Everything America is doing right now is because America is precisely NOT taking corporate decisions. America is doing things to the international order that are directly fucking up American corporations. Only a committed social democrat can look at the populist right-wing chaos right now, and claim that's "Corporate" action. If anything, Corporations were more liberal than the population at large in America, and that's part of the reason why Trump's racist populism is so popular ... he's exploiting a backlash. Turns out America has far more nativists than you ever imagined.
But yeah, go ahead and call it "Corporations in a trenchcoat" because then you don't have to think about how Corporations have actually played the biggest role in promoting diversity in America. While government consistently goes sharply left and right based on whichever lunatic the American public elects next.
> anything, Corporations were more liberal than the population at large in America
They are more to the left of the population, yes. But nothing about them or the current left in the US is liberal in any real way anymore. The Dems are nothing like they were before about 2008 and the policies they push are very very different from the ones passed in that era.
PS Liberal means French enlightenment ideals which (for example) includes meritocracy as a core tenant.
Have you been on the Internet as an adult ever? Have you been on X? What about Facebook? America is "one mouthpiece"? This is one of the most puzzling takes I've ever seen.
Americans literally post 10K articles a day about how bad the administration is and all the bad that will result from going to Venezuela ... and multiply that for literally every other thing the govt does. There isn't one thing that happens that doesn't have hundreds of posts online and in papers explaining why America is so evil for doing it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you sampled the media landscape in Tehran or Beijing? I have sampled both ... FROM those locations. Its night and day.
Even the media landscape in your typical Western Alliance country (Singapore, Japan, South Korea, UK ... etc.) cannot come close to what you see in America.
In a strange coincidence (or maybe its actually inevitable given the timing) I also saw a podcast with Matklad of Tigerbeetle and had a similar idea--I've been working on a massively multiplayer game as a hobby project, also built in zig, also fully allocating all memory at startup, and also had an experience almost identical to OP's. In my case both my client and server are in Zig. Zig is pretty great at doing performant game code (rendering and physics on the client) ... it's less great on the server compared to Go (early days and fewer batteries included, fewer things just work out of the box ... but you can find pretty much everything you need for a game server with a little hunting and pecking and a debugging few build issues).
Zig also works "okay" with vibe coding. Golang works much better (maybe a function of the models I use (primarily through Cursor) or maybe its that there's less Zig code out in the wild for models to scrape and learn from, or maybe idiomatic Zig just isn't a thing yet the way it is with Go. Not quite sure.
I feel like a lot of people go after Jai because of what Jon Blow says about XYZ political issue. Jai seems perfectly reasonable for at least the narrow task of making games in an indie studio. The macro capabilities might be terrifying in a large enterprise, but if you're handrolling all your own code and don't have to worry about a software supply chain, who cares?
I go after Jai because I think the problems it is purported to solve are better and more readily solved with existing frameworks, libraries and engines, and I think the programming language itself is entirely too low a level for these things.
You don't need to design a specific language to implement structs of arrays, you can just... do that.
Jai hasn’t even had the whole array of structs to struct of arrays thing in years.
Also speeding up compilation time really does require a new language or at least a new compiler.
And why would you “go after” any language. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. The only thing going after it is going to do is to drive up the engagement metrics and make it more popular.
>And why would you “go after” any language. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.
We are on a discussion forum. One of the common use cases of a discussion forum is criticism and debate. Yes, we could all simply use the tools we want, and not use the tools we don't, and not waste time expressing an opinion either way, but again this is a discussion forum.
And it's not as if I posted "Jai delenda est" here, I think my opinions are mild compared to what people here have to say about javascript, or C++ or PHP or any other language. I just don't think that a gamedev specific language is a good idea, compared to implementing libraries and frameworks in an existing language. I don't like the bespoke languages used by frameworks like Godot or GameMaker either.
This article radically downplays the role that unions had in killing the UK shipbuilding industry.
While it's true that shipbuilders were reluctant to introduce new technologies and techniques due to capital requirements, the much bigger reason they did not was the impediment put up by unions. Yes, capital expenditure is painful in a cyclical industry, but in previous eras of shipbuilding, companies did invest in modernization ... in those previous eras, unions were much less active or absent. Other countries also faced the same capital crunches and cyclical business environment, and still invested. It was not that the Japanese, Koreans, and Italians were somehow more "risk-taking" than the English ... no, rather their unions had not yet taken hold post-war to smother innovation.
Unions always trade away the advancements of tomorrow for the security of the workers today. When one supports a union one should always keep in mind that you are putting down for your comfort today and mortgaging your children's tomorrow. This might not be an issue if your children don't follow your trade. But if they do, you've just screwed them over. The rest of the world doesn't stand still while your union blocks radical progress.
You will often hear historians talk about working hours. They explain how Trade Unions and Socialist campaigners brought about a much reduced work day. That happened mostly over the 19th century and the 20th century. This is true, but I think the presentations of it tend to be myopic.
In the early 19th century across the whole world people were very poor by modern standards. Due to the Industrial Revolution that changed and in Europe wages increased significantly. In the UK wages in 1900 were more than twice what they had been in 1800. That's in real terms, adjusted for inflation.
Some workers campaigned for shorter working hours because they could afford it. Of course, if working hours are lower then total wages are too. Everyone knew this. By the end of the 19th century wages had risen enough that many workers were prepared to sacrifice lower total wages for more leisure time. The labour organizations would never have successfully talked their members into these campaigns unless those members were in this situation. As growth continued in the 20th century and spread to other countries there were more and more people willing to sacrifice some wage for more free time.
Suppose that there had been a law in, say, 1770 which forced people to work less than 35 hours per day. In that case many people would probably have flouted the law because their incomes were so low that they considered more work necessary to buy things. Similarly, if people find the standard working week too long then they can search out employers who offer part-time work which covers a shorter part of the week.
It's worth mentioning that in a sense, employers never control the amount of time worked. Employment contracts may specify an amount of working time, but people can leave employment. It has always been possible to work for a few years, then quit your job and enjoy some leisure time. Then take up another job. Economists call changes to the number of hours worked over the short-run changes to the intensive margin. The changes to the number of hours worked over the long-run are changes to the extensive margin - changes that come about from the decision to work or not. Of course, this doesn't mean that changes to the intensive margin are irrelevant. When the labour campaigners succeeded in bringing down weekly working hours they really did change things for many workers. Quitting jobs and restarting is inconvenient and risky in times of high unemployment. Of course, some people don't have the willpower to save up for long periods of time either. However, it's also true that changes to the length of the full-time working week probably have much less effect on total working hours than people think. For example, people will tell you that the standard working week in the US is 40 hours. In a sense this is true for full-time employees. Despite that though, working hours have continued to fall from the 1950s to the present day. This is partially because of part-time work, but also because of people taking time off by quitting.
I wouldn't say so confidently that Airbus is better than Boeing. Its just better than Boeing at THIS moment. They've been trading places over the decades. A company selling commercial airliners is really only as good as the order book for its latest aircraft. And a single stumble in developing a model can sink your orderbook for an entire decade or more.
Ultimately both Boeing and Airbus are moribund bureaucracies that survive only with the dual intravenous injections of state subsidies and duopoly.
Making commercial aircraft is a capital intensive process, but its ripe for disruption. With China on the rise we may get a third competitor on the scene with completely different cost structure.
There's also disruption coming from down below. New tools (including AI and more sophisticated manufacturing automation) are making it possible to enter the market with shorter timelines. If regulators can get off their asses, we might actually see the duopoly disrupted by new national and subnational champions. More will be better than two.
This seems to be a tiny vessel ... just 5000 tons of cargo. Most container ships carry more like 200,000 tons of cargo. Can sails scale to carry that much cargo? If not, I fear the economics will not work out for sails alone. Perhaps sails plus something else makes more sense?
You can put a helluva lot of sails on a ship. The Preußen (1902) had 73,200 sqft of sail area on a ship 482 ft long. The Very Large Container (VLC) ships that hold 200,000 tons are over 1,300 ft long. And wind is a very, very strong force (it damaged these mechanical sails!). You could definitely make a VLC ship that could be powered by sails, in theory.
But wind's biggest downside, besides it sometimes being too strong, is it can completely stop. That and the complexity of sails, and its potential for failure, would probably not make it economically viable. Even if it was technically cheaper, the inconsistency and potentially poor performance would lead customers to continue chartering motorized vessels. There's a reason everyone switched from sail to steam.
It's a Ro Ro ship for rolling cargo. Not a big one and without the additional car decks an ocean going Ro Ro ship typically has, but for what it is the cargo capacity is reasonable.
Overhead - there’s a fixed overhead to building ships, maintaining ships, crewing ships, supplying ships. If that overhead can be amortized over more cargo, it is cheaper.
It's not like the issue is with the windspeed. I'd imagine you'd only need stronger materials if the windspeed goes up, it's not like the sails break if the ship is too heavy. It just would get accelerated less by the amount of force captured by the sails. At least in my mental model of things. The only case in which you'd need to make the sails themselves stronger should be if the wind speed is somehow scaled.
Did you come first in time before the Deepki company? If so you probably have the ability to win. First in time wins, even if you were a small player. It would be their responsibility not to choose a project with a similar name to what you have if you came first.
The licensing on this project is wonky. They have an MIT license, but then they say you can't use the software for commercial purposes without contacting them. That's in contradiction to an MIT license. An MIT license is basically "use it for anything". If you don't want that, then use some kind of "copyleft" license for non-commercial users, and specify separate commercial terms for users who want to keep closed source with their modifications.
Are you a representative of a camera installation company or do you sell services? Please do not distort the information that is written on the site. And it says there that the project ASKS everyone who uses the firmware for commercial purposes to contact. You are simply confusing MIT with real life realities.
Everything America is doing right now is because America is precisely NOT taking corporate decisions. America is doing things to the international order that are directly fucking up American corporations. Only a committed social democrat can look at the populist right-wing chaos right now, and claim that's "Corporate" action. If anything, Corporations were more liberal than the population at large in America, and that's part of the reason why Trump's racist populism is so popular ... he's exploiting a backlash. Turns out America has far more nativists than you ever imagined.
But yeah, go ahead and call it "Corporations in a trenchcoat" because then you don't have to think about how Corporations have actually played the biggest role in promoting diversity in America. While government consistently goes sharply left and right based on whichever lunatic the American public elects next.
reply