Someone is still paying. Either the law firm is footing the bill itself, or it has insurance to cover the cost of losing (which will become very expensive if they lose too often). An individual lawyer will still be paid if he loses, but he won't keep his job for long if he keeps taking no-win-no-free cases and losing them.
If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?
To add to the other reply:
I used to live in a house in a row of terraced houses. My address was a the number of my house along that street and the street name. There's only one problem: there were two ways to get to my house and neither of them was from that street. The houses were all a bit above the street, with their front gardens raised above the street and the only way to the front door of the first 9 was to go around the corner at the end of the street then walk along the footpath that ran along the front, parallel with and above the street that gave us our address. My neighbour had a flat at the back of one of these houses and also had an address on that street, yet the only access to her flat was via the back door, which opened onto a street with no name. People would periodically ring my doorbell and ask where her flat was.
A slow off-the-shelf chess computer from the '80s can beat well over 90% of the population at chess. In the chess club when I was at school, I think that there was only one person who could beat it on its hardest difficulty setting, and he was the under-13s UK chess champion. The fact that it took Deep Blue to beat the best human player in the world is irrelevant: self-driving cars don't have to be better than the best possible human driver, they just have to be better than most human drivers to be a big improvement.
Chess is also an irrelevant comparison, because the problem is very different. In chess, you have 16 pieces at the start. Once you've made a few moves and they're all free to move, each one has multiple possible moves. Let's simplify and assume that each one has only one possible move. At the end of my turn, there are 16 possible board positions. At the end of your turn there are 16 possible combinations for every one of mine, so that's only 256, but after another round we're up to 65,536 different positions. 16,777,216 after three rounds and so on. Almost all of the difficulty in chess is working out which part of this space is worth exploring. Your goal is to reach an end state dozens or hundreds of moves into the future that meets some conditions.
In contrast, when driving there the other cars have few options (speed up, slow down, turn) as do other obstacles. Your model only has to run tactically, not strategically. You don't have to worry about every step in the game, only that in the next round you become closer to your destination and you don't crash. You only have to model a few seconds into the future. As long as you are heading in the right direction and you can safely stop if one of the obstacles that you're tracking has a comes into your projected path then you win that round and you continue to the next.
There are a lot of different kinds of pollution, but most of them have very local effects. Spill toxic chemicals into a river and that's local and observable. As nations get richer, there is a natural tendency to regulate this kind of thing, because you're damaging your own assets if you continue to pollute. In contrast, things like carbon dioxide and CFCs rapidly disburse in the atmosphere. There's little incentive to reduce your production of them if no one else is, because your contribution only increases the net amount of harm by a little bit and you only suffer a small proportion of the total. You need a global agreement to make any impact. In terms of tail-pipe emissions, compare carbon dioxide and lead: the former quickly spreads out and there's almost no local impact, the latter is inhaled, builds up in teeth and bones, and collects on the roads. If you live in the USA, lead in petrol in China has no impact on you, but carbon dioxide from burning petrol in China does.
Volcanoes throw ash a lot higher than most fires (the Icelandic volcano a few years ago threw up enough ash that it was dangerous to planes even at their normal cruising altitude of a few km up). The ash reflects the sun, so has a cooling effect. They also produce carbon dioxide, which has a warming effect. Which of these will win out varies quite a bit between eruptions. In contrast, smallish fires only throw ash a few metres up (if that) and it quickly settles, whereas the carbon dioxide disburses into the atmosphere.
And yet that's precisely what the original poster was complaining about. Climate scientists have progressively refined their models over the last few decades as more data became available and as computational power increased to the level that they can run simulations on a desktop that would have needed a supercomputer in the '80s (and far more complex ones on modern supercomputers). When they refine their models and obsolete some of their old predictions (or those of other researchers - there's nothing an academic enjoys more than proving another one wrong) then you grumble about the wrong predictions. When the new models predict some of the same things as the old, then you complain that they're not adapting their hypothesis.
Because of 1), much more energy will be spend on air conditioning, while many buildings in today's colder climates don't need much heating even during winter season, because they are built as low energy houses, where just the short sun period during the day is sufficient to heat the house enough for the inhabitants.
To add to that:
Air conditioning works by pumping heat out of buildings. There was an article in The Guardian earlier this week pointing to a study that had found that use of air conditioning had raised the temperature of some cities by 2 degrees (centigrade), which meant that people ran their air conditioning more, leading to a vicious cycle.
In contrast, keeping a house warmer than the outside is much cheaper. Humans with no technology are 100W heaters. All other machines that we put in a house generate heat as a waste product. With modern insulation, it's very easy to reduce the outflow of heat. Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.
but if you asked every parent if they'd want a safer world for their kids and grandkids etc, they would all say "yes"
They'd all say 'yes'. Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not). Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die? Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.
It wasn't just designers. Ad companies like Google were big culprits in subverting this vision. If your content is delivered in a structured form, then it's trivial for the receiver to just not display the bits that are adverts. On the other hand, if you get a big glob of executable code that produces some output then it's a lot harder to identify which bits are real content and which are cruft.
No one objects to the MacBook having a USB-C port. People object to it not having any other ports, which means that you need a dongle for basically anything. Even having two USB-C ports (one for power, one for other stuff) would have been a big improvement. The other annoyance is that no one - not even Apple - yet sells a monitor that connects with a single USB-C cable, provides power to the laptop and exposes USB, GigE and maybe eSATA ports.
It doesn't matter. I'm not sure why this is news, because Facebook has sold a service for quite a few years based on this. They know which constituency each of their users live in (even if you don't provide a real address, the IP that you connect from most frequently and the location of your phone if you install their app give them a good idea). They have a good hit rate for identifying the undecided voters and, importantly, what issues they consider important. They will sell parties the ability to run ads targeted at people in a particular constituency based on the issues that they find important. If you pay more, they will even sell you the names, addresses, and key issues for these voters so that you can send people around to canvas, briefed with exactly the right talking points.
It doesn't matter that Facebook has a few outliers like yourself, they still have enough information to have a disproportionate amount of influence on the political process.
The problem is that you're both right. The taxis are providing the service, the taxi companies are not. Taxi companies have long since adopted similar business models to Uber and Lyft: the drivers either bring (and maintain) their own car or rent it from the taxi company. The only service that the companies provide is a dispatcher, for which they take a hefty cut.
Consumers want to have a single dispatcher service that works anywhere and puts them in touch with a lot of taxi drivers. Uber provides something like this. The taxi companies don't want to, because this kind of thing naturally benefits from economies of scale: it's only slightly more expensive to provide a dispatcher service for the entire USA than for NYC.
If you really want to address the problem with a legislative fix then make every licensed taxi reachable via a single computerised dispatcher service and provide a well documented API for interacting with it. Provide (and fund out of the taxes on taxi fares and licenses) enough infrastructure that anyone can write an app that will hail any taxi in your jurisdiction and pay for it. If Uber wants to operate in your city, then they're free to do so by simply integrating their front end with your municipal back end.
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
That's irrelevant. The interests of the people who build the cars are aligned with those of the people who use them, and if that proves not to be the case then there are liability laws that ensure that you can be compensated if your car is not built to spec. In contrast, the interests of small subsets of the population are typically not directly aligned with the rest when choosing a government.
In the UK, our elections run by putting a cross on a piece of paper, which then goes into a box. The boxes are taken to a central location for each constituency and are then counted. If I don't trust the system, then I can watch the box from the time that I cast my vote until it gets to the polling station and can then watch the votes being taken from the box and put into piles and counted. The same is true for almost any member of the electorate. In contrast, with an electronic voting system the number of people who are able to verify it is tiny: I have a PhD in Computer Science and work in computer security and I wouldn't be confident that I could spot hidden manipulation of an electronic election and I doubt that there are more than 100 people in the world who could - if that. Do you trust those 100 people to decide who wins the next election? Remember what Stalin said: it doesn't matter who casts the votes, only who counts them.
No, that those lines are covered by copyright owned by Oracle was admitted by Google. They claimed that their use was covered by Fair Use (which does not invalidate copyright, it is an affirmative defence against copyright infringement), which is what Oracle is now challenging because Fair Use is situation dependent.
The Pi Zero is a limited edition part that exists because Broadcom wants to clear inventory of the crappy old SoC that the original Pi used. It's not really a fair comparison. Nevertheless, a MIPS 24k is something that really should be avoided like the plague. It's MIPS32r2 and all of the current ImagTec-funded development effort (compiler, OS support) is on MIPS{64,32}r6, which is not backwards compatible. The entire MIPS ecosystem is a clusterfuck at the moment.
am I correct in understanding that the NSA knew about security holes in important aspects of our cyber infrastructure, and rather than report them so they could be fixed, they sat on them so they could use them "to protect us"?
Yes. This is a big problem with the NSA and GCHQ, which have the dual missions of securing infrastructure and compromising enemy infrastructure. These missions come into direct conflict when the core of your and your enemy's infrastructure rely on the same components. Germany separates the two missions into separate institutions.
The same thing came up when Heartbleed was discovered. There were basically two options:
The NSA had not found the vulnerability, in which case they were seriously failing in both missions as they'd either failed to notice that OpenSSL is core infrastructure (for the USA and for other countries) or they had failed to fuzz the protocol properly (part of the embarrassment about Heartbleed was that proper testing would have found it years ago). If this is the case, they are incompetent because there was evidence that the vulnerability had been exploited in the wild before the official disclosure.
The NSA had found the vulnerability but had decided that being able to attack SSL connections was worth the cost of leaving all financial and a lot of secure government communications vulnerable to foreign intelligence and criminal organisations. If this is the case, then they are incompetent at risk analysis and should not be permitted to engage in risky behaviour.
There is no interpretation of events that makes them appear competent.
This is repeated a lot in this thread, yet Google's own testimony indicates that they copied around 11,000 lines of code from Sun, that they knew that they needed a license, and attempted to negotiate one. The ruling was in their favour because the judge asked the jury to rule on whether their copyright infringement was fair use and the jury ruled that it was.
The previous ruling already establishes that Google did use Sun/Oracle's IP, but that this use specifically in the context of smartphones constitutes fair use.
Pretty stupid because Android phones don't run any version of Java
I think that's a big part of their complaint. Sun and Oracle have given a patent and copyright grant for all of their Java-related IP to all fully conforming Java implementations. Android provides a non-conforming Java implementation (for example, attempting to install a SecurityManager on Android throws an exception, so you can't do fine-grained privilege separation in Google's version). This significantly decreases the value of the Java platform, because now you have to target Java and Google-Java as separate platforms. This is precisely the same complaint that Sun had against Microsoft, who produced an almost-compatible Java implementation.
That's a nice idea, but where can you buy a smartphone that gets security updates for 3-6+ years? Most Android phones get them for a year if you're very lucky, iPhones seem to get 3 years of support (counting from initial release date for that model - less if you buy them after that). Given the kinds of vulnerabilities that we're seeing on Android, I'd be as nervous about connecting one to WiFi without the latest security updates as I would of connecting a Windows PC directly to the Internet in the late '90s.
I'd love to see manufacturers made liable for providing new phones for customers if they don't provide fixes for fix security holes for 4-6 years.
So using an off-the-shelf algorithm and an off-the-shelf data structure made your code slower than picking ones tuned to the data? Shocking! The design of the C++ standard library typically allows you to decouple the algorithm from the data (see the algorithms header), so doing the same tuning in C++ and following that design would let you change the two independently and see which combinations were better. But don't let that get in the way of your C++ bashing.
HTML plus JavaScript is the latest iteration in a display server design model that included NeWS. I liked NeWS, but even I'd admit that declarative HTML for layout and imperative JavaScript for controller logic is an easier combination to deal with than PostScript for both.
The problem with exceptions is that they're a non-local goto. When every function call becomes intra-procedural flow control as well as inter-procedural then reasoning about your code is painful. Java is one of the least bad languages that use exceptions in this regard, because it at least makes exceptions an explicit part of the method's contract, but it's still quite painful.
Any new language should consider error handling as one of the most important design elements and propagate a good design throughout its standard library (error handling, concurrency, and security are the three most difficult problems for any programming language). Unfortunately, neither Go nor Swift did this.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone is still paying. Either the law firm is footing the bill itself, or it has insurance to cover the cost of losing (which will become very expensive if they lose too often). An individual lawyer will still be paid if he loses, but he won't keep his job for long if he keeps taking no-win-no-free cases and losing them.
If the address of your door is a "wildly different address", then why isn't that just your actual address?
To add to the other reply:
I used to live in a house in a row of terraced houses. My address was a the number of my house along that street and the street name. There's only one problem: there were two ways to get to my house and neither of them was from that street. The houses were all a bit above the street, with their front gardens raised above the street and the only way to the front door of the first 9 was to go around the corner at the end of the street then walk along the footpath that ran along the front, parallel with and above the street that gave us our address. My neighbour had a flat at the back of one of these houses and also had an address on that street, yet the only access to her flat was via the back door, which opened onto a street with no name. People would periodically ring my doorbell and ask where her flat was.
A slow off-the-shelf chess computer from the '80s can beat well over 90% of the population at chess. In the chess club when I was at school, I think that there was only one person who could beat it on its hardest difficulty setting, and he was the under-13s UK chess champion. The fact that it took Deep Blue to beat the best human player in the world is irrelevant: self-driving cars don't have to be better than the best possible human driver, they just have to be better than most human drivers to be a big improvement.
Chess is also an irrelevant comparison, because the problem is very different. In chess, you have 16 pieces at the start. Once you've made a few moves and they're all free to move, each one has multiple possible moves. Let's simplify and assume that each one has only one possible move. At the end of my turn, there are 16 possible board positions. At the end of your turn there are 16 possible combinations for every one of mine, so that's only 256, but after another round we're up to 65,536 different positions. 16,777,216 after three rounds and so on. Almost all of the difficulty in chess is working out which part of this space is worth exploring. Your goal is to reach an end state dozens or hundreds of moves into the future that meets some conditions.
In contrast, when driving there the other cars have few options (speed up, slow down, turn) as do other obstacles. Your model only has to run tactically, not strategically. You don't have to worry about every step in the game, only that in the next round you become closer to your destination and you don't crash. You only have to model a few seconds into the future. As long as you are heading in the right direction and you can safely stop if one of the obstacles that you're tracking has a comes into your projected path then you win that round and you continue to the next.
There are a lot of different kinds of pollution, but most of them have very local effects. Spill toxic chemicals into a river and that's local and observable. As nations get richer, there is a natural tendency to regulate this kind of thing, because you're damaging your own assets if you continue to pollute. In contrast, things like carbon dioxide and CFCs rapidly disburse in the atmosphere. There's little incentive to reduce your production of them if no one else is, because your contribution only increases the net amount of harm by a little bit and you only suffer a small proportion of the total. You need a global agreement to make any impact. In terms of tail-pipe emissions, compare carbon dioxide and lead: the former quickly spreads out and there's almost no local impact, the latter is inhaled, builds up in teeth and bones, and collects on the roads. If you live in the USA, lead in petrol in China has no impact on you, but carbon dioxide from burning petrol in China does.
Volcanoes throw ash a lot higher than most fires (the Icelandic volcano a few years ago threw up enough ash that it was dangerous to planes even at their normal cruising altitude of a few km up). The ash reflects the sun, so has a cooling effect. They also produce carbon dioxide, which has a warming effect. Which of these will win out varies quite a bit between eruptions. In contrast, smallish fires only throw ash a few metres up (if that) and it quickly settles, whereas the carbon dioxide disburses into the atmosphere.
And yet that's precisely what the original poster was complaining about. Climate scientists have progressively refined their models over the last few decades as more data became available and as computational power increased to the level that they can run simulations on a desktop that would have needed a supercomputer in the '80s (and far more complex ones on modern supercomputers). When they refine their models and obsolete some of their old predictions (or those of other researchers - there's nothing an academic enjoys more than proving another one wrong) then you grumble about the wrong predictions. When the new models predict some of the same things as the old, then you complain that they're not adapting their hypothesis.
Because of 1), much more energy will be spend on air conditioning, while many buildings in today's colder climates don't need much heating even during winter season, because they are built as low energy houses, where just the short sun period during the day is sufficient to heat the house enough for the inhabitants.
To add to that:
Air conditioning works by pumping heat out of buildings. There was an article in The Guardian earlier this week pointing to a study that had found that use of air conditioning had raised the temperature of some cities by 2 degrees (centigrade), which meant that people ran their air conditioning more, leading to a vicious cycle.
In contrast, keeping a house warmer than the outside is much cheaper. Humans with no technology are 100W heaters. All other machines that we put in a house generate heat as a waste product. With modern insulation, it's very easy to reduce the outflow of heat. Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.
but if you asked every parent if they'd want a safer world for their kids and grandkids etc, they would all say "yes"
They'd all say 'yes'. Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not). Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die? Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.
It wasn't just designers. Ad companies like Google were big culprits in subverting this vision. If your content is delivered in a structured form, then it's trivial for the receiver to just not display the bits that are adverts. On the other hand, if you get a big glob of executable code that produces some output then it's a lot harder to identify which bits are real content and which are cruft.
Adding USB-C was a good decision. Removing every other port (including power) was not.
No one objects to the MacBook having a USB-C port. People object to it not having any other ports, which means that you need a dongle for basically anything. Even having two USB-C ports (one for power, one for other stuff) would have been a big improvement. The other annoyance is that no one - not even Apple - yet sells a monitor that connects with a single USB-C cable, provides power to the laptop and exposes USB, GigE and maybe eSATA ports.
Good luck slicing your partitions
Huh? People still do that? Fresh FreeBSD install, just select the 'auto (zfs)' option and never think about partitions or slices ever again.
See: AirTunes, AirPlay.
It doesn't matter. I'm not sure why this is news, because Facebook has sold a service for quite a few years based on this. They know which constituency each of their users live in (even if you don't provide a real address, the IP that you connect from most frequently and the location of your phone if you install their app give them a good idea). They have a good hit rate for identifying the undecided voters and, importantly, what issues they consider important. They will sell parties the ability to run ads targeted at people in a particular constituency based on the issues that they find important. If you pay more, they will even sell you the names, addresses, and key issues for these voters so that you can send people around to canvas, briefed with exactly the right talking points.
It doesn't matter that Facebook has a few outliers like yourself, they still have enough information to have a disproportionate amount of influence on the political process.
The problem is that you're both right. The taxis are providing the service, the taxi companies are not. Taxi companies have long since adopted similar business models to Uber and Lyft: the drivers either bring (and maintain) their own car or rent it from the taxi company. The only service that the companies provide is a dispatcher, for which they take a hefty cut.
Consumers want to have a single dispatcher service that works anywhere and puts them in touch with a lot of taxi drivers. Uber provides something like this. The taxi companies don't want to, because this kind of thing naturally benefits from economies of scale: it's only slightly more expensive to provide a dispatcher service for the entire USA than for NYC.
If you really want to address the problem with a legislative fix then make every licensed taxi reachable via a single computerised dispatcher service and provide a well documented API for interacting with it. Provide (and fund out of the taxes on taxi fares and licenses) enough infrastructure that anyone can write an app that will hail any taxi in your jurisdiction and pay for it. If Uber wants to operate in your city, then they're free to do so by simply integrating their front end with your municipal back end.
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
That's irrelevant. The interests of the people who build the cars are aligned with those of the people who use them, and if that proves not to be the case then there are liability laws that ensure that you can be compensated if your car is not built to spec. In contrast, the interests of small subsets of the population are typically not directly aligned with the rest when choosing a government.
In the UK, our elections run by putting a cross on a piece of paper, which then goes into a box. The boxes are taken to a central location for each constituency and are then counted. If I don't trust the system, then I can watch the box from the time that I cast my vote until it gets to the polling station and can then watch the votes being taken from the box and put into piles and counted. The same is true for almost any member of the electorate. In contrast, with an electronic voting system the number of people who are able to verify it is tiny: I have a PhD in Computer Science and work in computer security and I wouldn't be confident that I could spot hidden manipulation of an electronic election and I doubt that there are more than 100 people in the world who could - if that. Do you trust those 100 people to decide who wins the next election? Remember what Stalin said: it doesn't matter who casts the votes, only who counts them.
No, that those lines are covered by copyright owned by Oracle was admitted by Google. They claimed that their use was covered by Fair Use (which does not invalidate copyright, it is an affirmative defence against copyright infringement), which is what Oracle is now challenging because Fair Use is situation dependent.
The Pi Zero is a limited edition part that exists because Broadcom wants to clear inventory of the crappy old SoC that the original Pi used. It's not really a fair comparison. Nevertheless, a MIPS 24k is something that really should be avoided like the plague. It's MIPS32r2 and all of the current ImagTec-funded development effort (compiler, OS support) is on MIPS{64,32}r6, which is not backwards compatible. The entire MIPS ecosystem is a clusterfuck at the moment.
am I correct in understanding that the NSA knew about security holes in important aspects of our cyber infrastructure, and rather than report them so they could be fixed, they sat on them so they could use them "to protect us"?
Yes. This is a big problem with the NSA and GCHQ, which have the dual missions of securing infrastructure and compromising enemy infrastructure. These missions come into direct conflict when the core of your and your enemy's infrastructure rely on the same components. Germany separates the two missions into separate institutions.
The same thing came up when Heartbleed was discovered. There were basically two options:
There is no interpretation of events that makes them appear competent.
Google isn't using Oracle's IP
This is repeated a lot in this thread, yet Google's own testimony indicates that they copied around 11,000 lines of code from Sun, that they knew that they needed a license, and attempted to negotiate one. The ruling was in their favour because the judge asked the jury to rule on whether their copyright infringement was fair use and the jury ruled that it was.
The previous ruling already establishes that Google did use Sun/Oracle's IP, but that this use specifically in the context of smartphones constitutes fair use.
Pretty stupid because Android phones don't run any version of Java
I think that's a big part of their complaint. Sun and Oracle have given a patent and copyright grant for all of their Java-related IP to all fully conforming Java implementations. Android provides a non-conforming Java implementation (for example, attempting to install a SecurityManager on Android throws an exception, so you can't do fine-grained privilege separation in Google's version). This significantly decreases the value of the Java platform, because now you have to target Java and Google-Java as separate platforms. This is precisely the same complaint that Sun had against Microsoft, who produced an almost-compatible Java implementation.
That's a nice idea, but where can you buy a smartphone that gets security updates for 3-6+ years? Most Android phones get them for a year if you're very lucky, iPhones seem to get 3 years of support (counting from initial release date for that model - less if you buy them after that). Given the kinds of vulnerabilities that we're seeing on Android, I'd be as nervous about connecting one to WiFi without the latest security updates as I would of connecting a Windows PC directly to the Internet in the late '90s.
I'd love to see manufacturers made liable for providing new phones for customers if they don't provide fixes for fix security holes for 4-6 years.
So using an off-the-shelf algorithm and an off-the-shelf data structure made your code slower than picking ones tuned to the data? Shocking! The design of the C++ standard library typically allows you to decouple the algorithm from the data (see the algorithms header), so doing the same tuning in C++ and following that design would let you change the two independently and see which combinations were better. But don't let that get in the way of your C++ bashing.
HTML plus JavaScript is the latest iteration in a display server design model that included NeWS. I liked NeWS, but even I'd admit that declarative HTML for layout and imperative JavaScript for controller logic is an easier combination to deal with than PostScript for both.
The problem with exceptions is that they're a non-local goto. When every function call becomes intra-procedural flow control as well as inter-procedural then reasoning about your code is painful. Java is one of the least bad languages that use exceptions in this regard, because it at least makes exceptions an explicit part of the method's contract, but it's still quite painful.
Any new language should consider error handling as one of the most important design elements and propagate a good design throughout its standard library (error handling, concurrency, and security are the three most difficult problems for any programming language). Unfortunately, neither Go nor Swift did this.