I just call them not great developers. The users pay your fat salary and you yourself are a user for everything else in the world and at all other times. It's not some icky burden to talk to them or let them talk to you, it's the job. If you don't like the job, then you don't like the job, and should not be doing the job.
I don't have a lot of patience or sympathy for this attitude even though it's practically universal. There might be a few legitimate cases where someone basically has a handicap where they are clinically incapable, but then that's a handicap like a broken leg. A defect. Maybe it's ok to make allowances for them in the name of equality but it's absolutely making allowances, and should not be a norm and should not be something just everyone gets to claim for their mere comfort and convenience. IMO anyway if I were king and all that.
Maybe, but check if there's another level to it: is it because their performance review is based on metrics for which meeting with customers is a hindrance?
If I'm graded on getting tickets done or getting some feature out, then meeting with users may be beneficial and the right thing to do but incentives turn it into swimming upstream...
I live in Finland, where in "product companies" developers don't always speak great English. Or they might not speak Finnish if they're immigrants. So the employer wants to pick and choose product managers that they think are "presentable" enough in terms of linguistic or social competence to put directly in front of a customer. They seem to value this high enough that they are willing to take the productivity hit from the indirection.
About to move over myself. Apparently it now works to migrate from zvault 13.3 to freecore.
I can not think of any way to decide between freecore and bsdnas.
Both freecore and bsdnas seem to be single developer projects so far. Similarly there were at least 2 other 15.x ports done by individuals even earlier but not really pubblicized with their own websites. And one of those, dravanet, was what bsdnas forked from, and dravent continued to develop after that too so that's yet a 3rd distinct not-certainly-dead version really.
They are all still a toss up at the moment but as long as it continues to be more or less painless to hop then I guess it doesn't matter which you switch to right now.
And then xigmanas is a bit behind still on 14.x but not derelict, but also different and not as painless a migration. But it's been around a long time and even if it's slower to update, seems safer and more predictable if you want to find a new home once and not have to be hopping 3 more times over the next couple years.
Gas is an important redundancy that will be a huge loss to give up. Not merely the 2nd source of energy, but in a totally different form with totally different pros, cons, and failure modes.
It's exceedingly useful that you can run all your gas appliances at full power at the same time without needing the ridiculous amount of copper or aluminum it takes to carry the same load in electric form, and do all that while the power is out, because the power is up on poles and the gas pipe is in the ground.
Now imagine trying to replace the redundancy by ups or generator. The amount of copper, electronics, and batteries needed to make a ups that can run your furnace or ac and your stove and hot water is just ridiculous. Most people simply won't have it. Wildly impractical luxury.
It's kind of ridiculous to require $billion chip fab infrastructure to make heat, and have your stove be this delicate piece of complex electronics and the burners are all these fixed little circles that don't heat pans evenly because it costs more money to make the fancy burners large enough to cover a whole pan.
Meanwhile a gas stove is just a couple chunks of dead metal and almost no moving parts and doesn't even need electricity let alone any electronics. That is a huge practicality and robustness win.
And heats pans more evenly because the flame does not have this weird artficially sharp 0%/100% border. Even a small simmer burner heats a large pan more evenly because although there is a hotter spot in the center, the flame still spreads out and travels along the pan and up the sides no matter what size it is. It doesn't care what size the pot or pan is, and also doesn't care what the pan is made out of. That is huge.
Electronics and heat are not natural together. It's a constant fight to try to prevent heat from killing elctronics. Every day that one of the thousands of electronic parts of an inductive range sittng above a hot oven and below a hot pan doesn't fail is a lucky day. It's not just reliable by default by just being simple.
What you say is all well and good, but the reality is that most gas appliances do not work without electricity. Your stove is about the only thing that can work on gas alone. The furnace, the water heater, the dryer, they all need electricity.
So you need backup electricity either way. And in the case of a furnace it's still a significant draw due to fans and/or pumps so to get multi-day resilience you need a big battery. Less than if it was a heatpump, sure, but this battery and inverter system will use all the same amount of electronics either way.
But you pay $100 a month just for the ability to use the gas that you will then pay for. If you want fossil redundancy then go with a propane generator, sits on property as energy storage, available for use when needed. You’re also in at a relatively decent price, for a backup system.
That coupled with batteries and you eliminate that Distribution cost double up by having to be served by two utilities. Payback is under 2-5 years for that backup, when you account for the distribution cost elimination
A propane generator will not buy you much time or output.
If the home owner has natural gas? They should could get a natural gas generator, that way they have a continuous supply of fuel if the grid fails.
Grid and gas failure? That happens only after a significant event, like a major earthquake. Not much you can do about those sorts of events. ( The person lives in Ohio… so not as much concern. )
Cost-wise? They would be better with a dual fuel system for heating. They live in Ohio, they probably have AC so moving to dual fuel when the AC system needs to be replaced is the smarter option.
A friend of mine just got a generac generator, fully installed it was 17k. Pretty steep, not to mention the gas bill with any significant outage will be huge.
Gas infrastructure doesn't come cheap, it probably costs a million/mile. But electricity is necessary and already built out. Nobody is using ALL the appliances at the same time. Intelligent grid and appliances will shift demand.
I appreciate the argument, but I can’t make my own natural gas. I was considering all electric with a backup wood burner insert in my chimney. I’ll probably end up with vehicle2home as a backup and solar panels, maybe not in that order. Natural gas is extremely good at generating heat, and I completely understand why people prefer it.
No one likes steam these days because it's old and difficult to install correctly or modify later, but steam has some really cool features.
First, it doesn't require a pump to circulate. That means both the mechanical reliability of not having the electric motor and rotating water seal, or any moving part at all(1), but also you don't need any electricity.
It doesn't even need the usual low voltage circuit for the thermostat and gas valve. These are not common but also not new, there are millivolt systems where the thermostat & gas valve run only on the electricity generated by the thermocouple on the pilot.
It means that when ice has taken down all the power lines in a region, and blocked all the roads for repair crews to fix them at the same time, your heat stays fully working. No air blower, no water pump, not even 24v for the thermostat, and not by dint of having a ups which is just more stuff to fail.
Same goes for the hot water and the stove but that's more about gas than steam.
There is no getting around the huge efficiency of heat pumps of course. It just still kills me that we are accepting it as normal to require TSMC and ASML $billion chip fab infrastructure to make heat. But I guess you could say the same about leds and light so whatever I'm not saying we shouldn't use heat pumps.
(1) there is a moving part in the vent that opens and closes on each radiator, but that is a quality of life and longevity thing. If the vent fails to close or seal, the radiator still works, you still have heat, it just makes a hissing noise and consumes more fresh water which corrodes the boiler faster so it may leak in 5-10 years instead of 20-never.
Honestly I wish there was a good way to burn wood in an insert to heat the water that goes through my radiators, to offset an electric system. We tend to get a lot of weeks in the 20 or 30’s where a decent air to water system might do fine, but it would be amazing to burn wood for a few days when it sits at 0.
My father has a wood burning boiler connected to the same water circuit that heats the radiators as his air-water heat pump. Originally when the house was built it was a wood-oil combi boiler, later on the oil burner was ripped out and the heat pump installed (at that point there were government grants available for replacing oil heating with heat pumps).
It does work well, and when it gets cold in the winter and the efficiency of the heat pump drops, he burns wood. But honestly the system is a jungle of pipes and valves, and the guys who did the heat pump installation were unable to wrap their heads around it. Luckily my father is a handy guy so he was able to do it himself.
But I'm thinking if one were to do something like this from scratch, without the history of the existing boiler already being there and installed, I wouldn't bother with it. Just have a few good old school wood stoves with significant thermal mass (masonry heater or whatever you call them in the US) in the house that you can use to provide extra heat when it's cold, and as backup in case there's an electricity outage.
Maybe but at this point I no longer think it's fair to be quite this dry on something that quite so many people would be legitimately sincere about anyway so I wouldn't exactly apologize for being the victim.
Take heart in the thought that this is going to ease off a bit in a couple of years when the current solar cycle dies down and the sun is not dumping about 5% more energy into the atmosphere than normal.
It's not neutral until everyone has equal access to it.
You as a nobody, should be able to use it right now, to strip away all privacy and see the very thoughts of all those people, since that is what they can do to you right now.
If a majority of people think a thing should happen, then by definition that thing should probably usually happen.
If the structure of the moment (societal norms, laws, etc) doesn't provide for it, then the outcry is the initial stage of the conversation and process where we collectively decide whether or not the structure needs to be updated. IE, figure out some new laws or legal principles to apply existing laws such that the thing the majority has decided should happen can happen.
Everything you value for yourself and consider normal today, was only the result of some outcry at some point, and at that time there were people going "oh so dramatic the outcry just ignore it"
Probably in the sense that you can remove the word rust and nothing changes. It's not about some failure of rust to be efficient at enums, but the title says it is.
OP here: I think you're reading too much into the title. It's not about the failure of Rust. It's about where I stepped in with some custom optimizations for better performance. If you read the blog post, the solution implemented is very Rust-y as well. It uses a newtype with custom methods to try and make the code as nice and readable as possible.
FWIW this post was very well received on the Rust subreddit. They loved it and it got over 350 upvotes, so that community definitely didn't receive it as some sort of attack on Rust.
I don't think it's fair to write a misleading title then tell people "they're reading too much into it".
Implying one thing then walking it back in the article or having the article be about something totally different, then saying people should read the article and not pay attention to the title is just manipulative to your audience.
The problem is that there isn't anything misleading about the title. It is well understood that creative packing of data can provide optimizations under certain circumstances. Nobody should have reason to think otherwise. The title quite accurately captures what the rest of the article is about as well as any title possible can.
What appears to be happening as we see in several comments is that some users cannot find any technical reason to use Rust so they rely on a belief that it is somehow magically perfect to justify using it and and the idea that it hasn't perfectly found some creative packing solution, despite the rest of us wondering why one would expect any compiler to – it not really being its job, is felt as an attack on their use of Rust. Someone developing irrational feelings towards an inanimate tool isn't on the article's author.
What's misleading about the title is that the title implies something about rust, while the content does not.
Like I said in the first place, you can remove the word rust, and nothing changes. That's how you know what's wrong.
It's like a news report saying "black man caught embezzeling". It might be a fact, but it's an irrelevant fact, and it begs the question why it was pointed out. He was probably also a vegetarian, Jewish, a bird watcher, an uncle...
And it's not that there is some weird rule that you have to avoid saying black or rust or whatever. It's simply that if you say something, then the _only_ reasonable way to interpret it is that there was some reason to say it.
You state an equation or give a list of items, it is irrational to assume anything other than that all of the terms or items are relevant.
In this case, rust is just the language being used, which is happenstance. It doesn't matter what language was used. You don't have to go out of your way to hide the language or any silly suggestion like that, but reading the title alone says that there is something about rust and enums. There only 3 items in the title, rust, enum, 64bit word. You can't fault anyone for defaulting to the conclusion that rust, enum, and 64bit word are the essential concepts that will be discussed.
The article isn't bad, and frankly the title isn't even so bad as to be a moral failing or anything. They ARE happening to be working in rust while developing this optimization.
It's simply that it's also entirely correct and reasonable to read the title as saying the words that it says. And the title says something that the content does not.
Right, Rust tells us something important: How the data was packed pre-optimization. This is useful information as, at least those with some familiarity with Rust, will have an understanding of what is being replaced.
You wouldn't be able to reasonably use something like "Replacing an Enum with ..." because, especially where enum in Rust means what other languages call sum types, the data representation can be anything. But even the more traditional use of enum isn't defined by any particular data representation. The whole point of an enum is that any value used in implementation is treated as being opaque! Whereas in this case the value is significant.
I mean, you wouldn't be able to no more than you could replace the title with "Hey you, yes you, read this". Which obviously you could do. But it would be a poor title as you wouldn't be able to figure out what the article is about. This title is great because you can predict exactly what the article is about before reading it. I'd even go as far as to say that this is one of the better titles I've seen on HN in a long time.
Granted, it does require technical familiarity to be able to grok it. I can appreciate those who have developed irrational feelings for an inanimate tool aren't coming with a very strong technical background, but who cares about them? The intended audience is clearly technical folk.
I have no idea what you are trying to comment on. Nothing I said.
Changing the title to "hey you" is a ridiculous meaningless idea that does not relate in any way to "you can remove the word rust and nothing changes". I can only assume you simply don't know how to read, and so there can be no possibility of communication. It was not an obscure indecipherable construction, and your inability to understand it is yours alone.
You fabricate this idea that I have some feeling about rust, and then base a bunch of weird arguments on that invented idea. I neither like nor dislike rust. It's a piece of tech that seems to be functional enough for some tasks. The entire point was that it has no bearing at all, positive or negative. But that is somehow defending a sacred cow?
> Changing the title to "hey you" is a ridiculous meaningless idea that does not relate in any way to "you can remove the word rust and nothing changes".
It totally relates. If you remove 'Rust' then you cannot decipher the title. Rust has a known packing scheme when using enums, which is significant when replacing that packing scheme with a creative alternative. 'Enum' alone does not. Again, the whole idea behind an enum construct is to make any implementation values opaque! Any values used in a particular implementation are implementation dependent. As explained before, if you keep the implementation you are talking about a secret then the words become no more useful than "hey you...". The starting point is central to the story about a performance optimization being gained. One must be able to understand what the starting point is in order to extract anything useful from learning about the destination.
> You fabricate this idea that I have some feeling about rust
Whatever do you mean? The bit about feelings was clearly in reference to the earlier comment that spoke to even earlier comments that had nothing to do with you. It's a big world out there. What makes you so sure it revolves around you?
'Enum' is ill-defined so the addition of Rust is significant as it indicates what one can expect with how data is structured. There is nothing in that speaks to the Rust compiler or Rust being inefficient or anything of the sort. It remains unclear where this idea is coming from. There is nothing in title that would send you there.
Unless, again, the title was edited at some point?
I don't have a lot of patience or sympathy for this attitude even though it's practically universal. There might be a few legitimate cases where someone basically has a handicap where they are clinically incapable, but then that's a handicap like a broken leg. A defect. Maybe it's ok to make allowances for them in the name of equality but it's absolutely making allowances, and should not be a norm and should not be something just everyone gets to claim for their mere comfort and convenience. IMO anyway if I were king and all that.
reply