twmb

Are there performance worries about passing around two pointers for anything that needs to allocate, as well as storing these pointers in a struct? AFAICT this basically means two registers are eaten, and a lot of types have effectively 16 bytes of overhead. It seems like this could quickly change the calculus on what fits within cache lines and what doesn't, which people often care about for very high performance code.

I wonder if it's possible to change the compiler to detect that, if what is being used in arguments is the global default allocator, the first argument can be stripped and all references inside the function can be replaced with the global pointer. Potentially the same concept could apply to allocators that use thread local storage. (perhaps these optimizations already exist?)

Nice! That’s definitely a good practice :).

I’ve tried to make the kgo package easier to use, but I think some libraries suffer from over abstracting the underlying protocol, which ultimately locks them out of some higher efficiency code or some correctness. So, I’ve tried to make the library simple yet not hide all of the details. It’s seemed to have panned out successfully for at least some people. Happy to answer any questions about it, and thanks for taking a look!

I spent quite some time writing github.com/twmb/franz-go due to wanting more from both Sarama and from Segment’s library. Pure Go as well.

I’d recommend evaluating it as an alternative, even to confluent-kafka-go due to comprehensive feature support and (afaict) even higher performance than the aforementioned libraries.

Thanks!

It isn't yet integrated with the schema registry, but I think doing so would be a fairly straightforward task. My primary goal before this "Show HN" was 2.6.0 feature completeness.

I'll look into integrating with the schema registry within the next month. Thanks for the reminder!

edit: there's a few other minor kafkacat features that I'd like to implement as well, such as start and end times for consuming, and producing entire files. I think those two, in addition to avro schema registry, are the main features this is missing, but otherwise kcl is much more featureful.

Long term, I think it'd be great to add support for secrets in vault, but I'd like a bit more usage before considering integrating that.

As a recent Brave convert, I was skeptical of Brave for the same reason.

I switched to it from Firefox (after switching months ago from Chrome) due to Firefox being slow, tabs repeatedly crashing, UX disharmony, and the recent cert addon debacle.

Brave's ad proposition makes sense: the internet is inundated with ads, which is unpleasant, but free websites do need to survive. So, make the ad landscape nicer on an opt in basis.

They take privacy seriously. I'd recommend it.

I think it is fair, but I can imagine a scenario where a person reads a line and thinks "this is obviously leftist".

Personally, I think company's have been bending over backwards to prove they aren't biasing against the right.

I caution against latching onto the title and making assumptions. The bulk of the content is analyzing where the current censorship position came from and the conclusion is for Google to be more open with their stance and also be more equal with applying it.

As for the why:

  Why the shift toward censorship?
  - User Demands
    - before, In the absence of rules, bad behaviour thrived
    - now, Appease users, maintain platform loyalty
  - Government Demands
    - before, Governments were unhappy to cede power to corporations
    - now, Respond to regulatory demands, maintain global expansion
  - Commercial Demands
    - before, It’s impossible to neutrally promote content and info
    - now, Monetize content through its organisation, increase revenues
    - before, Advertisers were wary of unintended placement and endorsement
    - now, Protect advertisers from controversial content, increase revenues

As for the conclusions:

  Don’t take sides
  Police tone instead of content
  Enforce standards and policies clearly
  Justify global positions
  Explain the technology
  Improve communications
  Take problems seriously
  Positive guidelines
  Better signposts

Most of the document is non-controversial. There are places where it can be seen as obviously left leaning, but there are also places where it acknowledges that sometimes the right has been treated worse:

  “[Richard] Spencer doesn't get to be a verified speaker; Milo gets kicked off, but I know 
  plenty of pretty abusive feminist users or left wing users,
  expressing themselves in exactly the same way
  that the right is being penalised for,
  who are permitted
  to perform certain kinds of speech. That’s going to get Twitter into

On HN, I mostly see it in replies. Then again, I don't click on all comment sections; maybe I naturally have been avoiding the articles that elicit those comments.

Generally, I expect comment sections that immediately devolve into political discussions to be flagged.

Wouldn't drawing attention to bannable offenses be Streisand effect-y?