlateUp!, and of course Luck be a Landlord. It's a popular genre and none fit half your description. Sure they're all roguelite, some only having one or two of your points, but "roguelike" seems useless by your definition. It would only fit Rogue itself and pretty direct clones it seems. I haven't played Rogue....
Read what I said; I didn't say that Rogue had no RNG. I said that roguelike is not meant to mean any game that uses RNG. RNG is common is many kinds of games, we don't call a game a roguelike just because it has RNG. Video poker has RNG. We don't call videopoker a roguelike.
Doom had monsters. We don't say that any game with monsters is a Doom clone. Games are only Doom clones if they have more in common with Doom than merely having monsters.
Roguelikes are dungeon crawlers with random procedurally generated levels, played on a grid with discrete turns and permadeath. The more of these characteristics a game has, the more roguelike it is. There is some flexibility in the meaning of roguelike, room to experiment with the format for instance by using a hex grid instead of square, by loosening the turn-based constraint or even using non-euclidean geometry. But merely having RNG does not make a game roguelike. If having an RNG is what it means to be a roguelike, that makes any game played with dice or a shuffled deck of cards into a roguelike. Is Scrabble a roguelike because you draw random letter tiles and play it on a grid? That's obviously not what roguelike means.
I’ve played the game, its indeed a roguelike deckbuilder. Instead of drawing a hand of cards the same thing is simulated as a slot machine spin. Mechanically the game isn’t much different, aesthetically it is.
There is a significant level of strategy involved and a low level of luck to win.
You pick symbols to add to the wheel that have complex rules for what they reward. To oversimplify, it's slay the spire for people who like the deck-building part but find the battles tedious.
On the contrary Micropython is even used in medical devices.
I've used it extensively and it is great. With ESP32 peripherals you can even get extremely tight timings depending on what specifically you need. And of course any specific performance critical code can be written in C and everything else can be micropython.
It starts on page 102 on the PDF. I am not sure what's interesting about his vaccination timeline.
What is interesting is on page 105:
As of April 5, 2023 ... And overall, it’s clear from the data of what I can do in a day that I’m starting to recover, now already surpassing average walking from October of 2022.
I only read the timeline and he doesn't describe being anywhere near organ failure over the 2 years described. He also states he had been cleared from multiple specialist physicians which suggests he did not have signs of end-organ dysfunction.
It's hard to understand how this seemingly positive timeline ended in rapid decline and untimely death from multiple organ failure over 3.5 months unless something significant happened.
in the document the author said:
Moderna Vaccine as soon as I could get it
First dose MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE April 8th, 2021
...
Second dose MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE May 6th, 2021
...
Interestingly as well, his family seems to have a very strong genetic propensity for ME/CFS.
After I wont comment on the timeline, very hard to make a conclusion on a single case, and need to read all the document too.
overall, that document is very interesting, It wont be possible to really conclude anything from it, I think. But surely it could be integrated to other study case to look for correlation or others stuff.
if you come with facts, without generalisation on one case, we might listen and discuss.
But with this kind of speech of 5 words, yup! That won't go far.
I've been trouble shooting a dodgy 5G connection the last month or so and have entirely abandoned fast.com now. It seems susceptible to wildly inaccurate results when the connection is "bursty", the way 5G can be. I've got some very impressive screenshots from it though, next time anyone wants a measuring contest.
That would be while the radio is active. I would expect 30-50mA with the radio off, 1-3mA with automatic light sleep enabled (the CPUs will automatically enter and exit light sleep as required, even with WiFi connected), and 5uA in deep sleep.
Cheap boards like this may use external components (eg. voltage regulator, LoRA) that add tens of milliamps in quiescent currents, but a well-designed ESP32 device can achieve impressively low power.
