You don't have to sign a severance agreement. Presumably, they are offered severance pay as part of the agreement, and they can turn it down if they don't like it.
Servo source code doesn't look all that different to me from C++11 source code: it's lots of messy functions over a jumble of data structures. The lack of pointers and the increased safety would seem to be pretty easy to accomplish in C++.
In my view, C++'s biggest problem is with template metaprogramming. Template metaprogramming has turned out to be extremely useful, but the way it is done in C++ is a mess. A C++ successor should replace C++'s combination of overlading, templates, special case methods, and multiple inheritance with better explicit metaprogramming support, limited AOP, and a module system with type parameters; none of those have any runtime overhead. Such facilities might also be used to enforce the use of, say, safe programming styles.
(Another area where C++ is lacking functionality is reflection; but it looks like that's going to be addressed with the addition of static reflection.)
Look into the past prior to the 20th century. Back backin time into the 16th and 15th and 10th and 8th and 2nd and into BCE and just keep going. There is one and only one "market' the market of the strong enslaving the weak.
Yes, there were lots of monarchies, aristocracies, and other forms of totalitarianism prior to the 20th century, From Rome to today, the strong enslaved the weak usually either by making false promises of economic justice and redistribution, or through various forms of military power and protection. That is, politically powerful people abused their political powers to also acquire wealth, enslave people, and impoverish them. No major monarchy or aristocracy developed out of a free market system. To the contrary, monarchies and aristocracies generally lost their power because of free markets, as commoners became wealthier through commerce and then demanded more political power.
You can say that the Nordic socialist nations are dying or whatever you want to say, but that's all it is, you speaking empty phrases that have no connection to reality.
Coming from Europe, I assure you I have a much better idea of what the Nordic countries are and aren't like than you. If you want to know more, read "The Almost Nearly Perfect People", instead of living in your fantasy land. And coming from Europe, I don't want the US to turn into the same kind of dump.
Wrong A market economy is not meant to drive down wages and concentrate wealth. A market economy is supposed to incentivize, through regulation and laws, competition so that better goods and services are created for the same or less money. Big difference.
How do you think better goods are created for less money? Primarily by reducing the main cost for producing the goods, namely labor. Therefore, you actually agree: the goal of market economies is to make money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
The "incentivize, through regulation and laws" is irrelevant and a fabrication on your part. Whether you believe that regulation and laws are necessary or not, they are clearly not part of the definition of market economies. And the regulations and laws you have been advocating are clearly anti-free market and clearly run counter to the goal of "creating better goods and services for the same or less money".
I was more curious whether you thought the language design itself was flawed
I don't think there is such a thing as "the language design itself" without reference to use cases. That's why I think the Rust designers first need to be clear about what use cases they are designing for.
It's not a clever "new business model" for a "new economy" if it can basically be described as making money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
Yes: that's what a market economy does and what it is supposed to do.
We COULD have a world in which people work for absolutely ANY wage just to stave off sheer destitution. That's exactly where a perfectly free market goes,
Look around the world and 20th century history. Socialists, fascists, and dictators all tried to impose regulations, redistribute wealth, and limit trade in order to "help" people, and their citizens usually end up destitute except for a small wealthy elite in government. European welfare states have anemic growth and massive demographic and social problems. It's states that minimize regulation and maximize the freedom of citizens to engage in economic transactions within the country and outside that do best. And they do best not just for the wealthiest members but for everybody, even when they increase inequality. The economy isn't a zero sum game.
That would be like letting anyone anywhere in the world move here to compete with you for your job on a cost basis. People will move here from every part of the world live in cardboard boxes and work for food just to get away from the corrupt shitholes they currently live in.
Food and a cardboard box won't lure a lot of people to the US anymore. But the quality of life enjoyed even by Americans below the US poverty line certainly would: even much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line.
And what are the shitholes people are trying to get away from? Are they cut-throat free market paradises? Of course not. People almost universally move from countries with little economic freedom to countries with more economic freedom. Go check for yourself if you don't believe me.
Of course, more regulation in the US like you propose would indeed fix this: it would turn the US into more of a "corrupt shithole", and that would certainly discourage people from wanting to come here.
A real "new economy" with "new business models" is one where the wealth is increased across the board to everyone, one where we export prosperity itself instead of exporting someone's job or import someone to degrade the labor position of the incumbents.
Exporting jobs and importing goods is the way we improve wealth across the world; the global economy isn't a zero sum game.
You misinterpret the global economy as a zero some game, and then, out of your own greed and fears, use flowery phrases like "exporting prosperity" to disguise your own greed, selfishness, and irrational fears.
I'm just saying that you have some developers highly skilled at writing secure code working on both projects, and mistakes are still made.
Of course they make mistakes; those projects are written in C, which lacks pretty much all features needed to create safe abstractions. But that's why "Rust is better than C" is not particularly interest. The interesting question is: is Rust substantially better than C++14, and that seems doubtful. Rust is cleaner and simpler, but not by enough to make up for the huge practical advantages C++ has.
My second point is that if you view those as examples of the application areas where Rust would be good, well, they aren't good examples. There are so few kernels being written that a new language for it doesn't make sense. And OpenSSL is primarily a library to be used inside other runtimes, something Rust doesn't seem designed for and isn't particularly good at.
If you feel like going into it, what is Rust lacking?
Many carefully analyzed use cases.
Many examples of large and successful applications.
About half a dozen independent implementations, including a Rust-to-C compiler.
A lot more tools and tool support.
Far better C integration, including automatic C header file generation for Rust-implemented libraries, so that Rust code can be used as a drop-in replacement for C libraries with essentially no effort on the part of the programmer.
(There are probably also language features that are problematic, but that's secondary to these other issues.)
This is what "social justice" has always been about: segregation, discrimination, and eugenics were key policies of the progressive movement a century ago, and in modified form, they are still today. The reason is that progressives deep down believe that women and blacks are inferior and weak, and hence require government assistance in order to achieve equal outcomes.
Considering the volume of disclosed security vulnerabilities even coming from high profile projects with brilliant teams like the OpenSSL project or the Linux kernel, I think that's a useful target.
Neither the Linux kernel nor OpenSSL are written in C++, let alone modern C++, so their bug count tells you nothing about how modern C++ compares to Rust. And I don't think you have thought through what replacing OpenSSL or the Linux kernel in Rust actually would mean.
but the result isn't that complex
In fact, my concern is the opposite: Rust looks too simple; that is, it looks like it hasn't come to terms with many of the real-world issues that other languages have had to address.
People can already interfere with "airport weather radars" in a variety of ways. What evidence is there that custom WiFi firmware is a problem, and that locking things down would fix this?
Here [msdn.com] is Stroustrup talking for over and hour and a half just three weeks ago about how to both narrow and enhance C++ to achieve, among other things, a degree of memory safety, pervasive ownership semantics (std::owner) and enabling the compiler do a better job of detecting faulty code. The parallels with Rust are impossible to miss.
Of course there are "parallels to Rust"; these are old ideas after all. I don't see the C++ community "looking at Rust" for anything significant though. At best, Stroustrup may occasionally mention Rust and Go as validation for some ideas that have been on the drawing board for many years anyway.
I think Rust is a language that does bring sufficient value. [...] It's disappointing to see the sheer number of Rust haters emerging from among C/C++ programmers.
Instead of wasting your breath on insults, try to improve your arguments. A paper with an in-depth analysis comparing Rust, C#, Go, and modern C++ would be a good start. Case studies and comparisons on large, real-world software systems in areas like gaming, 3D computer graphics, artificial intelligence, neural networks, protein dynamics, astrophysics, distributed computation, GPU programming, kernels, embedded hardware, etc. would also be good.
Too bad "free markets" are as much of an economic fantasy as any of the other things you mentioned.
If you think it's an "economic fantasy", you evidently don't understand what a free market is. A free market has nothing to do with economic theory or beliefs. A free market is simply a market in which market participants set conditions and prices without government interference. A "free market" a single national entity, it can exist for specific goods or services. Free markets have been the norm historically, and they are widespread around the world today for many goods and services, including in the US.
But by making good software development practices the default and having the developer jump through extra hurdles to do things in a way that might be dangerous, the general level of code quality is improved
Rust attempts to strike a particular compromise between safety, complexity, and performance, and it's not clear that the particular compromise it makes is something anybody really needs. That is, when I want language support for good software development practices and huge software systems, there are better, higher-level languages than Rust. On the other hand, for embedded and real time systems and other low-level programming, C++ is more flexible and far better supported without being much worse than Rust. Rust to me seems like building a dump truck with a luxury car interior.
The C++ community is already looking at Rust and trying to figure out how to compete with what it offers.
Like what? Presumably, the rust-lang.org home page gives it its best shot advertising Rust language features, and I see nothing there that as a killer feature compared to C++.
The Rust community is quite large, including many skilled language designers. The Rust github repository has ~1200 contributers. With that pool of talent, there are no features of C/C++ that the designers don't understand.
If brilliant language designers were what makes a language successful, C++ would never have succeeded and lots of other languages would have. The "understanding" I'm talking about isn't knowing what a language feature does according to the standard; that's trivial. The understanding I'm talking about is how people use language features in billions of lines of real world C++ code; not even the C++ designers themselves understand that for C++.
The problem with languages like Rust is that, in addition to addressing important issues in the languages they intend to replace, their designers also go off on an ego-trip, introducing numerous gratuitous syntactic changes, overlooking important features in their predecessor language they didn't understand, and adding features few people actually need. It's possible that a language like Rust will eventually replace C, but I wouldn't put my money on any particular one.
More likely, ideas from Rust will simply make it into a future C release. For example, C may end up having both "safe" and "unsafe" modules, with "safe" modules having more Rust-like semantics and restrictions, and "unsafe" modules supporting full traditional C. Fortran managed such a transition from Fortran-77 to Fortran-90 pretty successfully.
Of course, the other threat to Rust-like languages (as well as future extensions to C) is that whatever they come up with can probably be emulated fairly well in C++ anyway. In fact, looking down the list of Rust features, they are pretty much identical to what C++ offers people already today, and C++ has tons more libraries and compilers, interoperates better with C, and has a huge community of programmers.
Government shouldn't prohibit tinkering with firmware. It should also not require open sourcing anything. If people want routers with open source firmware (like myself), we can buy them. Other people couldn't care less.
Speaking as a UK citizen, if Facebook wants to operate in the UK then it should pay taxes on the profits it generates here
Yes, I know you want the money, but that's not a justification. Facebook UK can be viewed as a kind of franchise of Facebook US. They only make a profit because of the intellectual property and brand name of the US parent, value created by US tax payers, not UK tax payers. For that, they should pay a large amount of the profits as a franchising fee to the US parent company. What would be a "legal fraud" is if the UK could collect taxes on all the profits that Facebook made in the UK. That's the equivalent of highway robbery, simply taking money because you have the power to do so and want it.
Again, try to come up with a justification for why the UK should have a right to that money.
Your all over the place, the heritage foundation is shilling their policy, pretending it is helpful information, when it is biased information intended to push an agenda.
I cited the Heritage foundation for their graph on poverty rates, which by themselves show that the War on Poverty has failed to achieve its stated objectives. You have identified no factual errors or biases in that graph. In fact, you can find the same data in many other places. I just cited this paper because it also happens to give you a lot of additional information, but that additional information isn't relevant to the fundamental conclusion that the War on Poverty has failed.
So far, you have provided no data or facts at all. All you do is engage in ad hominems, fabrications, strawmen, and red herrings.
The civil rights movement happened after the declaration of war on poverty. Gay rights are just now being recognized.
Your point being what? You erroneously claimed that welfare priorities "have gone from helping white families, to helping all non-gay families, to helping all people", with no evidence to support that statement. Neither the civil rights movement nor the gay rights movement has anything to do with who welfare was targeted at.
It's creating dependence when you give someone cash assistance that they can only receive for afew years in a lifetime,
Yes. One of the strongest predictors of whether someone receives government assistance is whether parents received government assistance. That's true in both the US and Europe, and it's true even when correcting for other factors.
but not when you use monetary policy to hand out free money to banks to lend?
Of course it does: handouts to businesses make businesses dependent on such government handouts as well, and it is bad for those businesses and bad for economy.
(And it's largely the same political groups who are pushing for both individual and corporate welfare.)
Your cherry picking a 50 year old declaration of "war on poverty", THe people running this "war" have changed and their priorities
So you are saying that the goals of the "War on Poverty" have shifted, from helping people to achieve economic independence and reducing the poverty rate, to now making them perpetually dependent on government handouts and not reducing the poverty rate? I actually agree: the priorities of the people running this "war" have changed; helping people achieve economic independence and reducing poverty is evidently not a goal anymore. If only they would admit it.
However, what hasn't changed is the political promises they make: Democrats and progressives still pretend that achieving economic independence and reducing the poverty rate is their goal. They still make the same promises and propose the same policies as Johnson:
One thousand dollars invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime. [...] Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities to help more Americans, especially young Americans, escape from squalor and misery and unemployment rolls where other citizens help to carry them. [...] But whatever the cause, our joint federal-local effort must pursue poverty, pursue it wherever it exists—in city slums and small towns, in sharecropper shacks or in migrant worker camps, on Indian Reservations, among whites as well as Negroes, among the young as well as the aged, in the boom towns and in the depressed areas. Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.
He then goes on to list a litany of policies that could come from the 2016 presidential platforms of Sanders or Clinton, policies that obviously have failed to achieve their goals. If these politicians were honest about the fact that they define "success" in the war on poverty as perpetual, inter-generational dependence on government benefits, their support would drop precipitously.
have gone from helping white families, to helping all non-gay families, to helping all people,
So Johnson was lying when he was saying that he wanted to help "Negroes" or "Indians"? Where exactly were these supposedly racist and homophobic restrictions implemented? I wouldn't be surprised to find racist and homophobic policies advocated by Democrats, but if you could point out such policies as part of the original war on poverty, that would be helpful.
The Heritage Foundation is absolutely a shill;
Originally, you said everybody who said that the war on poverty failed of being "conservative shills", accusing everybody who takes a different political view from you of being deceptive and being paid, now you backpedal and imply you only meant that to apply to the Heritage Foundation. Just like you tried to turn a statement about the War on Poverty into an argument about the New Deal, or now make bizarre statements about how the War on Poverty was initially some kind of explicitly racist and homophobic endeavor. You keep changing your position, and you are a dishonest debater. (And, no, the Heritage Foundation also doesn't meet the definition of a "conservative shill", for the simple reason that they don't try to hide their conservatism or their funding sources.)
The whole article you cite is specious.
You still haven't pointed out any error in their data, their quotes, or their arguments. What is "specious" is your dismissal of the article and its conclusions based on your political prejudices. Nor, for that matter, have you produced any data or argument of your own.
So, why don't you at least provide some data supporting your statements that (1) "The turnover rate of welfare tends to disprove your theories." and (2) that the original War on Poverty was intended to be white-only and non-gay.
Every other resource says it's been a wash, it hasn't failed, but it hasn't been won.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. And the fact is that the poverty rate was declining steadily before the war on poverty started, and it stopped declining right after the war on poverty started. The clearly means it has failed to achieve what it set out to achieve. That's what "failure" means.
If you've ever been in poverty, I guarantee you'll see the difference between suffering from all the symptoms and having some alleviated.
The stated goal of the War on Poverty wasn't to alleviate the effects of poverty, it was to reduce the causes of poverty, singe parenthood, lack of education, drugs, and crime. And it hasn't been achieving that. Observing that fact--and it is a fact--doesn't imply anything per se about policy.
(Incidentally, I grew up outside the US, with my family income below the American "poverty line".)
The only people saying the war on poverty failed, are conservative shills.
You need to look up the term "shill" because you obviously don't understand what it means. I don't pretend to be neutral on economic matters, which is what a "shill" would be, and neither are other economic conservatives, we are outspoken supporters of free markets.
But that isn't even the issue here, because I haven't even advocated the abolishment of welfare or government assistance. But I do think they need to be reformed. One possibility would be to replace the current mess of benefits with a single, well-defined cash benefit, and impose strong requirements on recipients of that benefit, in terms of getting additional training, accepting jobs, and/or community service.
If the profits were simply transferred to the US and subject to corporation tax (or whatever the equivalent is) there, it wouldn't be such a massive issue.
That's something for the US to worry about, not for the UK. The point is: no matter what, this money isn't the UK's.
Unfortunately, the profits are transferred to places that attract very low tax, and so globally Facebook avoids paying Corporation tax.
Good for them. Hopefully, it will induce the UK to lower its own taxes, because people and companies do leave.
No, this would increase their operating profit (as they wouldn't be deducting the lease payments). Buying a building is capital expenditure.
It's more complicated than that, but let's not dwell on it. In the end, corporations have plenty of ways of making profits disappear or shifting them around internationally.
The problem is that Facebook is moving its profits out of the UK via the "Double Irish arrangement" [wikipedia.org] transferring them to somewhere where they will attract less tax.
I don't see a "problem" with that. I see little reason why Facebook should face a big tax liability in the UK: the UK didn't build Facebook, its employees are well rewarded and pay stiff taxes, and the UK is already compensated for its troubles through numerous other taxes.
as otherwise you can simply make your profit figure whatever you feel like (which is as close to zero as possible for tax purposes).
Yes, corporations can. And ultimately, there is nothing lawmakers can do about that.
It doesn't require "perfect knowledge", it simply requires a best effort estimate. Those companies that get it right on average survive, those that get it consistently wrong go out of business.
Actually, let me put that differently: it is the companies that are better on average than their competitors that survive. They may be much worse than theoretical optimality assuming perfect knowledge. They get it "right" in the sense that they are making the best possible estimate anybody knows how to make given the current state of knowledge.
The actual pay will be the smallest amount that gives them confidence they won't lose a worthwhile employee
"Worthwhile" is exactly the cost/benefit tradeoff that I describe.
Which is the maximum they think they can get away with
Again, that is exactly the economic calculation I describe.
That only defines the top end of what an employee with perfect knowledge of cause and effect would pay.
It doesn't require "perfect knowledge", it simply requires a best effort estimate. Those companies that get it right on average survive, those that get it consistently wrong go out of business.
Your model isn't even adequate for a computer SIM game. Let alone a description of the real world.
Companies look very closely at how much they spend on employees. It's why, for example, Twitter just laid off part of their work force.
I don't know what kind of sinecure you have for a job, but in the real world (sales staff, cooks, customer service, etc.), this is exactly what companies do.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to sign a severance agreement. Presumably, they are offered severance pay as part of the agreement, and they can turn it down if they don't like it.
Servo source code doesn't look all that different to me from C++11 source code: it's lots of messy functions over a jumble of data structures. The lack of pointers and the increased safety would seem to be pretty easy to accomplish in C++.
In my view, C++'s biggest problem is with template metaprogramming. Template metaprogramming has turned out to be extremely useful, but the way it is done in C++ is a mess. A C++ successor should replace C++'s combination of overlading, templates, special case methods, and multiple inheritance with better explicit metaprogramming support, limited AOP, and a module system with type parameters; none of those have any runtime overhead. Such facilities might also be used to enforce the use of, say, safe programming styles.
(Another area where C++ is lacking functionality is reflection; but it looks like that's going to be addressed with the addition of static reflection.)
Yes, there were lots of monarchies, aristocracies, and other forms of totalitarianism prior to the 20th century, From Rome to today, the strong enslaved the weak usually either by making false promises of economic justice and redistribution, or through various forms of military power and protection. That is, politically powerful people abused their political powers to also acquire wealth, enslave people, and impoverish them. No major monarchy or aristocracy developed out of a free market system. To the contrary, monarchies and aristocracies generally lost their power because of free markets, as commoners became wealthier through commerce and then demanded more political power.
Coming from Europe, I assure you I have a much better idea of what the Nordic countries are and aren't like than you. If you want to know more, read "The Almost Nearly Perfect People", instead of living in your fantasy land. And coming from Europe, I don't want the US to turn into the same kind of dump.
How do you think better goods are created for less money? Primarily by reducing the main cost for producing the goods, namely labor. Therefore, you actually agree: the goal of market economies is to make money by paying people less to do deliver the exact same service
The "incentivize, through regulation and laws" is irrelevant and a fabrication on your part. Whether you believe that regulation and laws are necessary or not, they are clearly not part of the definition of market economies. And the regulations and laws you have been advocating are clearly anti-free market and clearly run counter to the goal of "creating better goods and services for the same or less money".
I don't think there is such a thing as "the language design itself" without reference to use cases. That's why I think the Rust designers first need to be clear about what use cases they are designing for.
Yes: that's what a market economy does and what it is supposed to do.
Look around the world and 20th century history. Socialists, fascists, and dictators all tried to impose regulations, redistribute wealth, and limit trade in order to "help" people, and their citizens usually end up destitute except for a small wealthy elite in government. European welfare states have anemic growth and massive demographic and social problems. It's states that minimize regulation and maximize the freedom of citizens to engage in economic transactions within the country and outside that do best. And they do best not just for the wealthiest members but for everybody, even when they increase inequality. The economy isn't a zero sum game.
Food and a cardboard box won't lure a lot of people to the US anymore. But the quality of life enjoyed even by Americans below the US poverty line certainly would: even much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line.
And what are the shitholes people are trying to get away from? Are they cut-throat free market paradises? Of course not. People almost universally move from countries with little economic freedom to countries with more economic freedom. Go check for yourself if you don't believe me.
Of course, more regulation in the US like you propose would indeed fix this: it would turn the US into more of a "corrupt shithole", and that would certainly discourage people from wanting to come here.
Exporting jobs and importing goods is the way we improve wealth across the world; the global economy isn't a zero sum game.
You misinterpret the global economy as a zero some game, and then, out of your own greed and fears, use flowery phrases like "exporting prosperity" to disguise your own greed, selfishness, and irrational fears.
Of course they make mistakes; those projects are written in C, which lacks pretty much all features needed to create safe abstractions. But that's why "Rust is better than C" is not particularly interest. The interesting question is: is Rust substantially better than C++14, and that seems doubtful. Rust is cleaner and simpler, but not by enough to make up for the huge practical advantages C++ has.
My second point is that if you view those as examples of the application areas where Rust would be good, well, they aren't good examples. There are so few kernels being written that a new language for it doesn't make sense. And OpenSSL is primarily a library to be used inside other runtimes, something Rust doesn't seem designed for and isn't particularly good at.
Many carefully analyzed use cases.
Many examples of large and successful applications.
About half a dozen independent implementations, including a Rust-to-C compiler.
A lot more tools and tool support.
Far better C integration, including automatic C header file generation for Rust-implemented libraries, so that Rust code can be used as a drop-in replacement for C libraries with essentially no effort on the part of the programmer.
(There are probably also language features that are problematic, but that's secondary to these other issues.)
No, men don't "need" them. Men generally deal with violence, abuse, and emotions differently from women.
You mean the neo-Marxists that founded modern feminism?
This is what "social justice" has always been about: segregation, discrimination, and eugenics were key policies of the progressive movement a century ago, and in modified form, they are still today. The reason is that progressives deep down believe that women and blacks are inferior and weak, and hence require government assistance in order to achieve equal outcomes.
Neither the Linux kernel nor OpenSSL are written in C++, let alone modern C++, so their bug count tells you nothing about how modern C++ compares to Rust. And I don't think you have thought through what replacing OpenSSL or the Linux kernel in Rust actually would mean.
In fact, my concern is the opposite: Rust looks too simple; that is, it looks like it hasn't come to terms with many of the real-world issues that other languages have had to address.
People can already interfere with "airport weather radars" in a variety of ways. What evidence is there that custom WiFi firmware is a problem, and that locking things down would fix this?
Of course there are "parallels to Rust"; these are old ideas after all. I don't see the C++ community "looking at Rust" for anything significant though. At best, Stroustrup may occasionally mention Rust and Go as validation for some ideas that have been on the drawing board for many years anyway.
Instead of wasting your breath on insults, try to improve your arguments. A paper with an in-depth analysis comparing Rust, C#, Go, and modern C++ would be a good start. Case studies and comparisons on large, real-world software systems in areas like gaming, 3D computer graphics, artificial intelligence, neural networks, protein dynamics, astrophysics, distributed computation, GPU programming, kernels, embedded hardware, etc. would also be good.
If you think it's an "economic fantasy", you evidently don't understand what a free market is. A free market has nothing to do with economic theory or beliefs. A free market is simply a market in which market participants set conditions and prices without government interference. A "free market" a single national entity, it can exist for specific goods or services. Free markets have been the norm historically, and they are widespread around the world today for many goods and services, including in the US.
Rust attempts to strike a particular compromise between safety, complexity, and performance, and it's not clear that the particular compromise it makes is something anybody really needs. That is, when I want language support for good software development practices and huge software systems, there are better, higher-level languages than Rust. On the other hand, for embedded and real time systems and other low-level programming, C++ is more flexible and far better supported without being much worse than Rust. Rust to me seems like building a dump truck with a luxury car interior.
Like what? Presumably, the rust-lang.org home page gives it its best shot advertising Rust language features, and I see nothing there that as a killer feature compared to C++.
If brilliant language designers were what makes a language successful, C++ would never have succeeded and lots of other languages would have. The "understanding" I'm talking about isn't knowing what a language feature does according to the standard; that's trivial. The understanding I'm talking about is how people use language features in billions of lines of real world C++ code; not even the C++ designers themselves understand that for C++.
The problem with languages like Rust is that, in addition to addressing important issues in the languages they intend to replace, their designers also go off on an ego-trip, introducing numerous gratuitous syntactic changes, overlooking important features in their predecessor language they didn't understand, and adding features few people actually need. It's possible that a language like Rust will eventually replace C, but I wouldn't put my money on any particular one.
More likely, ideas from Rust will simply make it into a future C release. For example, C may end up having both "safe" and "unsafe" modules, with "safe" modules having more Rust-like semantics and restrictions, and "unsafe" modules supporting full traditional C. Fortran managed such a transition from Fortran-77 to Fortran-90 pretty successfully.
Of course, the other threat to Rust-like languages (as well as future extensions to C) is that whatever they come up with can probably be emulated fairly well in C++ anyway. In fact, looking down the list of Rust features, they are pretty much identical to what C++ offers people already today, and C++ has tons more libraries and compilers, interoperates better with C, and has a huge community of programmers.
Government shouldn't prohibit tinkering with firmware. It should also not require open sourcing anything. If people want routers with open source firmware (like myself), we can buy them. Other people couldn't care less.
Really people, stop proposing stupid rules.
Yes, I know you want the money, but that's not a justification. Facebook UK can be viewed as a kind of franchise of Facebook US. They only make a profit because of the intellectual property and brand name of the US parent, value created by US tax payers, not UK tax payers. For that, they should pay a large amount of the profits as a franchising fee to the US parent company. What would be a "legal fraud" is if the UK could collect taxes on all the profits that Facebook made in the UK. That's the equivalent of highway robbery, simply taking money because you have the power to do so and want it.
Again, try to come up with a justification for why the UK should have a right to that money.
I cited the Heritage foundation for their graph on poverty rates, which by themselves show that the War on Poverty has failed to achieve its stated objectives. You have identified no factual errors or biases in that graph. In fact, you can find the same data in many other places. I just cited this paper because it also happens to give you a lot of additional information, but that additional information isn't relevant to the fundamental conclusion that the War on Poverty has failed.
So far, you have provided no data or facts at all. All you do is engage in ad hominems, fabrications, strawmen, and red herrings.
Your point being what? You erroneously claimed that welfare priorities "have gone from helping white families, to helping all non-gay families, to helping all people", with no evidence to support that statement. Neither the civil rights movement nor the gay rights movement has anything to do with who welfare was targeted at.
Yes. One of the strongest predictors of whether someone receives government assistance is whether parents received government assistance. That's true in both the US and Europe, and it's true even when correcting for other factors.
Of course it does: handouts to businesses make businesses dependent on such government handouts as well, and it is bad for those businesses and bad for economy.
(And it's largely the same political groups who are pushing for both individual and corporate welfare.)
So you are saying that the goals of the "War on Poverty" have shifted, from helping people to achieve economic independence and reducing the poverty rate, to now making them perpetually dependent on government handouts and not reducing the poverty rate? I actually agree: the priorities of the people running this "war" have changed; helping people achieve economic independence and reducing poverty is evidently not a goal anymore. If only they would admit it.
However, what hasn't changed is the political promises they make: Democrats and progressives still pretend that achieving economic independence and reducing the poverty rate is their goal. They still make the same promises and propose the same policies as Johnson:
He then goes on to list a litany of policies that could come from the 2016 presidential platforms of Sanders or Clinton, policies that obviously have failed to achieve their goals. If these politicians were honest about the fact that they define "success" in the war on poverty as perpetual, inter-generational dependence on government benefits, their support would drop precipitously.
So Johnson was lying when he was saying that he wanted to help "Negroes" or "Indians"? Where exactly were these supposedly racist and homophobic restrictions implemented? I wouldn't be surprised to find racist and homophobic policies advocated by Democrats, but if you could point out such policies as part of the original war on poverty, that would be helpful.
Originally, you said everybody who said that the war on poverty failed of being "conservative shills", accusing everybody who takes a different political view from you of being deceptive and being paid, now you backpedal and imply you only meant that to apply to the Heritage Foundation. Just like you tried to turn a statement about the War on Poverty into an argument about the New Deal, or now make bizarre statements about how the War on Poverty was initially some kind of explicitly racist and homophobic endeavor. You keep changing your position, and you are a dishonest debater. (And, no, the Heritage Foundation also doesn't meet the definition of a "conservative shill", for the simple reason that they don't try to hide their conservatism or their funding sources.)
You still haven't pointed out any error in their data, their quotes, or their arguments. What is "specious" is your dismissal of the article and its conclusions based on your political prejudices. Nor, for that matter, have you produced any data or argument of your own.
So, why don't you at least provide some data supporting your statements that (1) "The turnover rate of welfare tends to disprove your theories." and (2) that the original War on Poverty was intended to be white-only and non-gay.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. And the fact is that the poverty rate was declining steadily before the war on poverty started, and it stopped declining right after the war on poverty started. The clearly means it has failed to achieve what it set out to achieve. That's what "failure" means.
The stated goal of the War on Poverty wasn't to alleviate the effects of poverty, it was to reduce the causes of poverty, singe parenthood, lack of education, drugs, and crime. And it hasn't been achieving that. Observing that fact--and it is a fact--doesn't imply anything per se about policy.
(Incidentally, I grew up outside the US, with my family income below the American "poverty line".)
You need to look up the term "shill" because you obviously don't understand what it means. I don't pretend to be neutral on economic matters, which is what a "shill" would be, and neither are other economic conservatives, we are outspoken supporters of free markets.
But that isn't even the issue here, because I haven't even advocated the abolishment of welfare or government assistance. But I do think they need to be reformed. One possibility would be to replace the current mess of benefits with a single, well-defined cash benefit, and impose strong requirements on recipients of that benefit, in terms of getting additional training, accepting jobs, and/or community service.
That's something for the US to worry about, not for the UK. The point is: no matter what, this money isn't the UK's.
Good for them. Hopefully, it will induce the UK to lower its own taxes, because people and companies do leave.
It's more complicated than that, but let's not dwell on it. In the end, corporations have plenty of ways of making profits disappear or shifting them around internationally.
I don't see a "problem" with that. I see little reason why Facebook should face a big tax liability in the UK: the UK didn't build Facebook, its employees are well rewarded and pay stiff taxes, and the UK is already compensated for its troubles through numerous other taxes.
Yes, corporations can. And ultimately, there is nothing lawmakers can do about that.
Actually, let me put that differently: it is the companies that are better on average than their competitors that survive. They may be much worse than theoretical optimality assuming perfect knowledge. They get it "right" in the sense that they are making the best possible estimate anybody knows how to make given the current state of knowledge.
"Worthwhile" is exactly the cost/benefit tradeoff that I describe.
Again, that is exactly the economic calculation I describe.
It doesn't require "perfect knowledge", it simply requires a best effort estimate. Those companies that get it right on average survive, those that get it consistently wrong go out of business.
Companies look very closely at how much they spend on employees. It's why, for example, Twitter just laid off part of their work force.
I don't know what kind of sinecure you have for a job, but in the real world (sales staff, cooks, customer service, etc.), this is exactly what companies do.