You each view the world differently, and neither of you are right or wrong. I had to learn spherical astronomy to get the East/West flips on basic up-facing first-person charts correct, and I have to invert differently for first- and third-person views in video games. Not to mention the nightmare of how camera independent axes controls sometimes swap “left” and “right” rotation on the Q and E keys because game designers assume that their mental model of CW and CCW inputs is universal across all players and each game has a coin flip chance of being different from the next. It most definitely is not! (Do you slew the camera from the direction, or do you pivot the camera to the direction?)
“We’ve committed in writing to indefinite maintenance of the non-profit discount terms at their current percentage to all non-profits, transferable only in the case of merging with another non-profit; to charging non-profits at a percentage of a base rate equal to our lowest base rate charged to any class of customers; and to providing two years of advance notice for base rate increases affecting our non-profit discounted customers.”
This sort of declaration would have demonstrated Slack’s serious commitment to prevention. Each clause carries weight, it costs Slack nothing to provide it, and it prohibits Slack from entire categories of present and future abuses of this nature for all non-profit customers. The CEO’s commitment below does not rise to this bar, leaving the door open for further abuses, and maintaining price increases already extorted from other non-profit customers. Perhaps a future press release will close that gap.
An apology contains three components: acknowledgment of impact, declaration of whether the impact was intentional or accidental, and whether preventative steps will be taken; it also contains one contextual attribute: whether this specific impact has broad implications. The CEO’s apology meets these terms in the case of this specific customer only, without committing to review and reparation of the customer category “non-profit customers”. It is certain other non-profits were impacted, but their concerns are not in-scope for the CEO’s statements, which apologize for a single instance without declaring intent to review and correct others. Most readers would be correct in rejecting it as a relevant apology, however valid it may be for the one customer above.
As someone with experience in this specific niche, yes they absolutely are. There are no longer ten thousand retail chains asking for COBOL-based counterpoint PoS mods on a yearly basis.
The COBOL market is basically tenured experts in existing systems or polyglots helping migrate the systems to VB or C# at this point. The market has plummeted and now it's in the final deflationary shrink before death.
If they’re running the project with a Linus-type approach, they won’t consider backlash to be interesting or relevant, unless it is accompanied by specific statements of impact. Generic examples for any language to explain why:
> How dare you! I’m going to boycott git!!
Self-identified as irrelevant (objector will not be using git); no reply necessary, expect a permaban.
> I don’t want to install language X to build and run git.
Most users do not build git from source. Since no case is made why this is relevant beyond personal preference, it will likely be ignored.
> Adopting language X might inhibit community participation.
This argument has almost certainly already been considered. Without a specific reason beyond the possibility, such unsupported objections will not lead to new considerations, especially if raised by someone who is not a regular contributor.
> Language X isn’t fully-featured on platform Y.
Response will depend on whether the Git project decides to support platform Y or not, whether the missing features are likely to affect Git uses, etc. Since no case is provided about platform Y’s usage, it’ll be up to the Git team to investigate (or not) before deciding
> Language X will prevent Git from being deployed on platform Z, which affects W installations based on telemetry and recent package downloads, due to incompatibility Y.
This would be guaranteed to be evaluated, but the outcome could be anywhere from “X will be dropped” to “Y will be patched” to “Z will not be supported”.
If you're looking for reasons to ignore criticism like this then you were never interested in anything other than an affirmative nod and pat on the back in the first place.
https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ9K1CVBKdij4tG0@tapette.crustyt... has a couple dozen replies and would be a useful place to start reading about it; beyond that, search that list for Rust. (Note, I’m only responding the opening question, not evaluating the arguments pro/con here or on the list; in any case, someone else surely will.)
You can perhaps learn more about their involvement in the community from this year’s summit panel interview: https://youtu.be/vKsOFHNSb4Q
In a brief search, they’re engineering manager for GitLab, appear to be a frequent contributor of high-difficulty patches to Git in general, and are listed as a possible mentor for new contributors.
Given the recent summit, it seems likely that this plan was discussed there; I hadn’t dug into that possibility further but you could if desired.
> Why you are bringing up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive.
Incorrect. I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. It is extremely comfortable for road trips. I’ve driven several others that are as well. Each stops at a certain horsepower below what’s possible to focus on a more pleasing experience rather than a faster experience, spanning a price range from $25k to $250k. Each can take corners better — that is, can be turned within safe operating control margins at higher longitudinal G forces on roadways where other vehicles are present with tire grip and steering capability maintained through the turn — than any non-sports car, specifically including the Plaid.
There are cheaper and more comfortable sports cars than a Lotus. Now that velocity no longer defines the ‘sports car’ category (and quite seriously. thanks to EVs for that!), the next item at the top of the list of what separates a sports car from other passenger vehicles is cornering, not acceleration. Within that post-EV definition of ‘sports car’, you have the entire spectrum of track vs. comfort tradeoffs available. What you do not have is heavy EVs. Sure, there’s the Roadster, which takes the knee-bruising, wildly-uncomfortable plastic shell interior of a Lotus and glues a battery pack to the bottom, and there’s the electric Ariel Atom if comfort is of even less importance. Acceleration, comfort, cornering: pick two.
(Hypercars are a variation of passenger car that focus on maximizing acceleration and cost; Plaid has some interesting interactions with that category! But the category is also usually delivered at body widths that limit the roads one can use them on, and/or in Plaid’s case at body masses that limit cornering. Land speed records and narrow mountain switchbacks tend to be incompatible targets.)
>I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius.
No, you are driving a consumer vehicle with slightly stiffer suspensions. Actual cars designed purely for track performance are neither legal on the road nor in any way comfortable.
I have literally no idea what your point is. The article claims that unsprung weight makes potholes worse, that is wrong. The article also claims that higher weights make everything worse, which is also wrong.
What is your actual point? The article is about consumer EVs, being driven by normal people. If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
> Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive.
> If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
I didn’t think it was a particularly shocking revelation, I’m just disproving the “Every” claim above. I see now that we’re in agreement on the invalidity of it — I assume a “Porsche 911” is a sports car to you, as it is to me? — so I’ve nothing further to add.
Someone else in society asked. This article considers a valid role of societies: prohibiting the expression of certain desires in service of the public good. “Certain” is defined by the society’s opinions, which are not expressed in terms of any single person (outside of dictatorships and the like). Some opinions form slowly, or never reach the level of regulation of individual behavior. The society’s members follow IDIC so the expression of unasked-for questions from unexpected people is a universal constant. And once in a while one of those opinions will be enshrined in new regulation.
Do you have a case to make against the argument that isn’t already being discussed in another thread, or is your objection that societies should not restrict personal liberties, or..?
Well, no, they still won’t be taxed for miles driven per year like gas vehicles are. Not yet, anyways! Probably two or three years left on that watt-o-mobile owner loophole (that Priuses have been exploiting for years, but with far less road damage per mile traveled due to being hybrids). Or maybe less if the feds starve California of transportation funding in petulance at whatever.
Solar charged vehicles, such as with a Tesla powerwall, would pay zero dollars of tax per mile driven if you depended on an electricity tax. Doesn’t really work out in road repair costs to leave a massive tax loophole open.
By weight and by tire count! Have to made sure to deal with four-tire axles and such, not to mention electric semi trucks.
I believe the California pilot determined that odometer reporting and occasional DMV drive-thru checks will be the solution. I’d post the newsletter to HN the next time it comes out but this isn’t really the sort of group that appreciates taxation.
> Solar charged vehicles, such as with a Tesla powerwall
Paying tens of thousands to avoid a few cents per gallon doesn't immediately strike me as a great deal.
"According to Caltrans, Californians with gas-powered vehicles pay about $300 a year in state gas taxes."[1]
This is a tiny minority of EV drivers.
> Doesn’t really work out in road repair costs
For that matter did the gasoline tax ever fully cover repair costs when EVs weren't around? I always had the impression that funds were needed from other sources too. It's interesting to see so many people get religion about "making drivers pay their fair share" after EVs became popular.
I’m not specifically concerned about EVs as I am vehicle mass X tires on road — it’s just that EVs further piled on the problem, and so of course they’re a focus of attention now. doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02433-8 estimated 20-40% more road wear for EV vehicles of equivalent passenger capacity as gas vehicles, for example. If someone had started making gas SUVs out of osmium because it’s more crash resistant, I’d be just as annoyed at the loophole exploit of that as I am about that extra untaxed mass-wear on roadways being batteries. (But if you solve the battery mass problem, the flat fee is still unfair in favor of high mileage drivers versus low mileage ones, so a mileage-mass tax will always be the correct outcome.)
However, the real threat to roadways that hasn’t yet been fully realized is EV autopilot tractor-trailers; without gas taxing, without mileage taxing, and without the constrain of having to pay humans to drive them, the state highways are going to get shredded into gravel in a decade.
Both have to be treated; passenger vehicles wear down roadways in residential zones that semi trucks don’t enter, and semi trucks wear down highways vastly more rapidly than any personal vehicle of any weight can.
I participated in two phases of the mileage pilot program described by that ABC article over the past ten years and look forward to its eventual implementation in literally any form whatsoever. I truly hope that their final form ends up being mass-wheel-mileage taxation with a transit credit for public transit and 10+ passenger vehicles, so that lightweight Priuses and buses pay little and heavyweight Rivians and semi trucks pay lots. Whatever their first steps towards that outcome is, I’ll take it, whether it’s gas tax or EV tax or truck tax corrections or any combination thereof. The status quo is unfair in multiple ways and they’ve got their work cut out for them.
Here in California, 20k miles of driving at 30mpg (so, highway only, which is of course unrealistically high) is $600 in gasoline taxes per year, with California state and local taxes at $0.612/gal; meanwhile, the EV registration gas tax makeup fee is $118/yr, which is equivalent to 192 gallons per year of tax, which at 30mpg is merely 6k miles, not 20k. California average miles driven is estimated at 11k.
So: the EV loophole is costing the state half of the road maintenance tax budgeted for road wear in subsidies paid to EV drivers, assuming that all gas vehicles get 30mpg at all times. I don’t expect that gap to last much longer now the Federal government is openly hostile to the state. Hooray for silver linings, I guess.
reply