The internet routes around damage. If these social media companies prove they're favouring the government rather than their customers, hackers or AI will just replace them. Won't be as pretty, perhaps, but it won't block or snoop so much. These companies haven't built up any goodwill to protect them.
But, they have built up moats via generally unregulated anti-competitive behavior. Also of note, the ISPs are owned by the same class of people, they aren't routing around anything, they are taking our money and cashing checks.
Which would be praise worthy if it was a net neutrality stance, but it's not.
If you wanted to argue that the Democratic party suffers from many of the same problems, then there might be a productive conversation to have.
But if you genuinely cannot see a difference between the current Trump administration in the Democratic party -- if you argue that they are completely identical, with all differences "just for show" -- then I cannot believe you are making your statements in good faith.
Isn't it constantly annoying that your take (that I agree with and is obviously correct) will always seem fringe?
You'll be branded as believing in the illuminati and a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the horribly obvious fact that money runs US politics and your vote literally doesn't matter with lobbyists and a revolving door in congress.
Intelligent people think this way. It's quite sad.
Absolute dumbest time in history to try to sell this idea. I don't know if the more charitable interpretation is that one actually believes this, or that it's the most convenient lie one can say when they know they can't publicly admit to supporting this iteration of the Republican experience.
And it might take into the next generation to find that other job. Hard to retrain past 20-30 or so. And, perhaps, automating taxis aren't something worth all that effort? Having a driver means they can do things when there is a problem rather than just phone home.
Hopefully, people don’t look back from a few years on and state that this was the last truly stable or secure versions of the kernel. Yeah, I assume Linus is assuming people understand their submissions but people are lazy. If they were given code in some fashion, it wasn’t thought through.
A bug is a bug is a bug. But not everything reported is a bug.
I watched a significant portion of that video, it represents what I expect well. You can't bury your head in the sand because an AI reported a bug, it's, potentially, still an exploitable bug. They can however raise the standard. They can require that reporting a bug comes with a fix, even if they reject the fix provided, it gives them an opportunity to evaluate that the bug is real, that someone put some effort in resolving it for the community (even if an LLM provided the fix); it gives something to evaluate the can benefit rather than only being a determent to the community.
I've sent a half dozen patches over the year to projects, I've always provided my perceived fix for the issue, occasionally they've been implemented as-is, and sometimes they were replaced outright with an alternate solution. I never really cared about the solution, just that the issues was resolved.
The first was a commercial library that dealt with multiple modems (interrupts and daughter cards)on dos based machines. They took the fix and integrated it and provided me with an updated library. Not much of a thank you, but the library was fixed.
More recent ones was another commercial library, open source but proprietary, and they sat on it for 3 months waiting for me to fix it their way, before the accepted it as-is and released appropriately adjusted patch. (I'm not their employer or employee, their complaints were tedious undefined rules. I fixed the bug and had working code. I waited them out.)
Good responses, bad responses, none of them mattered, what did matter to me, and others, is the developers involved cared enough to eventually implement the right fix for their codebase. The bugs need to go. Set the ego aside and fix it.
Aren't COMMON's implemented as static structures? Stuff that's accessible from multiple functions - except that Fortran requires explicit rather than implicit reference.
It is way of sharing variable values without using parameters. But it is ugly and easy to make errors, e.g. accidentally missing a variable out of the middle of the list in one function or subroutine means all the later variables have unexpected values.
It is a log time since I did any FORTRAN. Maybe they improved it?
COMMON, ENTRY, and EQUIVALENCE are certainly frowned upon in modern Fortran style, as the language has gotten less error prone ways of accomplishing the problems those features ostensibly solved. But they still exist in the language for backwards compatibility.
"that followed existing mathematical practice". Not what I would call primitive thinking. It set out to handle math quickly and it succeeded. I/O wasn't its strength, and I'm sure the latest versions look like verbose C.
With vector machines, Fortran yielded (much) faster code because (a) there was a whole lot of work on preprocessors for "dusty deck" code and (b) the lack of pointers and their overlap let the compilers do their stuff. C code needed a lot of #pragma's to let it know that some pointers didn't overlap and so could be optimized.
We found it best to to the front-end and I/O of the code in C and the compute in Fortran. Fastest calculations especially with those tailored libraries.
C allowed pointer aliasing, so you always have to refresh reads incase a pojnter modified the value. With any loop, that is just more reads to update dependancies every cycle. When not aliased, you cache value in register. Much later C introduced “restrict” keyword to match fortran performance code. c++ is still fighting this by insisting you work with different types, hence by default you dont get aliasing but that doesnt cover 100% of scenarios.
Fortran certainly has its place, but if you really need to squeeze every bit of performance out of a machine I think assembly might be better and not much harder.
This is more complex than you might thing. First, there's far more places to meet people - rather than having them over for coffee, we meet in a coffeeshop. Networks have provided a "together in time" alternative to "together in place", so people can game, talk, ... via voice and video rather than traveling to a common location. There's far more 2-working-member families than previously, so the ability to organize household events is reduced. Finally, there's far more organized sports activities that consume both child and parent time. These pull everybody out of the house.
I’ll never forget a conversation I overheard on a plane years back: a caricature of a man in his 20s failing repeatedly to explain to an older lady what a “gastropub” was. Each time, he rephrased his description, and each time she responded, “that sounds like a pub.”
“No, not exactly...,” he replied in an increasingly exasperated tone. I could hear the struggle in his voice as he recognized the cracks forming in the thin veneer of his identity. “It’s like a pub, but it serves food. Like, real food, thoughtfully considered by a gastrochef.” She returned the serve, now teetering on boredom at minute four of the flight. “At our pub we call him Kevin. He makes the best pot pie.”
He regrouped and they found truce in talking about the weather in Toronto. I resisted the urge to twist around to ask if they knew any good restaurants downtown.
A pub must serve drink. It doesn't need to serve food.
In Ireland that distinction matters. It generally will affect other things, like what time and how loud music will be played, how the tables and chairs will be organised and what type. It will often affect opening hours and the price of a pint. Gastro pubs also tend to be much larger.
In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs, possibly why that lady couldn't see the difference. I personally love micropubs and they never serve food other than crisps and maybe a toastie.
I feel like a pedant but I get that dude in his 20s and had to speak up.
> In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs
To be fair, at least in the US, anything calling itself a "pub" is already going down a marketing/branding road and it almost certainly means they're going to try to evoke an Irish or British sensibility.
Decline in religion + third spaces combined with socioeconomic system expectations of a 40 hour work week + two incomes needed to live comfortably. Places and time for community and social activities has declined, and so social activity has as well.
If more social time is desired at the macro system level, people need to have more leisure time (shorter work week, higher wages, good quality of life with more free time broadly speaking) and more third spaces to meet and socialize.
Is there a citation for the decline in third spaces? I read such a claim often. But in my part of the US (Brooklyn NY) the number of third spaces like coffee shops and pottery studios is booming.
When I was a kid kids used to just hang out. We'd take a bus, ride bikes, or walk to the mall, the park, the woods, fast food restaurant, record store, dollar store, etc and just loiter. Nobody had any money to buy anything, but boy we'd browse and loiter. Sometimes we'd just walk for hours. We'd walk miles and miles and miles just to sit at a table at Burger King with a single small fry between our group and hang out there.
Children don't do that anymore; they basically don't leave the house because they have the Internet. They communicate through texting and Discord so they don't even have to "hang out." Beyond the social change, when I was a young adult most malls went 18+ (unless accompanied by parents/guardians) and most other businesses nowadays allow teens to loiter the way we use to. Businesses want people in and out once they are done.
Even if business allowed it, most parents don't allow their kids to leave the house unattended anymore.
You were downvoted but you are correct. Some classic examples of third spaces are English pubs and Dutch coffee houses.
That third spaces include commercial spaces does not imply that “free” (tax or donation funded) third spaces should not exist. Parks and museums are also great third spaces.
While in many countries cafes and pubs served as real third places in the past, rising rents (and other costs) have led many establishments to discourage people from lingering. At my old haunts, loud music is now played to get customers moving on, and the very second you're done with your drink the wait staff will swoop down and ask if you want to place another order (i.e. a hint to pay more or get out).
Compare this to earlier times when it might have been common and socially acceptable to sit for hours on a single purchase and just shoot the shit with fellow townspeople.
there's diners and bars in every corner of middle America. What's changed, I think, is the level of striverism among young people.
In this thread you have multiple people saying they can't go out without paying 200$ or ordering 8$ beers. If you're in your 20s or 30s just go bar hopping in whatever the rundown part of your town is like people used to instead of going fine dining.
A movie ticket, inflation adjusted, costs the same as it used to for decades. Normal people just took it for granted that they had to smuggle some beers into the cinema rather than turning the whole evening into some hundreds of dollars spending spree.
> A movie ticket, inflation adjusted, costs the same as it used to for decades.
Maybe so, but it doesn't feel like that to people. A lot of things are actually way cheaper than they used to be inflation adjusted (we complain about an $80 video game, but inflation adjusted they used to be well over $100, cheaper now even with all the microtransactions, we just remember a sticker that said $50). When I know that a decade ago I could see a $5 matinee and for $20 have drinks and popcorn too, knowing that $40 (albeit for a smaller drink/popcorn) isn't really twice the price doesn't stop the sticker shock, especially for people whose income didn't go up at the same rate as inflation.
NYC is a thriving city of 8.5 million people and one of the most economically active cities in the world, so your experience may be different than say, Gary, Indiana.
Thank you! I skimmed these citations and I remain unconvinced. But I think really answering the question would be a real research project, not a HN back and forth :)
The first citation's relevant highlight is "All categories of third places experienced widespread closures from 2019 to 2021" which is obviously a COVID phenomenon and not a cultural trend. They admit so much. Data from that period I would say is generally irrelevant to discussing wider cultural trends. In fact a query to Gemini says that the number of independent (not chain) coffee shops is growing at 3.2% across the country and it gives this citation: https://www.locationscloud.com/research-report/us-coffee-sho...
The other Science Direct article says "Third places _may_ be closing in neighborhoods across the United States" (my emphasis).
The remaining articles seem to be opinion articles without hard data. They focus on the hypothetical problem of third places going away. In fact the AEI article talks about zoning which cannot possibly be of relevance to any decline in third places given that zoning is becoming less restrictive over time in the last decade.
Part of it may be high rents. I read that rents increased a lot because of fashion stores. They make so much revenue per hour that more traditional stores (like the laundry, the washing machine store, the sewing store, the tabletop games store, and maybe cheaper cafes and restaurants just can't compete.
An enormous portion of my social life is through my church. Bible studies, committee, small groups, Sunday schools are the main structures things, and then you make friends through it and start having other people over and hanging out with them. I don't know what my social life would look like without it.
At least in the US, people are leaving the church (at least the more conservative ones) in droves. I saw recent numbers that over 40% of people who were raised LDS are no longer in adulthood, for example.
Tying religion to politics was probably a bad idea for both religion and politics.
The 40 hour work week is most assuredly not new in the past 30 years.
The households where both parents work full time probably have increased in that time, but I'd say you have to go back closer to 50 years to really get to a time where it was still somewhat common for a housewife to be home all day with the kids.
Yeah I think there's this fictional idea that families in the past didn't struggle with money and need both parents to work. My father worked full time and my mother worked about 30 hours a week when I was a child (1970s).
2) Prices rising faster then income for majority of population.
3) increasing commute time around employment, activity hubs
4) kids activities/sports are now taken as seriously as work project deliverables. Previously it could be just gifted kids in school teams now with pay-to-play a lot more kids are involved in "serious sports".
I don't know about the sports. It's probably more serious now. Youth soccer is a whole thing that didn't exist at all when I was a kid. But lots of kids played Little League or basketball or football back then (1970s). "Travel" teams were probably not as common, but I was not a sports kid so I don't have a lot of direct experience. There were also swimming lessons, music lessons, Cub Scouts, a lot of other kids activities. It wasn't all just hanging out at home.
regarding the 40 hour work week, I wonder what "always on" is doing to impact social activities. Meaning, you work 40 hours in the office, then you go home and get online and work a few more hours each night.
Yeah, but they weren't as common as they are today. There were pubs and eateries before also, but again, not so common. My point was that much of what was done "then" in one's house are now done elsewhere. Some, of course, aren't done and I'm not sure they're quite so popular.
And I assume the pertinent discussion is what happened/changed in the western world post WW II.
For the last century (and still today) we called them cafés (in Germany). Coffee shop was the term we used for joints in Amsterdam where you could buy ... well, joints.
reply