That "waste" of resources was absolutely tiny. Took me just some minutes. And I didn't do it because of DEI, just because I think it's a better name.

Same for me, but kind of because of DEI. Basically, it offended some people, and even if I thought it was a little overblown, it took about 2 minutes to change the default name of future repos to be something else (which was at least as good, and perhaps better). It made some people happier at approximately zero cost to myself, so why not.

Making "some people" happier isn't zero cost if the people in question are intolerant lunatics with ideas corrosive to the social fabric. It's one reason why the pendulum is swinging fiercely in the other direction.

TIL "I'm uncomfortable calling it master-slave, can we do main-replica?" is the idea of an "intolerant lunatic" that is "corrosive to the social fabric".

Good Lord, just listen to yourself.

Red-lined districts still shape America to this day and several red states have been rampant on racial districting to screw minority communities. You can't even pretend the history of slavery is in the past in America.

This is why I left California and utterly done with you people.

I live over 1,000 miles from California, bud.

Yeah that’s how I feel about most progressive stuff - sure it might not bother me, but also changing doesn’t bother me either. It costs you so little to accommodate other people.

I used to feel that way up until about a year ago. At worst I would roll my eyes at the silliness and then move on, because this stuff rarely matters much one way or another.

But then the 2024 elections happened, along with a bunch of exit polls, voter interviews, and other data showing that a surprising (to me anyway) number of people hate this kind of virtue signalling to the point that it can sway their vote. It's very possible those swung votes have ushered in a host of harmful changes that I think do matter a great deal. So now I'm sick of this stuff, it's not only a waste of time it's actively harmful.

Sorry it was exit polls that convinced you not to care about other people so much?

Don’t fool yourself kiddo, you were always an asshole, you were just waiting for the right excuse, just like the rest of us.

The deal with progressive ideology is that it progresses. Fixing inequality, prejudice, and injustice are a lifelong project, because as fast as you address issues, bigots will create new things to be bullies about. You don’t get to just get off at some point and be like “oh okay things seem good enough now.”

Progressive ideology tends to treat moral progress as inevitable, while pursuing social transformation in ways that can undermine the very institutions and norms that make progress possible.

I don’t think it’s true that the culture war issues themselves were the cause of those swayed votes so much as there’s a propaganda machine running 24/7 stoking those resentments and using such cultural critique as fodder.

This works really well to whip people into an othering frenzy to distract them from voting for their own economic interests.

I’d like to see a study showing 1) people aware of this issue and 2) for whom it swung their vote to the right. That’d have to be, what, 10 complete idiots? “Well, I was going to vote for A, but some of B’s supporters asked if I would please be considerate, and that’s a bridge too far.”

Oh, sure, it was people asking for branch renaming.

It wasn't the multiple dedicated Neo-Nazi propaganda networks that call all minorities and immigrants and political opponents enemies of the state.

It wasn't the election of politicians that are actual, convicted rapists and felons who distract by pointing to those who can't fight back.

I have encountered at least two bugs due to the change in names.

Everything considered I invested an hour or more in total. I am pretty sure decades of engineering time and resources were invested over the years because some people didn't like a default globally used for decades.

I find the comparison about being good for newcomers rather interesting. I would say none of them are easy for beginners. I don't see where C(++) can shine here. For a beginner into systems programming Go would be much easier as example. And if it's about programming in general then there are many, many more languages to choose from that are all easier to learn than C(++) and Rust.

> I don't see where C(++) can shine here [..] Go would be much easier

There is a world of difference between the complexity of C and C++. C is in principle quite easy to understand (besides some syntactic quirks), similar to Turbo Pascal back in the day. Go, on the other hand, has various features that are not so easy for beginners to understand (e.g., interfaces with all their rules, or value vs. pointer receivers with all their complex consequences). Since the introduction of generics, the complexity of Go has taken a leap forward, moving even further away from C and closer to C++ in terms of complexity.

Personally, coming from higher level languages (Python, TS, Java, C#) I've found Go by far the easiest to get productive in.

You're probably right that for trivial examples C is, in principle, the simplest to learn and understand. But in reality, non-trivial C projects come with complex build systems, makefiles, macros, endless compiler flags... I've found it pretty hard to, for example, fork a moderately-sized C project and modify it. Hell sometimes even building it is a challenge when you don't understand make/build system errors and how to set up and configure C projects.

Go, however, i could just get up and running. Simple to use modules, simple to import dependencies, simple to build projects, great centralized documentation. Now granted do i fully understand all the nuances of things like pointer receivers and generics? No, but i don't really understand memory allocation in C either to be quite honest, and I've spent more time trying to understand C in my life than i have Go (please understand: extremely little in both cases)

Rust does seem similarly impenetrable honestly, except that it seems much easier to build and manage Rust projects. But I definitely can't even just read Rust code and get it the way i can Go (or even C)

Programmers using high-level languages develop models about how programming works, particularly around memory management, type safety, and abstractions. These models don't transfer to C, so they must be "unlearned" to some degree, which research shows is often harder than learning from scratch. Programmers accustomed to Python, TypeScript, or C# face specific conceptual "paradigm shifts" when switching to C such as manual memory management (as you said), pointer discipline and lack of abstraction (you have to take care of many things which the high-level language offered or took care of).

Programming beginners (to whom my statement applied) lack preconceived notions about what programming "should" be like. They build their mental models around C's paradigms from the start, avoiding the cognitive dissonance experienced by those expecting automatic memory management or rich standard libraries and integrated build systems.

I suppose, but i tried to learn C before i tried to learn anything else. If it had been my only option, i wouldn't have stuck with programming (in fact i didn't, several years passed between trying to learn C and successfully learning Typescript)

Well I know several GC-based languages but for others:

C was easy to learn, hard to use. C++ was hard to learn, hard to use. Rust was hard to learn, easy to use. Rust was only one of those I was able actually learn and use.

As another commenter said, the part with Intel is the only manufacturer making leading chips, doesn't really makes sense.

Right now Intel is losing a lot, lucky to them Nvidia invested. So far I would only use AMD. In my desktop is an AMD, because it is just the fastest desktop CPU und the threadrippers are absolute multicore beasts for servers.

I've been super impressed with AMD chips as well. I have actually had to try to find CPU bound use cases because the damn thing is so fast it makes you question if it actually worked

No, the law is strictly different for politicians. They're treated much much better by law they themselves passed. They're above the people.

That specific law is for politicians only yes, but you can still go to court if someone insults you - § 185 StGB.

But that one is almost never enforced. While the politician one makes the police knock at your door

For me the first chart says everything: It is a feeling. I know so many people or seen them on the internet who say "you can't say anything anymore" and then still continue to write the most horrible stuff on social media without any consequences.

Also the way we talk nowadays, I don't know, I would feel ashamed and it is in my opinion way more aggressive, much more threatening and bullying and insulting. And don't let me start with facebook.

So if you tell me, you are not allowed to say so much anymore, I would say quite the opposite.

I remember especially (still ongoing) discussions about heatpumps and electric cars. How much bullshit was/is out there and proper hate against it.

The people do write so much really harmful stuff and are more than happy to do it. It seems to be the new normal to threaten peoples life and their families ones as well about any topic. Seems no problem with that?

Still I agree we need to fight against really bad stuff like the chat control that always comes up atleast since the early 2000's.

That is a very strange calculation for me or I missed something. This is an open-source project, so all human contributors cost zero. He does not count himself as a cost, ok fine and understandable if you don't wanna earn from this project it is kind of an ok look at cost. But if I see it in this relation, because of Copilot his "team" costs now $41.73 a month more than before.

But the real cost that would be interesting is time value: Does he really spends less time for the same feature?

Post author here. Few things.

You are right that when someone (a human) submits a PR it didn't cost me anything (short of my time to review it). But those folks are not a team, not someone I could rely on or direct. Open-source projects -- successful ones -- often turn into a company, and then hire a dev team. We all know this.

I have no plans to commercialize rqlite, and I certainly couldn't afford a team of human developers. But I've got Copilot (and Gemini when I use it) now. So, in a sense, I now do have a team. And it's allowed me to fix bugs and add small features I wouldn't have bothered to in the past. It's definitely faster (20 mins to fire up my computer, write the code, push the PR vs. 5 mins to create the GitHub issue, assign to Copilot, review, and merge).

Case in point: I'm currently adding change-data-capture to rqlite. Development is going faster, but it's also more erratic because I'm reviewing more, and coding less. It reminds me of when I've been a TL of a software team.

> So, in a sense, I now do have a team.

In another, more accurate sense: no, you have a tool, not a team. A very useful tool, but a tool nonetheless.

If you believe you have a team, try taking a two week vacation and see how much work your team does while you're gone.

There is a new continuum. "Team" is just a convenient word to emphasize that "Tools" are moving significantly in the "Teams" direction.

The post emphasizes the degree this is true/not.

Different people are going to emphasize changing attributes of new situations using different pre-existing words/concepts. That's sensible use of language.

No, it's clickbait and that's why this submission got flagged, sorry.

A team is comprised of people. Being able to prompt an LLM to create a pull request based on specifications is very useful, but it's not a team member, the same way that VSCode isn't a team member even though autocomplete is a massive productivity increase, the same way that pypi isn't a team member even though a central third party dependency repository makes development significantly faster than not having one.

If this article were "I get a massive productivity boost from $41.73/month in developer tools" it'd be honest. As it is, it's dishonest clickbait.

As the saying goes, there is no "AI" in "Team".

That is not a clickbait title. It is normal use of language, and the articles contents are not surprising or misleading relative to the title.

Titles don't need to be pedantic.

>There is a new continuum. "Team" is just a convenient word to emphasize that "Tools" are moving significantly in the "Teams" direction.

Exactly.

Ok, that's cool that you can develop faster now, but as the other comment: it is a tool, not the cost of a team. It still for me a very strange comparison.

But nonetheless, thanks for the explanation :).

That is a very strange calculation for me or I missed something. This is an open-source project, so all human contributors cost zero. He does not count himself as a cost, ok fine and understandable if you don't wanna earn from this project it is kind of an ok look at cost.

But if I see it in this relation, because of Copilot his "team" costs now $41.73 a month more than before.

But the real cost that would be interesting is time value: Does he really spends less time for the same feature?

I agree only partially with you. Yes some problems were ignored for far too long, but these providers sometimes block stuff that is just adult content. And it is an issue, if a small amount of providers have so much power. Visa and Mastercard more or less have the entire market. Both US american as well, so not even an alternative from other countries.

And with Facebook: I mean yes theoretically it is good that the EU is trying to do something, I'm all up for it. But Facebook is in my opinion worse than it ever was and gets more worse every day.

I think what he means is the same issue I have. I also fly a lot in Europe and the only choice I have is Ryanair. I don't have a problem that Ryanair exists, rather having an issue, that they cut out every other carrier. I would be happy to pay a higher price for better service, reliability and the most: more space on the seat. The problem is not Ryanair directly, the problem is the lack of choice.

are there airports that only serve ryanair? or do you just fly unpopular routes that noone else thinks is worth serving?

Ryanair often uses different model than traditional airlines. That is not hub and spoke, but instead same plane flying one city to next. Often with handful of hubs that are more connected. This means they also serve "unpopular" cities as part. Where the ground fees can be lot cheaper. And due to how cheap their pricing is there is what could be called organic demand. Just because you can fly to new place for cheap people will.

Yes.

Ryanair has been flying to regional airports near me for the last nearly 30 years.

But a different airport every few years.

What is happening is well documented by the local press who smell a story.

What Ryanair does is approach a small regional airport and offer to fly to it if the landing fees are low enough or even non-existent. And they often try and bundle sharing advertising etc.

Of course this is not great business for the airport. They feel they have to accept something, as it is better than nothing, but it’s not great.

Of course Ryanair doesn’t renew when the contracts are up etc - it has already lined up the next airport.

And the shared marketing? That’s often the banners you see at airports advertising other Ryanair destinations. And the Ryanair marketing budget is insider funny money but the airport contribution is real money …

Not the airport itself, but the route.