Readit NewsI've mostly scribbled notes on paper for now, trying to be exhaustive about all that before scoping MVP (maybe SLC[1] would be better but I'm first doing that for myself so I'm not really pressuring myself for now).
I'm using modern C++, and will probably start from SDL3, plus a couple other libraries, but nothing too big or framework-y beyond that.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44038209 [1] https://longform.asmartbear.com/slc/
I'm a bit on the fence myself, as I think it's very harmful, but I can also see ways it can be useful. But it's absolutely mindblowing how this is nearly always completely out of the discussion even though our current way of living and powering things is on a timer and we still haven't addressed it as a whole.
- They claim full open source but for several years they did not release the server.
- They claim federation is impossible… yet matrix has it.
- They claim openness but are actively hostile to linux distributions and f-droid.
- Related, getting signal from an app store is no more secure than getting any random proprietary app.
- There's a lot of allegations that they don't need VCs because they have backing from the USA army.
Citation needed. Strange allegations (and from whom?) when the pentagon itself has discouraged using Signal in an official capacity...[0]
[0]https://abcnews.go.com/Business/what-is-signal-messaging-enc...:
> The Pentagon's internal watchdog criticized a former official's use of the Signal app in 2021, calling it a breach of the department's "records retention policies" and an unauthorized means of communicating sensitive information.
> "Signal is not approved by the DoD as an authorized electronic messaging and voice-calling application," the report asserted, adding that "the use of Signal to discuss official DoD information does not comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements and DoD's records retention policies."
Kind of a strawman argument though. The question is, is the 5% difference (today) worth the memory safety guaranties? IE, would you be OK if your browser used 5% more power displaying video, if it meant you couldn't be hacked via a memory safety bug.
Also glancing over the implementation of rav1d, it seems to have some C dependencies, but also unsafe code in some places. This to me makes banging the drum of memory safety - as it is often done whenever a Rust option is discussed, for obvious reasons since it's one of the main selling point of the language - a bit moot here.
I'm really surprised that a 5% performance degradation would lead people to choose C over Rust, especially for something like a video codec. I wonder if they really care or if this is one of those "we don't want to use Rust because of silly reasons and here's are reasonable-sounding but actually irrelevant technical justification"...
I'm really surprised that because something is in Rust and not in C, it would lead people to ignore a 5% performance degradation.
Seriously... when you get something that's 5% faster especially in the video codec space, why would you dismiss it just because it's not in your favorite language... That does sound like a silly reason to dismiss a faster implementation.
Historically, programmers drastically overestimate their ability to write perfectly safe code, so it's an enormous benefit if the compiler is able to understand whether it's actually safe.
The second part of your statement is very debatable based on what safe means in this case, and whether it's an enormous benefit for a given situation.
There's plenty of stories [0][1] about Rust getting in the way and being very innappropriate for certain tasks and goals, and those "enormous benefits" can become "enormous roadblocks" in different perspectives and use cases.
In my personal and very subjective opinion I think Rust can be very good when applied to security applications, realtime with critical safety requirements (in some embedded scenarios for example), that sort of stuff. I think it really gets in the way too much in other scenarios with demanding rules and pattern that prevent from experimenting easily and exploring solutions quickly.
[0]https://barretts.club/posts/rust-for-the-engine/ [1]https://loglog.games/blog/leaving-rust-gamedev/
What's wrong with not rabidly chasing bigger wealth? Why has this become totally unacceptable in this world?
This reeks of late stage capitalist views.
> We are choosing a model that is uninspiring for capital investment
Sounds fantastic in my book.
I also like that sort of example:
> His examples include $2.6 billion to develop a carbon-capture project whose commercial viability remains unclear
What if the goal was carbon capture and not commercial viability? What worth will be your commerce if we choke ourselves out on carbon dioxyde? That's also the concept of subsidiary and state funded stuff, it's not because it's not commercially viable that it's not useful.
I'm also unconvinced by quotes like "the country is suffering from the dutch disease" while Norway seems to have done what's indicated in such a case, through its sovereign fund. Another mitigation for that is to avoid letting in too many foreign investments in, to combat the currency appreciation that comes as a symptom of dutch disease... which this article presents as a bad situation.
Sure, the country might face a challenge as the oil wells dry up, and I'm not saying everything is fine (although I think a lot of countries would prefer to have that sort of issue).
I also think cost-efficiency should be a goal, and a responsibility of the state for state-funded projects and endeavours. I'm absolutely not absolving things like overblown costs and delays in big government led projects, this shouldn't be an excuse either (although the definition of "overblown" for delays may vary from person to person).
But his article looks more like people upset that Norway's money isn't going to them, rather than worrying about the fate of Norway itself.