>stable and/or well compensated, high status job. Not exploited/abused much.
Oh, they definitely deserve a union.
>unstable and poorly paid, low status job. Abused and exploited often.
Hmm… their job doesn’t really seem “cool enough” to have a union. They should just take it and shut up. I mean, they’re losers after all.
I’m sort of joking but it’s interesting how so many people “gatekeep” unions when people in unglamorous lines of work need unions more than almost anyone else.
Worse yet, despite publishing seventeen blog posts between filing the issue and finally responding to it, he has the gall to open with "Sorry I missed your replies (life gets busy)".
I don't see how OpenSSL can recover from it's 3.0 disaster. They would basically have to write off the past few years of development work and start over from version 1.1.1
The blog author seems like a real piece of work. He ghosts the WolfSSL maintainer for over 160 days and when asked to open a new, more specific issue, he instead chooses to write a blog post denigrating the project. The WolfSSL maintainer was nothing but courteous and helpful throughout the entire exchange.
>...they aren't really interested in RFC compliance.
Yeah, well "feld" can't claim to be "interested in RFC compliance" either when he ghosts the issue for months and chooses to write blog posts instead of opening a new issue. Good grief.
If this is what the FreeBSD community is like, I want nothing to do with them.
“If you break the law, then you go to jail” is not “you broke the law, you are going to jail”. I didn’t judge the entire FreeBSD community based on this blog post.
I'm not "playing a game". "Feld" purports to be a FreeBSD ports committer. Someone with commit rights on a major project would know how to properly file issues and work with other maintainers. But "feld" doesn't seem to know how to do that. Perhaps "feld" had a bad day, or maybe him and the rest of the FreeBSD ports contributors/maintainers just operate in this way, I don't know.
>Where did they say you did?
They said it in the part where you got all confused and responded to me.
> I don't think it's fair to judge the whole FreeBSD community by one person.
So they just like, gave us a fun fact, right?
Conversely, I was also apparently just speculating:
> Probably where you said
So many things are possible when we don't want to be found wrong. Including pretending that figurative speech only exists when it's convenient.
Otherwise, I really don't see what would be so hard in understanding why throwing an "if" at the start would still lead to people taking what you said the way they did.
For the record, contrary to your assertion, even your example is affected by this:
> If you break the law, then you go to jail
If you posted this (and even only just this) under a random thread, people would think you're accusing someone (whoever the given thread is most about) to be somehow guilty of some untold crimes and/or that some chatbot got loose. I hope you can appreciate how people would be absolutely correct to think that way.
A CPU produced after a certain date is not guaranteed to have the every ISA extension, e.g. SVE for Arm chips. Hence things like the microarchitecure levels for x86-64.
I don't understand if your comment is ironic. Intel is notorious for equipping different processors produced in the same period with different features. Sometimes even among different cores on the same chip. Sometimes later products have less features enabled (see e.g. AVX512 for Alder Lake).
More aggressive optimization is necessarily going to be more error prone. In particular, the fact that -O3 is "the path less traveled" means that a higher number of latent bugs exist. That said, if code breaks under -O3, then either it needs to be fixed or a bug report needs to be filed.
Yes, Wolfram Language (WL) -- aka Mathematica -- introduced `Tabular` in 2025. It is a new data structure with a constellation of related functions (like `ToTabular`, `PivotToColumns`, etc.) Using it is 10÷100 times faster than using WL's older `Dataset` structure. (In my experience. With both didactic and real life data of 1_000÷100_000 rows and 10÷100 columns.)
"They didn't showing up to practice. If they did show up to practice, they weren't practicing hard. If they did practice hard, they didn't have the commitment and drive to win. Trust us, we did everything right, it's the players (we chose) who let everyone down."
Yeah, this sounds like a coaching staff trying to prove that they don't need high-end talent bailing them out, only to find out otherwise.
Sounds a little like victim blaming. You had a proven formula which includes people whos job it is to make critical assessments, change 1 variable, then blame the variables you didn't change when the experiment goes poorly?
It seems like you have misunderstood the author of the article.
The point of the MacArthur Foundation is basically to launder the MacArthur name in the eyes of the public. So that when people see "MacArthur" they associate it with prestige and — more importantly — the excellence of its recipients, not its sleazy origin. Hence why recipients are only chosen when they have proven that their names are useful for the MacArthur Foundation.
In your example, the MacArthur Foundation wouldn't be giving out scholarships to high performing students, they'd be giving money to people like Donald Knuth. In other words, people who have already shown that they didn't need the money to be successful and don't really need the money to continue performing at a high level. Of course, it isn't a complete waste, but it doesn't go towards developing the next Donald Knuth. The MacArthur Foundation isn't "promoting excellence", it's "celebrating" the excellence in which it took absolutely no risk in developing. As the author says "The enterprise is not merely silly, but snooty: an exercise in invidious distinction for its own sake."
Oh, they definitely deserve a union.
>unstable and poorly paid, low status job. Abused and exploited often.
Hmm… their job doesn’t really seem “cool enough” to have a union. They should just take it and shut up. I mean, they’re losers after all.
I’m sort of joking but it’s interesting how so many people “gatekeep” unions when people in unglamorous lines of work need unions more than almost anyone else.
reply