skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People are being mislead. It appears that DoorDash has preemptively scrubbed anything from their website stating that drivers can make n dollars per hour, but at one point, I remember seeing the claim, somewhere between $15/$25 per hour.

I'm not trying to disparage people, but without some level understanding of economics, it's not obvious that whatever rate you receive is not your 'wage'. These gig jobs don't pay wages, they pay something closer to a fee. Maybe it's more like rent. Somebody else can comment on the pedantic differences. Point is, the relationship is skewed in favor of the party doing business, not the party providing the service.

So what? This is capitalism, you have the freedom to seek other opportunities elsewhere. Hold up. If this is your business model, you are dependent upon the current wave of de-regulation. What are you going to do if/once the pendulum swings the other direction? What happens if minimum wage ever becomes something reflective of a living wage?

These gig jobs posit themselves, subtly, as a 'side-hustle'. Something which shouldn't have to exist, but does, simply due to the lack of well-paying jobs for those without advanced education.
exactly. the dev has to take responsibility for what they write but there’s no responsibility required when you run something??
As someone who works for a dod contractor this whole situation sounds crazy. Just because something is available as a crate doesnt mean you are to assume it safe or appropriate for your use. The onus of verifying the dependencies should always be on the consumer.
>When the east coast summer firestorms come,

I cannot speak to other areas, but the Adirondack Park fire seasons are actually in the Spring and Fall.

>I give it 5 years

Eh, maybe in southern areas. But that's highly unlikely in the ADK.
I wonder to what degree the entire incident happened because Rust has unsafe-blocks.
It might not be just reddit though. The author's summary points to a volatile combination of elements in Rust itself:

1) [T]he Rust project saw Rust as more than just the language...

2) unsafe... is a really important part of Rust, but also a very dangerous one, hence the name.

If a project is considered to be not just a project, but something closer to a cause, people are going to defend their understanding of that cause fervently.

And introducing the language of "safe" and "unsafe" isn't just descriptive, it's a value judgment. It has connotations of recklessness at least, and explicit threat at worst.

People who perceive themselves to be defending a cause against danger are going to react very strongly, much more so than people who are criticizing an implementation choice on purely technical grounds.
The only time ever on earth where a homophone actually has been done well. Thank you.
The Pros and Cons of Crowdfunding
Currently the prevailing legal arguments against Uber attempt to categorize drivers as employees, not contractors.
> Other popular free software licenses (namely the GLP) have very similar clauses.

What the license says and what image the project presents can be very different. Pointing to the license and reasoning that nobody has legally promised anything contractually is not very useful.

> Expecting labour from someone without paying them is the very definition of entitlement.

That’s a very mercenary view of the world. What about volunteer charity workers? Is it OK for them to just not show up whenever, just because they aren’t paid?
Personally I plan to vendor all dependencies.

It would be nice to have cargo/rustc support 'allow_unsafe' per module and also for dependencies, so you know you have to review a dependency really well.
>the community is extremely validated in saying "Hey this library in a language that professes security isn't secure and the maintainer doesn't seem to care"

Yes, but that's not what they said. They were hateful and virtrolous, which is never appropriate. Fork it and fix the problems, create a new library which has the same API but is more sound, promote an alternative library in its place, offer to lend a hand in maintenance - these are the correct solutions.
Electronic voting, in addition to security concerns, isn't even a user experience improvement.

I remember working at a polling station as a teenager during the 2004 election. One elderly lady needed help understanding how the machines worked, so I showed her how you tapped the buttons on the screen.

Well, this woman had lost a lot of fine motor control. After selecting her choice for president, she went to hit the Next button. Her hand shook so badly that she skipped about five screens worth of races.

I asked her if she's like my help going back to choose candidates for all of the races she accidentally skipped. "No," she replied, "I got the important one."

I'm thankful that this experience, and many others from working the polls, eroded my faith in the system early on in life.
Keep in mind that you're reading a filtered, minimalist snippet of a probably very long and complicated case, and that whatever you're presuming from the article probably isn't the whole picture.
Damn, sorry to hear it. Other users listed some good options, like https://codesandbox.io and https://observablebq.com/
> If we can’t agree on a bipartisan basis that this isn’t acceptable

Dark times in America ahead.
> Do you see my point now?

Not really, what is your point?

Every car manufacturer uses parts sourced from other companies - software, parts of engines, whole engines, whole gearboxes, complete modules, raw materials... That's how the industry works...
A few years back I started using Rust after spending many years working with Go full-time and the first thing I noticed was that the team really focused on only providing the language, that libraries like HTTP were being pushed out to the community to contribute. It's a totally fair position for a language to take, but I found it disappointing coming from Go where I knew I could just use 'net/http' and move on to solving problems.

This is the first I've heard of this conflict in the Rust community, but honestly it's not at all surprising. People write lots of web servers and if you're relying on your community to provide critical libraries (http is pretty critical in 2020) things like this are bound to happen. I really wish Rust core could provide a standard library of tools more akin to Go as I really enjoyed working with it when I was learning it.
According to https://github.com/actix/actix-web, it appears that the author did accept the security concerns (when an actual use-after-free was found, but maybe not the previous, generic “unsafe oh noz” shitstorms), and wanted to explore some other way to fix the problem instead of accepting the patch as is.

Just because there’s a patch that fixes the issue doesn’t mean the maintainer has to merge that patch.
I wonder whether it’d be dangerous to introduce them on other continents. I’m naturally against such ideas usually, but the entire American continent is full of such things already. At least the SW has invasive trees that seem somewhat integrated.
I recently got into EconTalk and burned through a few of their podcasts [0]. Roberts mentions his 'distain' for the minimum wage a fair bit during the shows. Many economists do not like the minimum wage at all for many reasons.

However, with these gig economy jobs, there effectively is no minimum wage. Yes, things are murky here about the definitions of wage, employee, boss, etc. But the effective hourly rates are all well under the minimum wage. So, these companies can uncover the 'real' minimum wage that the market will deal with (again, suuuuuper murky definitions).

It turns out, that number is very low, so low that most people aren't rationally taking those jobs. Factoring in depreciation, I often hear that they loose money to work (not always, but damn close).

I wonder what Roberts has to say on how the minimum wage and the 'wage' that these gig-econ companies pay relate.

It seems to me that having run the experiments now, the theories that the economists that Roberts is like, well, maybe they should update those ideas.

[0] Excellent deep dives with interviewees, highly recommended: https://www.econtalk.org/
> Does that mean we can not impose any expectations regarding security on its maintainers either?

Yes. If you want a secure version of Linux, pay a vendor like Red Hat who’s willing to provide those assurances.
> Generally, the type of person to post on Reddit frequently enough, has social cohesion problems that may preclude him from fulfilling his social needs through more healthy avenues, like real life.

You mean like making sweeping generalisations about a platform with millions of users?
I'm not sure you can consider "It’s extra nasty this time. Some people go far, far, far over the line." to just be criticism.

What does it say that I wouldn't be surprised one iota if "far, far, far over the line" included death threats? Nobody should be expected to continue to contribute in a community with that kind of vitriol pointed their way.

EDIT: Even if all "far, far, far over the line" means is personal attacks and not death threats, that is still not simply criticism, and it's still far beyond what someone should be expected to endure in the name of "open source".
Try to make electronic voting illegal? Not sure how though - call your representative, raise awareness, that sort of thing
We used to think so, yes. But our telescopes have improved a lot since then, and we're now able to see with much more detail, our 3D positioning is better too.

We've recently observed that the universe, at the largest scales of what's observable to us, looks like this: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lFnDf.jpg

More picture and explanations on this short SE thread: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/198138/is-most-o...

I'll let you ponder how much resemblance this bears to other kinds of structures...
Also, aren't you at work?

No.
> You are basically saying that the main (only?) reason for your wife to stay with you is peer pressure because she would otherwise no longer be welcome in "the community"

Not all of the time, but I am sure that there are occasionally times when it is like that. It is the same for me, actually. That is how a "real" marriage works.

> which sounds awfully like abuse to me.

Marriage only makes sense in the context of religion. Furthermore, "halal" or "haram" is decided by religious law for us. Last but not least, we never take advice concerning morality from the godless vermin.
Seems like there should have been some sort of response from the maintainer about the _philosophy_ of why he was doing things the was he was, and people could either get onboard with the connecting points of that, or get lost. So far, in all of this drama, I have yet to see where any of that might have been explained. I don't use Rust, but I understand the significance of the experiment, and I think I for one, would have liked to read the author's thoughts about "why."
> Forking is extremely aggressive

This is not so. If you said "forking can be perceived as an aggressive action"* I would not disagree with you, but in the context of an FOS ecosystem, forking should not be perceived as aggressive, and it definitely is not inherently so. If someone doesn't want anyone to fork their project, why release it under an open source license? Free/Open source, full control: pick one.

I object to the characterization of forking as aggressive first because it's not, and second because it cuts off another potential avenue of redress or action. We already agree that "shouting on twitter and reddit" is not a good response. If you declare forking off limits or "impolite," what alternatives are left in a case like this?

I acknowledge the complicated ecosystem impacts of forking a popular project (I'm from the JS world where the impacts are extreme), but I don't think "let a project stagnate or yell and shout because the maintainer has other priorities" is a better alternative.

Forking a project in a case like this should be seen as "putting your money where your mouth is"/"stepping up to the plate"/taking on responsibility for change if you think a project is going in the wrong direction. Personally, I fault bitter complainers who don't fork a project for being lazy: do you care enough to actually do the maintainer's job, to take on that responsibility? If no, then what gives you the right to condemn them? If yes, great! Your problem is solved and you can maintain rather than complain.

More forks please.

* just as asking someone "where are you from?" can be perceived as aggressive but that doesn't make it objectively/inherently aggressive.
The division chair of the school of education at my niece's alma mater, Augsburg University, fully believes in the factory model of education. My niece almost switched majors over it.
Forking for their own use would solve their problem though wouldnt it? Just forking doesnt actually mean they are trying to take over a project.
"Denial of decorum attack" is a great description that deserves broader visibility. It's also a pithy summary of Twitter.
How can they make this claim given the current political powers that be in Au?

“””

Kean said. "There's a huge opportunity for us to lead the way in terms of tackling climate change and help the rest of the world decarbonize. There's no better country on the planet better placed to do that than Australia."

“””
We do not know why the balloon is inflating. I think "dark energy" is a form of energy assigned for being responsible for it, but other than the name I don't think we have reached conclusions as to what it actually is.
In theory, but that doesn't really matter if that person doesn't exist, you know?

In that case, simply moving to another project is the best option.
>I recently saw a talk by Atwood ...

Interesting, if you could share a link or some other source me and my dinner would appreciate it :)
What must have gone horribly wrong during the course of software history that led to people acting so entitled about free open source projects?

You use it, you evaluate then accept the consequences.
You don't? Well Patch it.
You can't? Use an alternative.
Nothing else available? Fork it and fix it.

If nothing works for you, then either you're the problem, or the entire field has an unsolved problem (and you're not helping, especially when slamming people working for free trying to solve it, even if not correctly or the way you'd like).
I wonder if there is anything like this but for a larger swath of tools, like say anything that is JDBC or ODBC compliant. More like data virtualization tools like dremio, denodo, atscale.
> The videos are more about funny jokes than the different phases of matter.

I learn so much better when I'm interested in what I learn, making it funny can be a good way to learn it.

> I don't want to have to sit next to them all night making sure that they are only doing 'productive' work.

Can you explain that one a bit more? Do you expect your kid to always do productive work? Is being productive is all you think matters in life?
Ok, so here is the article Klabnik cites, comparing various Rust HTTP clients:

https://medium.com/@shnatsel/smoke-testing-rust-http-clients...

Skimming this, the author doesn't really like any of them. Note, however, the long list of issues reported at the end of the article.

Here is the first one I clicked on:

https://github.com/algesten/ureq/issues/24

The maintainer is happy to get the report, and has an exchange with the reporter acknowledging the bug and how to fix it.

This all seems a very civil, mature way to address issues with open source software. Accept actionable criticism of your code, and strive to make it better. As a developer, I know having other people test my code and report problems back to me is one of the best ways for them to help me and my code improve!

I think identifying to your code to the point where you consider criticism of your code an attack on your personal identity demonstrates a real lack of maturity.
Let me point out that even if you think that this project is "not rust-y enough" by violating basic premises of the Rust way, it would still be useful as it outperforms all those C based project with at least as many guarantees than the C versions.

To me the important part is that we as programmers start advertising our intent. If the intent was to learn how Rust works, then we should write that in the description. Instead we write things like "very fast and lightweight framework". To many people fast and lightweight is good enough. Many other people would also like dependability and sustainability. So please, just put a little label on your github project.

All my open source projects, for example, are exploratory. None of them was meant to be used in production unless you tested rigorously that it would work, and that is on you then. There is nothing wrong with that, I think, as long as you communicate it up front.

People are just importing open source libraries with flashy sounding descriptions left and right, and then they find out those were unfinished and crash all the time, or the author ignores bug reports, or will not maintain it anymore, or thinks it's ok to switch the APIs around on you, breaking your ability to upgrade without reworking your application.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
Just be honest about it up front.
Normal people are those who are not wealthy or politically connected such that issues like this can be made to disappear.
The Joe Rogan Experience
Just because maintainer quit doesn't mean the project is dead. It can be forked and fixed.
The US needs to do at least that.
Given the "unsafe guts" most of Rust stdlib contains, there's going to be some baseline of unsafe code that every project has. I could thus see this confusing new authors and users - you could have a project with zero unsafe lines that will still report a relatively large unsafe surface.

Besides, perhaps this would reinforce the notion that unsafe is - by its very nature - a bad thing. To quote Klabnik:

> it turns out actix-web is using a lot of unsafe code. That’s not inherently a problem. The problem is, a lot of that unsafe code is not actually needed.

If the code were actually needed, then there's no benefit in printing this metric - it just makes a project that is using the feature perfectly correctly look bad.
As a maintainer, it is his choice which patches to accept. If you're not happy with his decisions, choose another project, fork it, or pay someone to do it for you.
If you're a developer of an open-source project and people start using that, it's on the users to verify that the project is security-conscious.

I open-source lots of my fun hacks for free in the hope that they're useful for someone, but I'm not going to do free unfun work just because someone decided to use my hack in production.

Users of open-source software are acting way too entitled.
Yeah you're right. There is nothing I can do, must be the Australian government's fault.
I wish I could up-vote this 1000 times.
The book "Exploding The Phone" goes into all of these stories and much more. If you ever wanted to know about how and why the analog phone system was so hackable/phreakable, this book is for you.

[0] http://explodingthephone.com/
Reconsider your use of the word "retarded," friend.
4 passengers at 180 miles/hr for 60 minutes.

For that, I’d guess they’d need upwards of 200 kW of battery, no?

Not gonna happen until batteries give us 1000 Wh/kg or so. In year 2030, maybe.
I used code generation to generate a localization system for my game
What do you need a car for? If it's just to go shopping, consider paying for delivery services instead of being the delivery service. If it's to get to a day job, compare car ownership to mass transit or bike committing. All of these cases can be estimated fairly easily (IRS allows deducting ~$0.50/mile, which is a good first estimate for total cost of ownership per mile).

Unless a car is a certain model, it's a liability instead of an asset, so it should be treated like any other expense. If you only use the car for local trips and commuting and taking the bus/biking is doable (perhaps less convenient), then buying a cheap car, keeping a few weeks of food on hand, and taking the bus to work whenever the car breaks down is likely way cheaper than buying a newer, more reliable car.

I used to have two cars (married with kids, so one car for each parent), and then decided to start biking to work to improve my health. I noticed that I can bike most days, and the insurance alone was enough to convince me to deal with the occasional inconveniences (e.g. when it snows, I bike to the bus stop).

The problem is that most people don't actually do the math and just assume that owning a car is better, when it's not most of the time.
If a small community is great and the tool they push is valid, it will grow until it's not great anymore. Try mentioning any tool that has grown in popularity, stood the test of time, and still has an exemplary community.

If a small community is great but the tool is not particularly good, they will stay small and simply get ignored. That's the average scenario for most languages not pushed by a wealthy vendor: you just don't hear about them because you don't need the tool.

> you need multiple anecdotes at the very least.

Meh, this is just the first of many to come, if Rust is to keep growing in popularity. It's on the same trajectory as Go, just a bit behind because it got usable a few years later.
'Break up big tech's monopoly': Smaller rivals join growing chorus
But this means that there is a trusted party involved: the bootstrap nodes. Those might not exist anymore in the future. If they don't, the key cannot be released anymore? In my opinion something like this must not depend on the online status of some nodes.

I think, for the black box to be truly trust-less, it must be a `f: Blockchain -> Maybe DecryptionKey`. And then you can provide a specifically crafted blockchain to extract the key...
No one expects you to write perfect code, but we do expect you to fix flaws when you learn about them.

Looking at the postmortem[1], it looks like the patches provided were not good enough in the developer's eyes:

I believed it held mutable aliasing invariant and I was very happy that someone found real problem. I wanted to solve the problem, just with a bit of creativity. And use RefCell solution only if it would be not possible to solve it with any other way. Btw, I like the solution I found, it is in master and solves the problem at least one from the issue. If you want to push boundaries you have to touch this boundaries and sometimes you push too hard.

That sounds very much like the developer was headed to fixing them, but I guess the harassment and need for now won.
The best justification for this attitude is that it's the most encouraging of open source development. Other attitudes raise the cost of open source development -- considering that it's already a losing proposition (w.r.t. lost time + opportunity) -- and will result in less quality open source software. People just won't put the work in if all they get back is this entitled bullshit.
> Forking is extremely aggressive

Shouldn't we disabuse ourselves of that notion? Forking a project to solve an issue is just that. We shouldn't attach any sort of emotional connotation to it.
I think this has less to do with Rust and more to do with people using the Web as a tool to be unkind to what they think are unhuman pixels.

Sometimes I think the Web was a mistake, and that none of us are ready for the scale that it brings.
I think part of the reason why Musk and his ventures attract vocal opponents is that he's challenging entrenched interests and making good progress at it.

To speculate, there might be financial movitations for negative PR campaigns, for example from the oil and traditional automobile industries.