presscast

>The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me.

Let me make sure I understand, because I fear we may be talking past each other.

Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus?

(I'm happy to discuss the rest of your post once we clear up this particular point; it seems fundamental.)

>It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa

The parent poster is specifically referring to a specific type of unfounded animus. Namely: having no argument other than "they have more money than me" to justify said animus.

I'm not sure how this contradicts, or even has anything to do with the parent post. It seems like you're reading excessively far into a turn-of-phrase.

Sure. That's very much my point (or have I missed yours?)

"Natural" is used to mean "in the ontology of Man".

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature".

The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point.

This is a profoundly metaphysical debate about the nature of a life well-lived and the nature of a healthy society. Whatever one thinks of it, that's the level on which it ought to be discussed.

I'm seriously thinking about refusing to take meetings on software I don't already have.

I strongly suspect it won't actually change anything, but so far I've been too chicken to actually try.

Yes (and yes!) ;)

Zoom is objectively a good software solution but being de facto forced to install yet another piece of software just to take business meetings has left a sour taste in my mouth.

It's objectively impressive that they managed to "force" me to install software. Hats off... but I plan on ditching them as soon as a viable alternative appears.

I have no real point here, other than this: I wonder if my sentiment is general, and whether or not this might bite them later down the road? Probably not.

I haven't been using Go modules, to the point where I only have a vague notion of what they do.

I haven't felt the need for them.

At what point do they become necessary? Which pain-points should I be on the lookout for?

>"Sorry, but you can't be trusted to make good choices about what you put in your body, so we will make laws that force you to make better choices"

Incidentally, it's quite common that people can't be trusted to make good choices about such things.

Forcing people to make good choices isn't a priori absurd. See: seatbelts.

In practice, it is true. They have a long line of candidates, and will prefer those with experience.

Source: am a reserve infantryman at 94th RI, 3rd Company. Regularly train with 2ème REP.

That's largely a thing of the past. You're more likely to be handed over to Interpol than anything else today.

Also, HN-ers beware -- the FFL doesn't take people without military experience, anymore.

Cool, thanks for this! I'm happily using Cap'n Proto in a side project, and so far have really enjoyed working with it. It's a really impressive piece of engineering.

If I could upvote this twice, I would. You've managed to put words on something I've been struggling to articulate.

Your point about using Go's type system (esp. interfaces) rings particularly true. When I finally figured out how to effectively use the type system, I suddenly found myself writing extremely malleable code. You can move data types and functions around quite freely, and this makes it easy to design & refactor without losing your place.

The flip side, as you say, is that extreme flexibility requires you to build your own skeleton.

BTW, are you github.com/thejerf? If so, I've contributed to Suture, and use it quite often, so thanks for that.

Right, but I'm asking if FlatBuffers' approach to encoding is similar to Cap'n Proto. It seems like the answer is "yes", but I might be missing something.