[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/p...

[2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanded-legal-protections-ap...

The issue is not the technology per se, it's how it's applied. If it eliminates vast swathes of jobs and drives wages down for those left, then people start to have a problem with it. That was true in the time of the Luddites and it's true today with AI.

> But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”[1]

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

Would particularly like to know if anyone has done a performance comparison with the new API coming in the stdlib[2], which feels like a better bet. That blog says:

The Marshal performance of v2 is roughly at parity with v1. Sometimes it is slightly faster, but other times it is slightly slower. The Unmarshal performance of v2 is significantly faster than v1, with benchmarks demonstrating improvements of up to 10x.

[1] https://github.com/json-iterator/go/issues/706

[2] https://go.dev/blog/jsonv2-exp

There was an interesting debate between John and Uncle Bob on their differences in style recently[1], with a related HN discussion[2].

[1] https://github.com/johnousterhout/aposd-vs-clean-code/blob/m...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43166362

As to whether it's a common pattern, I see closures on WaitGroups or ErrGroups quite often:

  workerCount := 5
  var wg sync.WaitGroup
  wg.Add(workerCount)

  for range workerCount {
    go func() {
      // Do work
      wg.Done()
    }()
  }

  wg.Wait()

To be fair, if they write the lyrics, define the vibe/feel of the song, and compose the melody and chord progression, then that does sound like the vast majority of the song. What's left - I guess some additional instrumentation, the percussion, production? To me it does sound fair to credit the popstar with having composed the music in this case.

Your own data doesn't support your argument. I'd also point out that the comment you originally replied to specified "economic/political elite", which is why I started off with politicians. The BBC doesn't fall into either category, it's media.

For the newspaper editors, take a look at the circulation figures for 2020 (the last year that we have a full set)[1]

The Guardian, i, and Mirror had a combined circulation of 800,989.

The Mail, Express, Sun, Times, and Telegraph had a combined circulation of 4,246,217. That’s 81% (you'll also notice there are more of them). The newspaper landscape in the UK is overwhelmingly right wing.

I don’t know why you’ve included Civil Servants, since according to your own data only 32% of respondents think they’re part of the elite.

I think this has probably run its course. I did ask for evidence, but from your answers for CEOs and bankers it’s pretty obvious that your opinion is just based on vibes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...

That's why it's the sole preserve of the elite, unlike Oxford.

There has never been an Eton-educated Labour PM and the majority of Labour MPs come from state schools. The political skew among the elites is pretty obvious.

- You sometimes win a bit along the way, but eventually you lose everything.

- The jackpot prizes are only there to lure you in, and you never win them. Towards the middle of the shelf are things like £20 notes. We noticed that one of them was getting quite near the edge, and might actually become winnable, but then the following morning its position had been reset to the back of the shelf.

- It's still fun as long as you're just playing with money you don't mind losing, and not expecting to come out ahead.

They even learned something about company scrip, from the tickets that come out of the machines and the ridiculous exchange rate between tickets and the actual rewards at the prize shop.

I asked my son on the way home if he'd put all his Christmas money and savings into the machine if I let him, and the answer was hell no - maybe a pound, but he didn't want to lose all of his money. Valuable lessons all round.

- You have to decide whether to bump the entire API version or only the /foo endpoint. The former can be a big deal (and you don't want to do it often), the latter is messy. Especially if you end up with some endpoints on /v1 (you got it right first time) while others are on /v4 or /v5. Some clients like to hard-code the URL prefix of your API, including the version, as a constant.

- You still have to decide what your deprecation and removal policy will be. Does there come a time when you remove /api/v1/foo completely, breaking even the clients who are using it correctly, or will you support it forever?

It's not easy at all, especially if you have to comply with a backwards compatibility policy. I've had many debates about whether it's OK to introduce breaking changes if we consider them to be bug fixes. It depends on factors like whether either behaviour is documented and subjective calls on how "obviously unintended" the behaviour might be.

> In 2014, Yuan et al. found that 92% of catastrophic failures in tested distributed systems were triggered by incorrect handling of nonfatal errors.