The thing is I don’t see you asking that same question to the other Americans in the comment section here making stupid claims, with clearly zero clue on how the EU actually functions.
So my question is: why? Why does this comment in particular deserves your attention as a “source your claims” flag, but the other one below about the eu commission being a dictatorship does not?
> The thing is I don’t see you asking that same question to the other Americans in the comment section here making stupid claims, with clearly zero clue on how the EU actually functions.
Well it’s just because I bumped into that comment first, really.
While I agree on the fact that sometimes comments aimed to the EU are overblown and inaccurate it’s also true that lazy answers like “people don’t know what they’re talking about” are not proving anything wrong
Musl's allocator being awful is pretty well known, though mostly in that it's absolutely awful in multithreaded context. TFA points out that musl has a bunch of other noticeably slower functions, which is less well known (though they're also slower by a smaller factor, and they don't worsen as your parallelism increases).
> I can very easily build a highly functional, pleasant to use Apple platform app with 5 or fewer top level dependencies. In many cases, I reach for between 0-2 total.
Most of the things I wrote in Rust have less than 5 dependencies. Those 5 dependencies then depend on 20 other dependencies each. Those 20 dependencies have 2-3 other dependencies. And so on…
Counting the number of crates in the dependency graph in order to gauge exposure is a misunderstanding of how Rust works. In Rust the crate is the unit of compilation. Unlike in Javascript, the fact that a crate has dependencies on other crates does not mean the author pulled in random code written by someone else, it often just means that the author wanted to leverage crate-level compilation parallelism by splitting a large compilation unit out into several smaller ones.
> I don't hear enough people talk about the powerful addiction of "podcasts + headphones"
I have headphones on everywhere I go. If I’m outside I have them on, while I’m doing work in the office I have them on, when I’m doing sport I have them on. When I don’t have them on, I’m usually at home and I’m playing stuff via speakers.
I’m not playing stuff only when I’m out with friends, of course.
To be honest I think it’s one of the reasons why I feel very good and comfortable being on my own alone. But I definitely agree that there might be some kind of addiction in all of this.
> but when every moment alone is filled with someone else's words and thoughts, you stop having any of your own
I don’t necessarily agree with this, especially because I think about the thing that is being discussed and agree/disagree for different reasons. I might argue that podcast give you a reason to think about “unusual” things sometimes?
> I have headphones on everywhere I go. If I’m outside I have them on, while I’m doing work in the office I have them on, when I’m doing sport I have them on
Back in about 2007 I realized I was doing this. At the gym, snowboarding, walking to work, at the supermarket.
I realized it closed me off from meeting new people and living in the now. Music encouraged me to drift away and think about some other time in my life when I saw that band, or was at a great party or something.
So I put the iPod away and have never done it since. I don’t own headphones now, have not done for 20 years. Really happy I made the correction not to get sucked in.
It's not a case of needing a crutch. It's how you value your time. "Shall I spend 30 mins grammar checking this product marketing copy, or shall I get AI to do it while I start work coding a new feature?"
reply