And as usual, no one cares about Gen X :)

At least you aren’t hated like us boomers. Apparently everything wrong in the world is down to us.

As a millennial, I apologize for the blame and hate the boomer generation gets. But I think it's important to understand why the hate exists.

Many boomers grew up in an era where even if you dropped out of high school and waited tables full time for a few years, you'd be able to afford to buy a house and start a family by age 25. Sure, interest rates were 20%, but the price of a house was often just 2-3x someone's annual salary (single earner). Now the price of a house is often 4-5x a households annual salary.

Boomers also had access to stuff like pensions.

I think boomers wouldn't get hate if it weren't a trope for them to say that the millennial generation is lazy, entitled, etc. When milennials have to be extraordinary in order to live what used to be an ordinary life (3 bedroom house, 2 kids).

I am right on the cusp of my home cost being 3x my salary, I bought it when it was 4x, but the interest rate was 2.75%.

If I refinanced now, I probably couldn't afford my own home.

If there was an affordance on the TUI that made this visible and encouraged users to learn more - that would go a long way.

That's such an oversimplified thing to say. And how much work are those quotes doing?

I don't agree, and none.

A few nerds like us getting all wrapped up in environmental impact is going to be overshadowed by 1 day's worth of laptops bought at a single Costco. Unless you're able to affect a large group of people (ie: what Framework is doing), I wouldn't get too worked up about the impact of custom PCBs vs old ThinkPads - on any reasonably scale, it just doesn't matter.

I agree, it's probably a better idea to stick to something that was sold in high volume - if only for replacement parts down the road. If one really needs low power, an older M series Mac would also suit the bill (sacrificing many of the other benefits of course).

Documenting it in a way that ensures it satisfies the example case would be preferred. You know, like with a test.

"Why is this person testing that Arizona does such bizarre things with time? Surely no actual state is like that! Such complexity! Take it out!"

It's substantially worse on the JVM. One's intuition from C just fails when you have to think about references vs primitives, and the overhead of those (with or without compressed OOPs).

I've met very few folks who understand the overheads involved, and how extreme the benefits can be from avoiding those.

Conversely I've met many folks who come into managed environments and piss away time trying to wrangle the managed system into how they think it should work, instead of accepting that clever people wrote it and guidelines when followed result in acceptable outcomes.

The sort of insane stuff I've seen on the dotnet repo where people are trying to tear apart the entire type system just because they think they've cracked some secret performance code.

>on the dotnet repo

You mean the .net compiler/runtime itself? I haven't looked at it, but isn't that the one place you'd expect to see weirdly low-level C# code?

My favourite JVM trivia, although I openly admit I don't know if it's still true, is the fact that the size of a boolean is not defined.

If you ask a typical grad the size of a bool they will inevitably say one bit, but, CPUs and RAM, etc don't work like that, typically they expect WORD sized chunks of memory - meaning that the boolean size of one but becomes a WORD sized chunk, assuming that it hasn't been packed

". While it represents one bit of information, it is typically implemented as 1 byte in arrays, and often 4 bytes (an int) or more as a standalone variable on the stack "

In what way is it worse? The range of values they can contain is well-specified.

And you have a frame with an operands stack where you should be able to store at least a 32-bit value. `double` would just fill 2 adjacent slots.

And references are just pointers (possibly not using the whole of the value as an address, but as flags for e.g. the GC) pointing to objects, whose internal structure is implementation detail, but usually having a header and the fields (that can again be reference types).

Pretty standard stuff, heap allocating stuff is pretty common in C as well.

And unlike C, it will run the exact same way on every platform.

I’m saying very few folks understand the cost tradeoffs of using references/objects versus using primitives directly. The difference in memory used for significant amounts of data is huge.

Not to mention indirection costs, but that’s a different issue.

Man so much of this thread is full of such high minded philosophizing, it's like we're debating wine instead of talking about interfaces for doing things.

Like, maybe I just want to make an interface to configure my homemade espresso dohickey, do I have to wear a turtleneck and read Christopher Alexander now? I just wanted a couple buttons and some sliders.

We don't all have to be experts in everything, some people just need a means to an end, and that's ok. I won't like the wave of slop that's coming, but the antidote certainly isn't this.

Why do you want sliders when a config file would do the same just fine?

It's true that design theory writing is annoyingly verbose and intangible, but that doesn't make it wrong. Give someone a concrete language spec and they will not really know how it feels to use the language, and even once they do experience its use they will not be able to explain that feeling using the language spec. Invariably the language will tend to become intangible and likely very verbose.

But to answer your question: no, it's of course perfectly serviceable to just copy the interface others have created, and if the needs aren't exactly the same you can just put up with the inevitable discomfort from where the original doesn't translate into the copy.

Don’t be so anti-intellectual, there’s enough of that around. A simple problem is going to have a small set of simple design solutions; the philosophising readily admits that. Nothing’s getting in your way.

I’m not being anti-intellectual, I’m being anti-elitist and anti-obfuscation.

It’s not the science and intellect I take issue with, engineering has plenty of that. It’s the art-adjacent navel gazing post modern bullshit I don’t like.

Well I think that art is good, thinking about design is good, that using a couple of terms that aren’t immediately clear to you isn’t “obfuscation”, and that postmodernism can be a useful analytical lens. Seeing the world only through science and engineering (as useful as they can be when applied well) is cold, dead, and sad.

Those bug bounty programs now have to compete against the market for 0-days. I suppose they always did, but it seems the economics have changed in the favour of the bad actors - at least from my uninformed standpoint.

That still exists in the OSS world too, having your code out there is no panacea. I think we'll see a real swarm of security issues across the board, but I would expect the OSS world to fare better (perhaps after a painful period).

China is rapidly building out their nuclear arsenal as we speak, and the USA is undergoing an expensive replacement process of theirs as well.

That kind of idea might have held water in the 90's, but that's not the world we live in any longer.

There was a time when this kind of thing would fly. When the one in charge is a giant orange child-man who can't keep a consistent thought across a single sentence, it makes it clear that the whole thing is narcissistic theatre. It doesn't surprise me that his underlings would try to emulate it, and do a bad job in the process.

I don't like being a part of the reactionary 'orange man bad' crew, but this is really shockingly bizarre. It's not the kind of behaviour you expect from a real leader of a real superpower. And it does make you think - perhaps there's something to be said about the USA not being nearly the power that it once was, and maybe this is what it looks like after you crest the apex of power.