Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

bugs.xdavidhu.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#51

Post by somethingwitty1 »

eternalsculptor wrote: post #34
xirbeosbwo1234 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Rob Pike's commentary on Go is why I decided to go into research. Google hires kilotons of developers and pays them gigadollars every year, then makes them work in dumbed-down languages because they can't be trusted with power tools. How has our industry gone so far astray that we pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars a year when they can't even understand generics? In what universe does it make sense t…

>can't understand generics Is this really true? We learned about generics in college so I assumed that everyone knew it (especially if they work at Google).

I assume it is hyperbolic. The OP clearly has issue with the Go language. The rant contains the common misunderstandings about it (no generics, must be bad), etc. Go has survived 11 years without generics (they might be coming) and underpins some of the most popular software out there. Clearly, it has something going for it. Pike and Google understand generics, but generics have pitfalls. So when Pike and co decided to design a new language, they took lessons from the years of history, rather than repeating the same mistakes. Go is a language that is easy for people to learn, but more importantly, get right. It is just as powerful as virtually any other language out there, so caters to the advanced programmer as well. Those attributes are something not a lot of languages can legitimately claim. And people, for some reason, get really upset about it. shrugs. I say kudos to someone for building a language that isn't a research project that crammed every possible "cool" concept in. I like learning languages and would rather appreciate them for what they are than whether they have X thing. If X thing is big enough to be a problem, then I don't use the language, simple. No need to get all worked up about it and post rants on unrelated articles.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#52

Post by xirbeosbwo1234 »

anonymousab wrote: post #36
xirbeosbwo1234 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Rob Pike's commentary on Go is why I decided to go into research. Google hires kilotons of developers and pays them gigadollars every year, then makes them work in dumbed-down languages because they can't be trusted with power tools. How has our industry gone so far astray that we pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars a year when they can't even understand generics? In what universe does it make sense t…

Professionals with many years of experience could and would still make mistakes with C and C++. And many mistakes are very costly at Google's scale. Wanting to make the situation better through a simpler, safer fit-for-purpose tool doesn't mean an industry is flawed anymore than the prevalence of sawstops means that carpentry is flawed.

Go is not a particularly safe tool. It is a simple tool. That isn't the same thing. Sophisticated type systems are designed to improve safety at the expense of adding abstraction.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#53

Post by isoskeles »

grlass wrote: post #42
mosselman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ageist how? Who says you have to be a certain age to be a parent or grandparent? Sounds very ageist to me. And that is an example of how political correctness is an arms race.

You misunderstand: it's ageist to suggest that parents and grandparents are by definition not likely to be technical enough to use mitigations like containers and such. Which it is.

What is the point of this conversation? We're sanitizing language to protect the egos of everyone, at the expense of derailing a conversation that actually could relate to a lot of people here.

My parents are NOT AT ALL technically savvy. My mother's web browser has a ton of bullshit addons all over it, or at least it did last time I looked at her computer in 2014-ish. I can't imagine she's gotten much better about this stuff. But we can't talk about this pattern because it could hurt the identity of older HN readers who are technically savvy, it's offensive.

Ageism is bad when it's preventing people from getting work or engaging in society in a meaningful way. I simply do not care if it's used to make casual remarks with the specific intent of getting people to relate to an idea, e.g. people who don't know any better about privacy are actually people you know, most likely your parents or grandparents or some of their friends. And taking part in shutting down that conversation because of "ageism" is, IMO, worse than the ageism itself.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#54

Post by throwaway2245 »

kuroguro wrote: post #50
grlass wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand: it's ageist to suggest that parents and grandparents are by definition not likely to be technical enough to use mitigations like containers and such. Which it is.

Haha, he's kind of right - there's two assumptions there. Saying grandparents are old and saying grandparents aren't technically inclined.

The commenter said "your" parents and grandparents, who are by definition one and two generations older than "you", in age. I can't think of any other reason to invoke "your" parents and grandparents.

If the point is that it's unhelpful to make irrelevant assumptions about parents and grandparents, then this is in complete agreement with the parent's point and is not a critique of it.

This is not a clever gotcha.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#55

Post by cgriswald »

isoskeles wrote: post #53
grlass wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand: it's ageist to suggest that parents and grandparents are by definition not likely to be technical enough to use mitigations like containers and such. Which it is.

What is the point of this conversation? We're sanitizing language to protect the egos of everyone, at the expense of derailing a conversation that actually could relate to a lot of people here. My parents are NOT AT ALL technically savvy. My mother's web browser has a ton of bullshit addons all over it, or at least it did last time I looked at her computer in 2014-ish. I can't imagine she's gotten much better about t…

It’s a flawed mental model that doesn’t even communicate what the poster intended without assumptions that aren’t justified.

How do you think you get the sort of ageism that prevents older people from getting the job?

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#56

Post by throwaway2245 »

isoskeles wrote: post #53
grlass wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand: it's ageist to suggest that parents and grandparents are by definition not likely to be technical enough to use mitigations like containers and such. Which it is.

What is the point of this conversation? We're sanitizing language to protect the egos of everyone, at the expense of derailing a conversation that actually could relate to a lot of people here. My parents are NOT AT ALL technically savvy. My mother's web browser has a ton of bullshit addons all over it, or at least it did last time I looked at her computer in 2014-ish. I can't imagine she's gotten much better about t…

> it's offensive.

I'd rather say: it's wrong.

HN readers' parents are likely far more technically inclined than an average person.

(The commenter did not invoke their own parents, which might be a slightly more reasonable position)

Making a claim that HN's parents must be technically incompetent adds nothing to the thread, is likely to cause momentary confusion, and only contributes to the "bad" ageism that you are concerned about.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#57

Post by kelnos »

anonymousab wrote: post #36
xirbeosbwo1234 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Rob Pike's commentary on Go is why I decided to go into research. Google hires kilotons of developers and pays them gigadollars every year, then makes them work in dumbed-down languages because they can't be trusted with power tools. How has our industry gone so far astray that we pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars a year when they can't even understand generics? In what universe does it make sense t…

Professionals with many years of experience could and would still make mistakes with C and C++. And many mistakes are very costly at Google's scale. Wanting to make the situation better through a simpler, safer fit-for-purpose tool doesn't mean an industry is flawed anymore than the prevalence of sawstops means that carpentry is flawed.

Go makes concurrency easier (sorta) and eliminates some memory safety issues. But if you want a tool that helps you write more correct programs, you really need a much stronger type system than Go offers.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#58

Post by rapind »

taldo wrote: post #8

$1,337 for watch history + liked videos + watch later disclosure? Requires user to visit a malicious site, yes, but still feels a bit skimpy.

Bug bounties are ridiculous. If you disclose in an “irresponsible” way you’d get shamed here on HN, and yet we almost never talk about how pitiful the rewards are for “responsible” disclosure (maybe nothing or even legal trouble!).

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#59

Post by isoskeles »

cgriswald wrote: post #55
isoskeles wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of this conversation? We're sanitizing language to protect the egos of everyone, at the expense of derailing a conversation that actually could relate to a lot of people here. My parents are NOT AT ALL technically savvy. My mother's web browser has a ton of bullshit addons all over it, or at least it did last time I looked at her computer in 2014-ish. I can't imagine she's gotten much better about t…

It’s a flawed mental model that doesn’t even communicate what the poster intended without assumptions that aren’t justified. How do you think you get the sort of ageism that prevents older people from getting the job?

> How do you think you get the sort of ageism that prevents older people from getting the job?

I think you get it from a multitude of reasons, including allowing interviewers to come up with bad faith assessments on culture fit and other un-quantifiable employment parameters that amount to nothing more than, "I liked or disliked the candidate." I'd even extend that logic to a larger cause, allowing coworkers (i.e. same level individual contributors) to interview candidates, as I don't think coworkers necessarily have the proper skills or incentives to neutrally evaluate future coworkers, especially not beyond, "I like this person because I can relate to them because we look the same, have the same interests, etc." This isn't strictly ageism either, it can affect people by class or race or other things that set them apart.

Re: The embedded YouTube player told me what you were watching

#60

Post by stretchcat »

anonymousab wrote: post #36
xirbeosbwo1234 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Rob Pike's commentary on Go is why I decided to go into research. Google hires kilotons of developers and pays them gigadollars every year, then makes them work in dumbed-down languages because they can't be trusted with power tools. How has our industry gone so far astray that we pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars a year when they can't even understand generics? In what universe does it make sense t…

Professionals with many years of experience could and would still make mistakes with C and C++. And many mistakes are very costly at Google's scale. Wanting to make the situation better through a simpler, safer fit-for-purpose tool doesn't mean an industry is flawed anymore than the prevalence of sawstops means that carpentry is flawed.

Holy spin. Rob Pike was explicitly talking about young inexperienced programmers who are 'not capable of understanding a brilliant language.' He wasn't talking about experienced developers and made that as clear as he possibly could. Go is made simple for novices, not safe for veterans.
Post reply on HN