There's often a checklist of features management has, and meeting that list gets you in the door, but the features often never get used

The edit in the article says ~1.5kb

Why shouldn't it look like that? Especially with a law this dumb

There's a large, stable entity that management can sue if something goes very wrong.

A function or a keyword would interrupt that and make it less tempting

Doesn't matter, a good chunk of people are going to take everything at face value

Alright, I'll bite. Mind elaborating more?

As a follow up question, are you talking more about positive or negative freedoms? I e. freedom-to vs freedom-from?

A former project that had a codec system for serializing objects that involved scala implicits comes to mind. It involved a significant amount of internal machinery, just to avoid writing 5 toString methods. And made it so that changing imports could break significant parts of the project in crazy ways.

It's possible nobody at the beginning of the project knew they would only have 5 of these objects (if they had 5 at the beginning, how many would they have later?), but I think that comes back to the article's point. There are often significantly simpler solutions that have fewer layers of indirection, and will work better. You shouldn't reach for complexity until you need it.

Combine that with the US's ability to unilaterally destroy Taiwan's fabs, and it sways the calculation a bit

Anybody who has ever worked on a large enterprise software team. Anybody who has ever worked in this scenario will believe this. Computing history is full of 2-10 people teams beating giant well funded teams to the punch.

This mostly occurs because work expands to fill the time and resources allowed for the project (Parkinson's Law), and large companies have almost unlimited amounts of both.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

That seems like exactly when we should legalize it. The default is legal, and without definite knowledge of serious harm, that should be the status.

The burden of proof should be on the people who want it to be legal, and by your comment, their case seems pretty weak.

Which did roughly end in the mid 2000s. That's why we've spent so much time parallelizing in the past 20 years rather than just expecting increases in single threaded perf

You can't say that in a thread about the main maintainer forking it because he wants to maintain it against the wishes of the original maintainers.

This post is literally about someone wanting to maintain it.

There are a lot of times the government is limited even dealing with foreigners abroad (in legal theory anyways, ymmv in reality).

Doing things that don't scale is a proven strategy at the beginning, pg even has a post about it

https://www.paulgraham.com/ds.html

It's a weird case, but the pixels can be processed independently for most of it, so it works pretty well. Then the rows can be summarized in parallel and rolled up at the end. The copy onto the gpu is our current bottleneck however.