Yea, I mean we've had so many phases.. Bootstrap, Web 2.0, Tailwind, "Material" UI, etc.. with random frameworks, from Rails to NextJS..
There's always a trend and everyone follows them in Software. Now it's AI.. let's not pretend cutting corners is anything new in our industry.
I guess you can always gloat about your artisan code but people who use Software for business never cared about that to begin with.
Plus, wasn't the entire philosophy of CS was that "everyone can code" ? Opposing licensing requirements, etc ? Well.. there you have it, code is a commodity now and the barrier to entry is next to none.
The U.S. has 75+ years of an incredible consumer economy, ties with nations, and deep entrenchment in civilian supply chains and military logistics, so countries can’t just break away.
What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
The problem, from a U.S. perspective, is that 2 decades from now, these decisions might have cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars, but it will largely be impossible to tell because the nature of losses will be in billions of dollars of economic activity that could have been created but were never even conceived, so the alternate path will be impossible to know.
a 75 year history isn't anything to brag about on a global scale, that's a very young country. an unbroken 75 year history as a reliable partner might be something, but if your time as a reliable economic partner only lasts 75 years, that's not very reliable.
the one thing that the US still has is money. countries want to trade with countries that have money, whether they're trustworthy or untrustworthy, moral or immoral. as long as the US continues to be rich, they'll continue to have good trading relationships. we've all just got to hope that this current trend reverses before the us stops being a rich country.
> What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
> It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
I think it is important to distinguish talk intended to appease the public, that currently is very anti-US, from real policies. For example there is lot of talk about sovereignty in the EU, you can even see lot of that here, but so far no real steps were taken. Globalism cannot be reversed, not without some external factor like global cataclysm. And the public opinion on anything, in the age of Twitter et al, change as often as Trump's proclaimed policies.
Truth is, EU countries have not other potential ally that could replace US, especially among themselves. In Poland some groups dream about European army and French nuclear sharing, when first is pure fantasy, and second is even less reliable that the US one.
You can balance however much you want between US and China, but there may be time when you need to choose. As bad as current state of US is, China is an antithesis to everything EU and its democracies say they stand for.
> I think it is important to distinguish talk intended to appease the public, that currently is very anti-US, from real policies.
It's pretty clear that governments engage in such two-sided talk at their peril going forward. This is exactly how you get populism - usually of the far-right variety, with its specific blend of parochialism, jingoism and nihilism.
the reek of American exceptionalism. There is plenty of history out there you just have to realise america does not have much and there is allot outside of it.
> What will change, however, is no country will build anything new that is entirely dependent on a U.S. entity, and every country will now try to find alternatives to existing dependencies.
> It will be a slow, multi-decade process, but it’s probably irreversible at this point.
I don't think any Western democracy can keep up such a project for that long, after the immediate political irritant has disappeared. I mean, FFS, pretty much everything "new" that's people build is dependent on China. Trump is an stupid old man, China is a bigger long-term threat to democracy and is smarter and more strategic.
What I'm saying is: is once Trump leaves office (and especially once he's dead), the process you talk about will almost certainly reverse. It may seem hard to believe in this moment, but people will move on from Trump.
You missed South America. We did not trust the US before but are forced to give the US business preference as per the so called Monroe Doctrine, now with a "Trump Corollary"
Nothing has happened to Ruby, it's an excellent choice for software. We're basically at a point where majority of languages and stacks are on par with each other (unless you have niche requirements)
"The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) points out that "Master-slave is an oppressive metaphor that will and should never become fully detached from history" as well as "In addition to being inappropriate and arcane, the master-slave metaphor is both technically and historically inaccurate." There's lots of more accurate options depending on context and it costs me nothing to change my vocabulary, especially if it is one less little speed bump to getting a new person excited about tech."
Git has nothing to do with that (not that master-slave is wrong).
> master-slave metaphor is both technically and historically inaccurate
How can a metaphor be historically inaccurate? The whole point of a metaphor is that it's evocative, not real. A slave DB following what the master DB is doing is a good metaphor. Where is the historical inaccuracy there?
> it costs me nothing to change my vocabulary
Changing hard coded values costs a lot. I still have scripts which reference both `master` and `main`.
> especially if it is one less little speed bump to getting a new person excited about tech
And we've gotten to the main issue. This whole thing is about making white-knighting white Americans feel better about themselves. There was no outcry from black people saying they can't program until Git changes its terminology.
Not to mention that slavery has nothing to do with racism. This is just an American-centric view. Historically people enslaved their own kind. Getting slaves from other continents is a relative recent thing in the grand scheme of things.
>The nodeSelector and peerSelector for the route reflectors target the label `node-role.kubernetes.io/master`. In the 1.20 series, Kubernetes changed its terminology from “master” to “control-plane.” And in 1.24, they removed references to “master,” even from running clusters. This is the cause of our outage.
Master/slave is almost always misused anyway. Yes one database will do all the work(we will call that one master) and the other will sit around all day waiting to take over(we call that one the slave). me nodding. yep that is about how it worked. postgres is a little closer where the master process hangs around not doing much, only really there to receive new connections which it then gives to workers to process. And don't even get me started on how IDE drives misused the term, I don't mind the master/slave terminology but if used it should at least capture some of the dynamic of that relationship.
I never did understand what they felt was wrong about git master, there was no slave or even work involved. it was more like the master print of a video. you know the thing that "remasters" are made from.
> Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong
I'd love your thoughts on the violence people committed during the following civil uprising: BLM riots, Minneapolis ICE (there are many more instances through history but Ive selected the most recent ones for simplicity).
Where you condemning the actions of people in those threads, encouraging them to have more civil "discussion" or do you think it was the duty of people to take arms against injustice?
If so, how do you corroborate the justification of violence with your current stance?
The violence during the BLM riots was awful. I live adjacent (across the street, at the time) from the Austin neighborhood on the west side of Chicago, and those riots trashed all the grocery stores on the west side, already a food desert. One grocer I know slept on the floor of his store with a shotgun in his hands. I got to watch video footage of another retailer elsewhere beaten in his store in the middle of the night.
The idea that people think that the BLM riots are somehow a mic drop argument for the effectiveness of civil violence is just further illustration of how far apart our premises are.
> My family in Tehran fear the bombs but support the US continuing to do so
> I think people outside of Iran/Iranians vastly underestimate the disdain for the Iranian regime.
Iranian here.. no, we're not celebrating US bombing our children. People are very united right now, the war is for the survival of IRAN. Our plight with IRGC is set aside to defeat the invaders attempting to take our home land.
I'm not sure how you can both claim "you support the bombing of your family in Tehran" but also claim "the campaign needs to end".
For reference, my own cousin was taken to Evin prison for 6 months after the Mahsa uprising and after she was released, she had to be hospitalized for a year. She will never leave a normal life again. So I have NO LOVE for IRGC.
But no, I am not going to "cheer" for US and Israel for bombing Isfahan, Shiraz and destroy our Shah Cheragh.
We have 90M people in our home and we can figure things out among ourselves, just like have done so since the dawn of the Achaemenids.
USA hasn't set foot on Iran and is unlikely to do so in the future. Calling this an invasion requires some pretty intense mental gymnastics.
Meanwhile Iran is collapsing from just the water shortage alone. The idea that the US is the cause of Iran struggling for survival requires a pretty distorted world view.
You clearly haven't learned your lesson from IRAQ, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
You can continue to nuke Iran to oblivion and it will not make a difference.
IRGC welcomes it, you think they care about Iranians? All you are doing is bombing hospitals, schools and civilian areas.
By the way, in all those countries, you had full air dominance, in Iran you barely have air superiority. The crowning jewels of America has been hit and many other aircraft shot down: F35, F15, multiple drones, etc. All your assets in GCC are heavily damaged, expensive aircraft carriers were hit and forced to retreat..
All the IRGC military assets are underground, air strikes alone will not penetrate it. Also IRAN has the proxies that will cause even more pain you for.
Now that you lost IRAQ, IRGC gained yet another militia.
You'll have to launch a multi year ground war, to even have a shot at attempting
to take the nation.
I promise you that a nation of 90M people is not going to welcome you.
It's an interesting exercise to compare these threads.
My own position on the matter is the not an edgy one: political violence of any kind, is never justified, but it does signal that something deep in society requires a change.
I'm of the view that it's violence of the non-political kind that is never justified*. Political violence can be legitimized, as an option of last resort. There's plenty of historical examples where groups of people were denied every avenue of redress until they turned violent. As an example, read up on the history of most labour unions.
I am european and not american, but since reddit is mostly used by americans I would say that from their prospective political violence is justified and encoded in the constitution. How would you explain the second emendment?
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Isn't really political. By my reading the clause also invalidates the entire amendement soon as the US aquired a standing army, but I'm not from the US so, who knows.
I mean any conservative view points? Immigration, DEI policies, euthanasia, pro life, gender roles, trans sexuality..
Discuss any of these on Twitter would get you banned, until Musk took over. It still does on many left leaning platforms, including Youtube, Twitch, BlueSky, etc.
HN is the only platform I've participated in that tends to allow opposing view points (albeit more left leaning).
If EFF wants to declare that it's now a Left leaning activist entity and doesn't like to engage wit other people, that's fine, I'd rather they just say that instead and be honest.
You can discuss all of those things just fine, both now and then. I have, and never got banned for any of them.
The problem is online/MAGA conservatives don't want to discuss those things. I've never talked to any online conservative who had anything new or interesting to say about any of those things.
No ‘a man can never be a woman’ is a fact and mainstream view. Disliking your sex isn't an innate characteristic and you have no right to force others to believe your illusion or participate in your gender performance.
More to the point you just claimed discussion of these matters wasn’t ever suppressed and then attempted to suppress discussion of them by claiming this was bigoted.
People with gender dysphoria exist. THey are not marginalised: they have the same rights as every other person has. It is not bigotry to not participate in their gender performance, because gender performance is not an innate characteristic, as already mentioned to you in the comment you're replying to.
There's always a trend and everyone follows them in Software. Now it's AI.. let's not pretend cutting corners is anything new in our industry.
I guess you can always gloat about your artisan code but people who use Software for business never cared about that to begin with.
Plus, wasn't the entire philosophy of CS was that "everyone can code" ? Opposing licensing requirements, etc ? Well.. there you have it, code is a commodity now and the barrier to entry is next to none.
reply