kf6nux
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
For HN comment readers that skip citations (I'm not saying you did, just helping the conversation):
First paragraph
> cgo is an amazing technology which allows Go programs to interoperate with C libraries. It’s a tremendously useful feature without which Go would not be in the position it is today. cgo is key to ability to run Go programs on Android and iOS.
Last paragraph
> To be clear, I am not saying that you should not use cgo. But before you make that Faustian bargain, please consider carefully the qualities of Go that you’ll be giving up in return.
I don't see this as devaluing.
Discouraged doesn't mean banned. It means avoided.
Regarding why, the article speaks to that.
You are right, in some cases, your best option will be cgo. That's fine. That's why it exists. It just shouldn't be someone's go-to anymore than goto is your go-to for flow control. Will you find circumstances for it? Sure. Do you want people to use it unnecessarily?
I wonder what it would take to update these laws to require total comp disclosure instead of simply salary disclosure.
I changed jobs, saw a doctor, started eating better, am forcing some exercise, improved body chemistry, improved blood pressure. I'm sleeping better now than before the beginning of the pandemic, I have an easy time staying awake during the day, and I'm not even having caffeine anymore.
Being in your 40s, a reduction in sex hormones could be a contributing factor as well. Consider getting them checked.
According to the article:
> 80% of the top 100 games on Steam now have gold or better ratings [in the Proton DB].
> If you are confused about the various ratings, here’s what it means:
> Native: Game is available on Linux natively
> Platinum: Runs perfectly out of the box
> Gold: Runs perfectly after tweaks
So, not all 80% are either native or supported. Still cool though. I look forward to no longer needing Windows. Options are good.
> Did an Institutional Review Board consider this study?
> We submitted an application detailing our research methods to the Princeton University Institutional Review Board, which determined that our study does not constitute human subjects research.
From the social experiment[as reported by OP's link]:
> I look forward to your reply without undue delay and at most within 45 days of this email, as required by Section 1798.130 of the California Civil Code.
I'm pretty sure most people would find that to be a thinly veiled threat of a lawsuit. I'd like to know if the review board considered the text of the email that the "researchers"[1] intended to send and the fact that they were likely to send it to individuals instead of solely publicly traded companies.
[1] Seems to fall more under experimental psychology to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology?wprov=...
That's short-sighted and self-centered.
You don't care about whether or not other people's rights are violated?
You don't see how normalizing rights violations could lead to downstream effects on you?
> The energetic output of an oven stove is 80 to 90 percent, compared to 40 to 50 percent for metal stoves or central heating appliances
Energy.gov
> Old furnaces: 56% to 70%
> Mid efficiency furnaces: 80% to 83%
> High efficiency furnaces: 90% to 98.5%
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers
EDIT: We can cut the article some slack as ducting (as typically done) does account for losses which are highly variable.