[0] - https://ecto.hexdocs.pm/Ecto.Changeset.html

Ruby's runtime in the early 2000's compared poorly against the JVM or the BEAM. People used Ruby then and now because it worked well to get products to market quickly. Even after a ton of investment in Ruby's implementation, the JVM and the BEAM are still better able to handle the types of high-traffic, high-concurrency workloads those companies serve, which makes them relevant to mature, high-scale companies.

Tellingly, there are dynamic language implementations that are performance-competitive with static language implementations, like Javascript's V8/Bun/Deno, Lua's LuaJIT, and Common Lisp's SBCL (among others, this is not an exclusive list).

My hybrid (not a Prius, actually) doesn't have a dedicated starter motor, the traction motor starts the ICE engine. The climate control is electric and powered by the hybrid battery (with the added benefit of being able to run the A/C while the ICE engine is off). The power steering is electric so there's no hydraulic power steering pump to fail. I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting. Mechanically, it's just simpler than an ICE engine alone.

> ability to avoid high-stress operation because of the electric side of the power train.

This one is huge, also, and people always forget about it, so thank you for raising it. ICE hate being heavily loaded at low RPMs (also known as "lugging"), and the electric motors alleviate a lot of that low-end workload. It's a big win not just for efficiency, but also drivability, as almost all non-diesel engines make terrible torque low in their RPM range.

That said, I have heard plenty of anecdotes confirming these properties from other folks. People losing a knife in a stream or field and then finding it the following year, etc.

> In any case, this new alloy is weird -- it seems like it specifically has excellent resistance to electrochemical corrosion when it is used as an anode, which is not what people usually use stainless steel for :)

100%. Probably almost no crossover into cutlery, but super cool regardless!

No, it's not. It works. Perfect? No, absolutely not. There is plenty you could improve, plenty of rough edges you could smooth out. Stuff that caused us problems at the job I had writing low-ish level machine control services. But it's totally workable and we were able to ship working devices, especially compared to doing async stuff in other most other languages, especially the memory-unmanaged ones.

Kind of like Rust itself, a ton of people have tried it and bounced off it because they couldn't get it working in 10 minutes, and in doing so have declared it impossible/for geniuses only/broken/ecosystem-destroying. The narrative around async Rust is probably 70% meme/bad PR, 30% real, actual issues that could be improved.

I hope this comes off as fair. I don't want to excuse any of the shortcomings, but it's a working, useful tool.

To be fair, the alternative to having to worry about Send/Sync/Pin is not "not worrying about Send/Sync/Pin". It's having to worry about correctly enforcing the constraints they describe on your own, without any kind of mechanical help. E.g., not moving data to another thread that shouldn't be and not accessing data from multiple threads that shouldn't be. This stuff is intrinsic.

In this sense the Rust mental model is simpler, because failing to uphold these constraints is no longer "your fault", it's Rust's fault.

I just bought a (small, hybrid) truck because I need to do some truck stuff. I 100% would have bought an electric if the market produced one with comparable capability and competitive price, but we're not there yet, and I don't have Rivian money (yet! lol maybe someday).

My point being: there is still a huge demand for trucks from both a capability and culture standpoint, and very little supply of a cost-comparable product that doesn't take gas or diesel. Rivian is around double what most people want to pay, and the F150 Lightning was marketed poorly and had bad towing/hauling range compared to gas/diesel equivalents.

I'm not here to defend "truck culture" but I do believe that if you offer people a better product, they will figure it out and buy it. An electric truck with 400+ miles of towing range, an onboard 2kW+ inverter, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and fast charging for the same price as a comparable gas F150 will sell. Unfortunately the battery energy density and EV supply chain economies of scale aren't there yet in North America.

Yes, 100%. Almost no one has found either my public code or my writing useful, but the process of writing and documenting has been tremendously useful to help me clarify what I _actually believe_ at that point in time. This is the primary benefit.

That said, a few projects have taken off unexpectedly and clearly helped some folks, and I've received a few cold emails from folks who somehow ended up on my blog, and all have been pleasant conversations!

One thing I recommend is trying to lower the threshold of what is acceptable to publish. Publish scraps, publish "today I learned", publish "look at this stupid thing I discovered" stuff. Gradually your threshold will rise, but one mistake I see people making is the belief that they have to publish finished projects and novel-quality writing in order for it to be worth it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But Java almost certainly is. Why not just use the Java stuff? All of the Clojure I've worked on (especially in the data space) has made use of a ton of Java SDKs and libraries.

> they overstrain them

Debatable. Materials science and engine construction science have advanced significantly since the V6 and V8s of the 1980s and 1990s Toyotas. Almost every auto manufacturer on earth is capable of getting >100hp/L out of a gas engine reliably. Toyota is certainly not the only OEM doing this reliably at scale. This stuff is no longer exotic. Gas engines today are designed from the ground up to be turbocharged and direct injected (and in Toyota's case, both direct and port injected), and built with the cooling systems to match.

> The outcome is a strictly worse engine

No one makes or has made a perfect engine but there's a lot of romanticizing engines from the past. These newer engines make more peak torque, their torque curves start much lower in the RPM band and remain more useful through whole rev range, they burn significantly less fuel when not under load, and the hybrid electric drivetrain mean the gas engine spends less of its life idling or lugging at low speeds and high loads. Whether some of these tradeoffs are worth it is debatable, but in no way are these engines "strictly worse".

Am I meant to believe that we wouldn't have iPhone-level innovation if inventors couldn't become billionaires?

This makes no sense. We have so much more innovation than we have billionaires, always have. Ability to become a member of the 0.001% is not a barrier to innovation, not in America, not anywhere, and never has been.

No one serious is claiming there should be zero wealth inequality. Inequality is ineradicable. The claim is that wealth inequality can reach a degree that becomes corrosive to society as a whole and severs the link between innovation and profit, because it becomes more profitable to hoard wealth and collect capital gains and interest than it does to innovate and create things in the real world.

It's entirely possible to preserve (and in fact would actually strengthen) the profit motive if we changed incentives to get rid of the wild capital hoarding we see today.