Trudeau doesn't need the midterms -- Republicans in both houses are strongly on the "Canadian" side, as are the Democrats. Which is why Trump is threatening congress.
Trump's presidency is rapidly unraveling. His outsized ego and inability to listen to reason has led to this remarkable situation where he is "playing tough" with one of the few nations that the US has a trade balance/surplus. It is insanity.
He can neither sign a new trade agreement, or cancel an existing one, without congress.
Trump is just sabre rattling but arguably this has been effective with China, and will probably motivate Canada to permit changes as well.
Trudeau doesn't have much choice, the Canadian economy basically doesn't exist without US trade. No Canada isn't going to join the EU or anything like that, most of the Canadian economy is less than 100 miles from the border. The stuff that is further away like the tar sands is also deeply integrated with the US. NAFTA has basically turned Canada into a US state economically.
Note that the Berniecrats have long lobbied for better trade deals that emphasize protections for US workers...it will be hard for left Democrats to oppose Trump with a free-trade agenda. Mostly the Berniecrats have been silent because Trump is the first President in thirty years to rethink free trade.
Canada should be looking further south for criticism...it is Mexico where jobs like auto manufacturing will end up...Canada cannot compete with Mexico. When NAFTA was written, Mexico was not yet a realistic manufacturing center so Canada had little to worry about
"Trump is just sabre rattling but arguably this has been effective with China"
It accomplished absolutely nothing with China, while cementing them as the Eastern world power (and coming global world power). It has been profoundly Pyrrhic, like virtually all of Trump's "deals".
"the Canadian economy basically doesn't exist without US trade"
Canada's economy is absolutely integrated with the US, courtesy of trade agreements going back decades. A lot of that trade is reciprocal -- e.g. Alberta sends natural gas to the US, and Ontario imports natural gas from the US.
But to say it doesn't exist without US trade is simply ridiculous. One quarter of Canada's GDP is tied up in trade, a large portion of that involved with necessary minerals and raw goods, which will always have a market. Whether it's the US because it's convenient, or another country, it will be sold.
If all US trade stopped, Canada will be absolutely fine. There will be disruption, but it would almost certainly be beneficial in the long run.
Your last paragraph is just completely wrong. Mexico -- and the whole premise of NAFTA -- was to allow North America as a whole to compete better with Asia. Indeed, Trump's boasts about the trade agreements with Mexico are uproarious because at best they seriously hobble North American car makers against much cheaper foreign makers.
In normal US history this would very much be the case. But the question is: are we still on the normal US path or are now following the Erdogan / Orban / Duda / Putin / Maduro trajectory.
Mr. Trump's personal attorney and former National Security Advisor both plead guilty to crimes, and his campaign manager was convicted on 8 counts. I don't think we're on either path of the dilemma you proposed.
I see Trump's re-election as a done deal at this point (no, I did not vote for him)
No potential Democrat has been groomed to fight him and it really looks like they will in fact let Hillary try again.
Trump has been tough on China which most Americans favor.
Trump has delivered a tax cut most Americans won't want to roll back.
Trump has gotten North Korea off the front burner. So have other Presidents like Obama and Clinton....which is good because Americans don't really want to care about North Korea.
Trump has been President during a strong economy for housing, stocks and corporate profits.
Trump is being tough on immigration which continually polls high with the public...I have never seen a poll conclude Americans want lax immigration laws, ever. Sorry most Americans don't care about the detention stuff either.
Immigration continues to confuse Democrats - only Bernie seems to realize a strong social safety net and open borders are mutually exclusive.
Downvote away, the next election will blindside you all like the last. Only hope for Democrats is a market collapse.
As an low-ranking official in the Democratic Party, I'm happy to inform you that literally no one in the party is talking about Hillary Clinton running again.
> Trudeau doesn't need the midterms -- Republicans in both houses are strongly on the "Canadian" side, as are the Democrats.
There are plenty of republicans and democrats who are against canada. Especially in the important midwest region ( which won Trump the election ). Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA. I wouldn't confuse anti-trumpism with pro-canadianism. You can be against trump and canada.
> His outsized ego and inability to listen to reason has led to this remarkable situation where he is "playing tough" with one of the few nations that the US has a trade balance/surplus.
This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades.
If we had a trade surplus with canada, don't you think it would be canada demanding changes to the trade deal?
> Trump's presidency is rapidly unraveling.
If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump? Why did south korea agree to a trade deal with Trump a few months ago?
> He can neither sign a new trade agreement, or cancel an existing one, without congress.
Sure. But he has presidential powers that could prove very punitive for canada.
Our economy is 8X larger than canada and mexico combined. The US economy accounts for nearly 90% of NAFTA. Instead of being emotionally led by cable news, look at the data.
>This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades.
A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years.
The dairy thing is simply incredible -- the US sells 3x more dairy to Canada than the reverse, and that is the whole point of supply management (that it only produces enough for domestic demand). Somehow the clueless hordes have been raised into a mob by some guy talking about tariffs in a market that they already win. And if Canada drops supply management, the US would need to drop the massive agricultural subsidies and we know there is zero chance of that.
>Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA.
Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment. It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable. Mexico will still have a $100B surplus, China a $500B surplus, but rah rah rah something about dairy.
Further, I said the Canadian side in quotes -- they're aren't pro-Canada, they're pro good relationships, fair trade, not trying to win some cheap concession now for personal power, realize that trade is not zero-sum, etc. In any rational analysis, Trump's behavior is boorish, self-destructive, profoundly ignorant and motivated entirely by ego and not the best actions for the US.
>If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump?
How is that a counter-point? But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it. Trump, and his sad jealousy of Trudeau, made him refocus on Canada, and Mexico (with a closing on $100B trade surplus) got to laugh to the bank. Of course they'd sign that.
> A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years.
I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about?
> Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment.
No. It was also anti-canada. Especially with the midwest states. Bernie Sanders had a lot of support in the north and midwest states amongst democrats because he targeted canada.
> It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable.
It's remarkable how trump and hillary supporters are so easily swayed. That's why I said people should stop being emotionally manipulated by cable news.
> How is that a counter-point?
If trump's president is unraveling, don't you think mexico and south korea would have just waited it out?
> But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it.
That doesn't make any sense. Mexico didn't want to renegotiate. They had nothing they wanted. Mexico and canada specifically said NAFTA was perfect the way it was and that they would never renegotiate.
> Of course they'd sign that.
Sign something they never wanted to sign? What about south korea? Did they also get a good deal?
Using your logic, why didn't mexico, canada and south korea demand to renegotiate so that they can get "good deals"?
Since mexico got a good deal, should we praise trump for helping mexico? Does that make Trump a generous person? Or do we have twist everything trump does to further an agenda? Or is it possible to look at things objectively or rationally?
But one thing we can agree on is how the trump supporters and also his detractors are so emotionally swayed. Wish everyone would just stay away from cable news. It's just as bad as facebook.
> I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about?
He also has a bit of a habit of saying disputable or incorrect things. I think he should keep away from cable news too. ;)
The ”trade deficit” numbers vary a lot depending on who you talk to. The US will send an unprocessed product from Mexico and declare it as a US export, while Canada will tally it as being from Mexico. This often leads to big differences reported between the two countries when it comes to goods. [1][2]
If you are going to get emotional and throw insults around then I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.
My advice is to stop watching so much cable news and stop getting so emotionally invested in nothing. Trump is not going to be president in 2 or at most 6 years. Life will go on. Your insults and rants only serve to make trump look better in comparison. So if you are really against trump, go outside and enjoy the labor day weekend. I'll do the same. Have a nice day.
> 'On Fiverr, I found someone in Pakistan offering to do architectural designs for just $5.'
I think westerners have a warped sense of money due to news report about '$X billion people live on 2 dollars a day' meme.
5 dollars in karachi wont get you very far, good pakistani professional charge as much US professionals, and instead of working for website that nickle and dimes, they normally have better options such as moving to Saudi Arabia of Qatar to get regular 5000 dollar / month salary that professionals make.
I hate how journalists always tend to think the world is somehow zero sum, somebody in Pakistan getting a job means somebody in rural Ohio is losing out ?
Does the journalist know that the US taxpayer has for over 20 years being providing significant aid to Pakistan, just to prevent the place from going full terrorist Mecca ?
In 2018 its possible that Pakistan would again need an IMF bailout ( funded by US taxpayers of course ).
I singled out Pakistan because the author did, but in general the more economic activity moves online the better it is for global productivity.
More saving in third world countries results in more development there, resulting in further capacity to save, then maybe someday they would have the disposable income to finally afford the 5 dollar coffee from Starbucks, or better yet not need american aid.
It took me a few years (University?) to understand better the concepts of job creation (macroeconomics) and of zero-sum (game theory). I assume many readers (maybe even the author) of the article will not have an understanding of these notions either and therefore will not arrive at your conclusions.
Instead of "hating", maybe we could acknowledge the problem and try to come up with a solution? Not that I'm able to come up with a good one.
A bit off topic, but when I see adults who lack a certain concept, I take note of teaching my kids about that concept. For instance, I want to teach my kids the concept of "velocity of money" by adopting an internal currency (e.g., stuffed toys), where you can "spend" by asking a favor, and "earn" by doing a favor. Over time, my wife and I might also increase the pool of "money" whenever someone does something especially nice. No blockchain required ;-)
Many places in both the US / UK are overvalued relative to their economical value.
Some developer in Glasgow tried selling us a parking lot - we did the math and there was no way it would generate enough income to collect on its price. We were better off directing our investment where the math worked (emerging markets, etc).
The parking lot had a higher price then an entire chemical plant in Kenya that had a monopoly on supplying life saving generic drugs to 3 countries in Eastern Africa.
A lot of valuation in the US / UK is based on the dollar having reverse currency status, so don't get on your high horse about the US being more 'productive'.
It didn't stop the glasgow parking lot gaining it value afterwards, but as the saying goes - "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
Lets assume Russia was responsible for serious election interference.
Now What ?
Is the US going to add MORE sanctions on Russia ? Russia is not North Korea.
The EU or US is going to go to war with a nuclear armed state, get real.
Sometimes I wonder, why it is always the fault of outsiders ? 9/11 (result of so much meddling in ME for 40 years ), 2016, mexican drugs, immigrants taking jerbs.
Unless society takes responsibility for its own problems things will not change.
> "Rosatom plans to serially produce such floating nuclear plants, and is exploring various business plans, including retaining ownership of the reactors while selling the electricity they generate."
No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim.
I think what the Russian Govt realized is that instead of building nuclear power plants, its going to be more profitable to hold the electric grid of some country hostage, just like the hard profit they make holding Europe hostage with their gas pipelines.
EDIT:
There a lot more issues I have with their idea but that was the one most striking to me.
- How are going to supply electricity during a hurricane ? Most cites are located on the path to some hurricane / cyclone / tornado.
- Coastlines near cities are expensive real estate (not to mention anyone with property there allowing a literal power nuclear plant blocking their view ) - it takes important real estate from ports that are much more useful for docking ships, etc. Its possible to build a separate port far away from the city; but then you have to pay the extra cost of building some extra infrastructure to deal with the ship, at that point its just easier to build your own power plant.
- "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'"
Really ?? why are they trying to sell dumb electricity when they have the much more valuable technology of invincible ships. How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly ?
> - "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'"
> Really ?? why are they trying to sell dumb electricity when they have the much more valuable technology of invincible ships. How many tsunamis has one of their ships survived exactly ?
A 10' dinghy in deep water is pretty well invulnerable to tsunamis. Invulnerability to hurricanes would be an entirely different proposition.
> "Rosatom, in a statement, insisted its plant was 'invulnerable to tsunamis.'"
> - Coastlines near cities are expensive real estate (not to mention anyone with property there allowing a literal power nuclear plant blocking their view ) - it takes important real estate from ports that are much more useful for docking ships, etc. Its possible to build a separate port far away from the city; but then you have to pay the extra cost of building some extra infrastructure to deal with the ship, at that point its just easier to build your own power plant.
Both of these are pretty easily solved by floating the plant a short distance off the shore and laying a power line along the sea floor. Tsunami's aren't an issue till right along the shore and the ship would practically disappear if it were just a bit off shore.
You are still leaving out storm surges etc. The ocean is a terrible place for infrastructure, its why we only do it if we really have no other option (offshore oil rigs etc).
Storm surge isn't a danger to a ship unless it's docked on shore or gets pushed ashore. It's really not that different from a tsunami in that regard a ship at sea just moves up with the bulk of the water.
Well the Australian government(s) aren't sane then. We've been privatizing our power plants for decades, and iirc some owned by Government owned Chinese enterprises.
EDIT: For what it's worth. I don't have a problem with foreign ownership of the powerplants. But I do have a problem with privatization in a market without much competition.
As others have said, ownership doesn’t precisely equal control, and certainly not in the way control can be exercised over one of these floating reactors. Also...
Well the Australian government(s) aren't sane then.
Yeah, hasn’t that been pretty well established in a myriad of other ways?
The Australian market is routinely manipulated by pretending to turn off equipment until the price rises sufficiently to pretend to turn the equipment on just in time for the high price market.
So yes, there is "a button somewhere" that a private owner can use to just turn off Australian power plants on Australian soil.
That's interesting, the US has an almost entirely privatized energy generation market and doesn't routinely have that problem.
I've read a bit about Australia's energy problems over the years, I'm unaware of how they regulate pricing though. The US has very strict rules in place for its private utilities.
Private + tight controls has resulted in the US having close to the cheapest power in the developed world. Roughly 1/3 the cost of Germany's or Australia's electricity. Privatization doesn't explain Australia's numerous disastrous energy choices and policies.
In the midst of the California energy troubles in early 2001, when power plants were under a federal order to deliver a full output of electricity, the Enron Corporation arranged to take a plant off-line on the same day that California was hit by rolling blackouts, according to audiotapes of company traders released here on Thursday.
The tapes and memorandums were made public by a small public utility north of Seattle that is fighting Enron over a power contract. They also showed that Enron, as early as 1998, was creating artificial energy shortages and running up prices in Canada in advance of California's larger experiment with deregulation....
California's problems in the early 2000s were caused by exactly that. Here's one tape where a trader asks an operator to "get a little creative and find a reason to go down".
Off shore drilling rigs aren’t anchored to he floor, but the pipe could literally snap if the rig floats away.
They are kept in place solely by GPS and thrust vectoring.
The Ruskies are going to use the same technology here, known for decades, and probably safer than oil rigs since there nothing to snap and a small volume to protect if the whole thing sinks.
This breaks the HN guidelines by being (1) a personal attack, (2) nationalistic flamewar, and (3) insinuation of astroturfing without evidence. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.
No sane govt will allow a foreign power to literally be able to shutdown one of their cities on a whim.
Western Europe is already critically dependent on Russian gas pipelines, so this would be no biggie. Russia needs the foreign currency desperately so it won’t act lightly.
Western Europe is well aware of this fact this is why they are desperate to get the pipeline from Qatar built - which is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria (The pipeline needs to pass through Syria). Hmm.. I wonder which foreign power is helping prop up the Assad Regime
Also Germany is building HVDC lines from solar power plants is Spain. Depending on Russia has already got us in the mess where Europe is unable to hold them accountable for a lot of crimes they have committed on European soil.
Because Assad was going to let a Qatar pipeline go through Syria in the first place? Hmm I wonder which foreign powers destabilized Syria and have been trying to overthrow the current government for close to 7 years now.
" On 1 June 2012, President Assad vowed to crush the anti-government uprising. On 12 June 2012, the UN for the first time officially proclaimed Syria to be in a state of civil war. " - Wikipedia
I am sorry but the conspiracy Theory that the US had anything to do with starting the Syrian conflict is simply not true.
You started this flamewar, took it into increasingly off topic politics, and (elsewhere) attacked another user personally. None of this is ok on HN and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.
You first said that the Qatar pipeline is not going anywhere because of destabilization in Syria... I guess you should've been honest from the beginning and said that it's not going anywhere because the project to remove Assad from power has failed.
If that happened, the client government could nationalize the reactor and seize control of it. This would provoke a diplomatic incident, of course, but that'd be something for the two governments to sort out.
Or, less aggressively, they would retain enough reserve power generation capacity to replace the electricity. For example, have gas plants that can be spun up on demand if the nuclear reactors were shut off.
Either way, a government isn't going to be held ransom by Rosatom.
> "Or, less aggressively, they would retain enough reserve power generation capacity to replace the electricity. For example, have gas plants that can be spun up on demand if the nuclear reactors were shut off."
If your country has the capabilities to build reserve power plants why allow the Russians to get all the profit from the power market ? You could just spin up your gas plants indefinitely.
Nuclear power is also not cheap, and the main cost is associated with risk (disposing of waste, etc), I am sorry but if their is one area where you cant be cheap its nuclear power.
Also the countries that Russia seems to target are poor countries with weak governments like Sudan (not to mention Sudan's main cites are all far away from the coast). Most poor countries these days are located in perfect places for solar energy, which is anyway cheaper than nuclear.
>Nuclear power is also not cheap, and the main cost is associated with risk (disposing of waste, etc), I am sorry but if their is one area where you cant be cheap its nuclear power.
I see nuclear power as being just as susceptible to off-shoring the dirty parts as any other industry. Russia could just dump all the waste in a mine in Siberia and even if they did a terrible job it would be a century before anyone noticed. Until the waste containment becomes a problem this would be a win-win because the buyer can say they're buying environmentally friendly nuclear energy and the Russians can make money hand over fist.
Only countries that can't or won't pay. Take Ukraine, all the gas destined for Germany and the Netherlands (people who have payed their bills on time since 1950) had to go through them. Russia couldn't shut down those Ukrainian deadbeats because then they would lose billions.
Up until the 17th and early 18th Century most of global wealth was located in China and India. Its what made them prime target for the militarily strong Europeans.
I have been to Europe, Asia and the Middle East and people are almost the same.
So how can I explain the widely different living standards ?
The only answer that ever made sense to me was colonization.
You can see the equalization happening with Britain and
US having third world style politics, corruption, etc due to having to learn to live in world without their hegemony.
As for democracy, do you think China could have survived
democracy ? It would have ended up like Iran. Democracy only works if the country has strong institutions which China doesn't have, they still send their best and brightest to US universities.
India has survived democracy completely due to its massive diversity; it's linguistic, religious, racial and social diversity make it almost impossible for any leader/concept to wow an entire nation. It maybe a surprise that its a single country but not really a surprise that it is still democratic
Is the marketing department in Lua so bad that this person didn't even consider it ??
Lua's secret trick is that you are really not writing Lua but C - most of the time when I am writing Lua I am actually thinking in C.
C <> Lua interlop is probably the best designed API out there and other language designers can take some advice - it does't do traditional FFI but something even cooler using something called Lua Stack.
Lua is also tiny ! it can run on embedded devices like hearing aids.
And you also have LuaJIT - which is faster then V8 ! but is not as stable as vanilla Lua.
Firstly stop comparing things in vacuum - you need to set expectations accordingly.
Go has google behind it, so regardless of anyone's opinion they can very well jam it down everybody's throat through sheer throwing money at the problem.
Go was build for fast web servers, not for what Rust is aiming for at all.
Rust also has this this obnoxious issue around it that has become a meme :
Rust CAN be a good choice for building a bluetooth driver or writing the logic for pacemaker (oh god no !).
But it has the steepest 90 degree hill to climb mainly because :
- untested in the wild.
- lack of libraries.
- API stability.
You should keep on using Go due to it being better tested, unless some large company throws a few billion dollars behind it, its going to take a lot of time for Rust to catch up on its own.
I bet even by 2025 rust wont get much traction unless some bigCo heavily invests in it, do not take my word for it - just look at purely open source projects like FreeBSD, Linux took nearly 20+ years to get any traction.
I’ve been really impressed with how much success people have had with cross platform deployments as well. At RustConf we just saw a talk about one company putting Rust on satellites, doesn’t get more “wild” than that.
> - lack of libraries.
There are some gaps. But new libraries are showing up every day. For middle of the road, non-exotic stuff, I would be surprised if a developer doesn’t have everything they need.
> - API stability.
In the library ecosystem this is a small problem. In the past 3 years I rarely am broken from library upgrades. For the language though, I have never in the same 3 years been broken by a language upgrade. Not to say there haven’t been bugs that the language needed to fix, but stable has never failed to compile my oldest Rust 1.0 code.
Please don’t spread information ignorant of facts.
Putting things on satellites might mean very different things. There is close to zero chance of anything critical being in Rust. One company I worked on has not even move from (a subset of) C90 for critical components. No C99, no C11, no C++03 and no Rust. It is likely that a company may have software in Rust, even running in a satellite module (though unlikely), but that is different than actual satellite systems being certified on Rust.
As for the rest of your argument: in many companies people is still moving to C11 or C++11. For many, software is considered for production only if it has been 5 years in the wild. A library appearing on cargo does not mean it is “available”.
> For many, software is considered for production only if it has been 5 years in the wild.
Time is irrelevant, it’s about usage and stability. Every rust crate I rely on has published download numbers, which give you an idea of number of people using it. In that set, they are all open source and published on GitHub or Gitlab, so I can look at the codebases easily.
You can wait, that’s fine. But you do end up missing out on helping shape a new environment that is growing at crazy rates over the last few years.
Sorry but that company/product looks like it is a Linux distro and framework tuned/supported for satellite hardware. That does not mean it controls the satellite nor that it is certified.
If you think “download numbers” (or open source, or being in GitHub) is a good metric for measuring reliability, it means you haven’t really worked in any such field.
It isn’t growing _at all_ in many fields, because it is simply way too new (no new software projects started on it), it isn’t certified (or even impossible to certify). That does not mean it is not better, so don’t take that as an attack. It is simply a suicide in risk-analysis to use a new language, new libraries and new compiler front-end in safety-critical projects; so it is a no-go. Similarly for C11, C++14, C++17 and many other languages, frameworks and libraries that you have to approve.
> If you think “download numbers” (or open source, or being in GitHub) is a good metric for measuring reliability, it means you haven’t really worked in any such field.
I never have worked in such a field, and you're comments about certification, etc, are definitely things I will accept as true. Getting any support of new technology in any space is hard, and of course takes time.
But, I will say that "download numbers" where there is obvious sustained usage of a project is a stand-in for understanding if something is seeing real-world usage. I don't claim that it show stability, only that if it's usage is high and the number of issues on the project are not growing under that strain then you can begin to get a picture of it's stability.
When you talk about formal proofs, certification, etc. Those are different mechanisms for validating that, but generally requires substantial amounts of money to be done.
Happy to hear that, since I am not exactly in joy of using ancient languages.
However, from plans to actual usage takes years; specially for completely new projects using new languages, compilers, libraries, etc. in safety-critical stuff, that takes months just to validate.
Stating anything else is just either lying (marketing) or ignorance. Please do not do a disservice to your language by creating vacuous hype.
That was also a significant part of the talk. Like any industry, some shops are conservative, and some aren’t. Pointing out that some places are more liberal than others isn’t lying.
This is a personal attack: "It seems you don’t understand (or more likely you don’t want to understand)."
This is bullying: "Prove Rust is controlling critical systems _today_ ".
And this breaks the site guideline against calling names in arguments, as well as returning to personal attack: "Otherwise, please stop spreading bullshit".
Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Your comments need to be considerably more respectful if you want to keep posting here. There are plenty of ways to express your views about programming languages thoughtfully, including if you disagree with someone. It's not hard, if you take the spirit of this site to heart. We'd appreciate it if you'd do that.
Well, it seems you consider a “personal attack” any comment directed to another person, even if it is meaningful for the discussion and in-context. Your own guidelines ask for maintaining an identity (“On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to.”); yet you don’t want any comments questioning anyone.
As for the rest: I don’t see how asking for proof can be considered “bullying”.
Please review the definition of bullying, because you are trivializing it and therefore hurting actual victims of bullying.
Thank you on behalf of them.
Finally, since it seems HN are in the business of deleting fair comments, I will leave the site and do my best warn others of what is happening here.
I'm not really gonna bother to reply when there's accusations like this.
I do understand everything you're saying. We're not in disagreement about the context. I (or more accurately, bluejekyll, we're talking about the same thing) did provide such a citation, you can take it or leave it.
By next year, Google may be the largest single employer of Rust programmers in the world. They might even already be, but the Fuscia team is aggressively hiring.
Facebook is too.
Amazon had a booth, I didn’t get a chance to talk to them about their current deployment personally.
Don’t underestimate China either, PingCap has huge deployments of their database, and while we may not hear about them often in the West, the numbers don’t lie.
there are people right now writing production code in Nim, Crystal, Julia, and Joy (well maybe not Joy except for Jonathan blow himself). someone taking the plunge/risk on a new language is exactly how all three of those issues you allude to get resolved (as a dialogue between language users and language developers). I don't the Google go point? which big company is behind python? ruby? php? are those all also risky languages to build in?
I mean - I agree with a great deal with what you say...but Rust is backed by Mozilla which has written arguably the first or second most popular browser in current use. So, the bigCo argument seems misplaced. Also Google has a history of releasing languages that are often hugely unpopular (cough Dart cough) so I'm not sure that the money argument even holds even if it were true. Cool link though - Rust seems to be very popular among people who know of it, but don't use it.
Mozilla is comparatively not a financial heavy weight like google, Microsoft.
Google has a history of doing a million things that fail, but that is exactly what i mean. They can spam the programming community with millions of things and something will eventually stick. Moz doesn't have that type of financial firepower so for them it's Rust or bust.
If Trump wasn't president, ( someone like bernie ).
I hope a coalition of democratic countries (Australia, EU, Japan, Vietnam and India ) sent a carrier group to Taiwan and make China sign some sort of agreement to keep the Taiwanese alone - a country doesn't deserve this type of humiliation.
Taking on debt in your currency means you won't be able to access international markets, and international market are not just going to allow you to sell bonds in your currency without an extremely steep interest payment, some players won't even invest due to the enormous risk they would be taking.
Your point 3,4 makes it seem you are unaware of how money or wealth works - would you like it if every three years the govt just striped you of your ownership of your house ? All debt is someone else's saving, introducing a ”sabbat year” on the debt side also reflects on the ownership side - it would not be possible to own anything long term.
Your point 4 would mean companies like Amazon, FB, Google would literally be impossible to create. Its very hard to distinguish between good and bad debt ( its the reason analysts are paid so well ).
Cant he just wait it out ?
I guess if the blue wave doesn't pane out it might actually be better for Trudeau to accept NAFTA before then.