Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tzekid's commentslogin

I think it's because go's community sticks close to the standard library:

e.g. iirc. Rust has multiple ways of handling Strings while Go has (to a big extent) only one (thanks to the GC)


> Rust has multiple ways of handling Strings

No, none outside of stdlib anyway in the way you're probably thinking of.

There are specialized constructs which live in third-party crates, such as rope implementations and stack-to-heap growable Strings, but those would have to exist as external modules in Go as well.


What does String/OsSfeing have to do with garbage collection?


In modern societies: top 1% of earners pay roughly 30% of taxes top 5% pay 65% of taxes top 10% pay 80% of taxes while bottom 50% usually barely make 2% of taxes.

Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.


"Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better."

You're right, because the distribution is removing large groups of people from the economy.

Just for reference, this has been done before and it produced possibly one of the best economies (at the time) and it was very social democrat. This was the United States after the so called "New Deal".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

And just to make it crystal clear, we're not talking about taxing working people. We're talking about taxing the obscenely wealthy people who just sit on massive amounts of wealth, whether it's stocks or property or yachts or mansions or gold and jewelry. You know the > 10-1000x millionairs


Sure, but how "heavy" is that redistribution though?

Top 1% paying 30% of taxes sounds like a really rough deal for them at first, but if those 1%ers already own over 30% of your country in the first place (which is the case in the US), then thats barely their "fair share", and you are not really achieveing any redistribution at all.

How can you be certain that the problem is "progressive taxation is not working" instead of "taxation does not help against wealth inequality because it is actually barely progressive"?


Also the top 1% covers everything from the very affluent middle class to billionaires - the distance from the least rich part of the 1% to the richest part spans billions, much greater than the rest of the distribution's 99%.


top 1% net worth is around 10 million says google. That's enough to live off and not need to work at any age. It's clearly not middle class.


It depends on where you are. There are parts of the USA where a 10 million net worth does not mean you are "yacht rich" (but certainly very comfortable).


No one has a right to live anywhere specific. That seems like an individual's problem rather than a government's.


But the top 1% still pays proportionally less of their wealth in taxes than the bottom 50%. Yes, they may pay a large fraction of the total taxes, but with what they own they should pay even more.

I think another big problem is that this extremely uneven distribution of wealth is a basic democratic problem. The reason we have states is, among other things, to put the allocation of our finite resources under democratic control. If the majority of those resources are on private hands, then states get less control and our votes have less power.


A lot of people survive and tolerate a lifestyle that comes from these redistributions of things to people who no longer have direct access to means of survival like water and land. You really have to qualify what you mean in better.

Many rich people with heads should consider that the current situation is making things better than the next version of the French Revolution.


>Many rich people with heads should consider that the current situation is making things better than the next version of the French Revolution.

The French Revolution was a revolution against the French government, and its high tax policies.


No. It was a revolution against a regime where the rich paid NO taxes.

Article 9 of the august decree – Fiscal privileges in the payment of taxes were abolished forever. Taxes were to be collected from all the citizens, in exactly the same manner, and plans were to be considered to set up a new method of tax collection. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_feudalism_in_Fran...


I’m not sure how your second statement follows your first? It’s implying that your numbers are “heavy” but not backing it up.


> Heavy redistribution of wealth is already in place and it's not making things better.

Really? Universal education and healthcare don't make things better?


Do you have a source for this?


Forcing Apple to implement interop and such extra features requires a non-trivial amount of labour. That trickles down to the customer in many subtle and not so subtle ways that the parent comment mentioned (more resources and higher inter-dept. coordination ceiling for a streamlined UX, etc.)

Comparing it to opinions about gay marriage makes you look dishonest, "None of this is about you, at all" makes you look plain silly


It doesn't make me happy. The more the EU regulates, the less innovation we have.

It's not a meme, it's reality


All those innovations can and have happen(ed) with them also being open and not anti-competitive. If Apple is not willing to bring new features because it can't build its walled garden with it, nuts to them and others will and win them. That's the whole point of competition.


Sure, and also the less slavery we have, the fewer pyramids we build. They're all tradeoffs.


They are offering a product/service, so going in too much detail would be a bad business practice, no?

But true, would love to see this in OpenSource in the wild


Isn't it more like "compressing" interactions with and patterns of 500MB of data?

Like, it's not only text search but also has a degree of generalization (e.g. in labelling new documents)


Following a car in front of you in perfect conditions (otherwise it full-on disengages) just to comply with the regulatory labels is whack.

I don't get why people cheer on it and even compare it with Tesla, which goes for ... actual self driving


Because the Mercedes solution works, today, with legal guarantees, under quite precisely specified conditions. It allows you, in those specified and advertised conditions, to play a game or read a book or take a nap while driving.

In contrast, Tesla only has promises. In practice, you can't do anything with FSD that you couldn't do without it, because you have to pay exactly as much attention when it's engaged as when it's disengaged, and you can't take your hands off the wheel or it full-on disengages.

Mercedes has an excellent base to build up from. Tesla has next to nothing.


That's actually awesome tbh.

Wonder what effect alignment training will have on the output quality


Isn't using compounding inflation rate on top of CPI-inflated dollars double counting? It looks and feels like 40+% to me and everybody else


It's not double counting, it's just the average difference from CPI vs McDonalds hamburger inflation


Those are just the countries where you can release an AI product without worrying that you'll get sued into oblivion by the state.

See e.g. EU AI regulation


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: