>How a tiny country with high government spending bred a large number of vibrant young businesses
The article then goes on to attribute almost all of Sweden's success to deregulation and anti-monopoly laws---i.e., less government intervention ∝ more startup success.
As usual it seems to be an issue not of the size of the regulation but the quality. Although in many areas Sweden has a lot less regulation than the U.S. - you don't need a license to be a hairdresser, taxis are mostly deregulated, etc. It seems all the time I hear about things that are micromanaged legally in the US that are just dealt with by common sense in Sweden.
And it shouldn't all be characterized as success. I wonder who in this thread has actually worked in Sweden before... I've had clients there and worked from co-working spaces, and I saw more fucking around and play time and work not getting done than I've ever seen admitted.
Sarcasm noted. It is quite a dismal place. Sure, it has great nature and the infrastructure is quite nice. However, the culture is such that most young people you'll meet are trying to escape - still while pumping out lots of overly positive marketing material via news media.
Exactly. If a corporate-government complex wants to "starve" cryptocurrencies and untracked assets while maximizing financial intelligence gathering for a myriad of purposes, they can eliminate physical currency and make sure the banks are as walled-gardens as possible. Control to track more of what consumers do for the benefit of the elite under false promises like "convenience" and FUD like "black money."
A huge portion of the people I've met in tech are class-A douche bags. They are obsessed with salary, or the fact that they work for X instead of Y. They are extremely elitist.
All of my friends who went to high school in the Bay Area have classmates who killed themselves over (lack of) prestige.
You won't see any of that in Iowa. It is a much more honest place. People work hard but aren't obsessed with where you want to college or how much money you make.
I would be genuinely sad if Apple or Google opened a SWE location in Iowa. The culture is basically the antithesis of the old Midwest.
>lobbying(bribery), capital concentration, anti-union legislation, anti-small business legislation
We've learned through the decades---and especially through the bailouts in the late 2000s---that slapping big business on the wrist is not enough to stop cronyism and government-enabled monopoly. The only way to eliminate that is to cut the snake off at its head; if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist.
If the government can't choose who succeeds and who fails, then only those who provide value can succeed. The only way to grow a business without a monopoly is to employ people (whether directly, or indirectly by investing capital).
This statement is a bit nonsensical, because most lobbying has to do with encouraging the creation of laws that are favorable to a business and unfavorable to a businesses competitors.
Your statement;
> if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist.
Implies that the government is picking the winner, when in fact they are writing and passing a law or regulation/deregulation. Any of these actions have effects that favor one group over another.
In order to have "no power to dole out" the government would need to not pass ANY laws, which isn't possible as that is critical to a governments function.
So it's a paradox. A government cannot function without the process of creating laws and all laws will inevitably favor one party or another no matter the effort to avoid such an outcome.
>Ten years later, in 2015, Expedia awarded him $90 million worth of stock options as part of a long-term employment agreement, stating he would stay until 2020.
>Means no more downtime,
no possibilities of censorship, be it from states or from companies.
Wrong.
>historically, patch-based systems have been very simple to learn and use, but slow, whereas snapshot-based systems can be extremely fast, but are usually hard to use for more than simple operations. As an example, cherry-picking is not intuitive in git/mercurial
How is cherry-picking not intuitive?
>Category theory has certainly been an inspiration for Pijul, but categories are neither algorithms nor data structures in themselves. In order to get the semantics we wanted, especially the handling of multiple files, rollbacks and unrecords, designing and implementing new algorithms and data structures was at least as useful as learning theoretical stuff.
Yet another thing with relatively little practically use, but hey, it uses category theory! It must be good! Oh look, it's also functional!
All of that said, props to Pierre-Étienne for putting in the time and effort to make this. He probably learned a lot.
This is a +19k -8k line pull request. That is dumbest thing I have ever seen. For having written something that interfaces with git, this person obviously doesn't know how to use it effectively.
OP of this PR here. When Thomas Gazagnaire started ocaml-git, it's like a PoC for Irmin and a MirageOS system. He did not think about the memory consumption of an implementation of any Git operation for example.
In this case, he saw a limitation about the Garbage Collector of git (which can use a lot of your memory) and the push command. It's like just: "I want to understand what is Git (in the specification) and I will do". So, the big goal of my work (payed by the MirageOS team) was to switch to a non-blocking (memory predicted) implementation of Git.
I did not have any criticism about this approach. Sometimes you just want a project to work and ocaml-git was developed in this mind.
However, ocaml-git is used now by some big companies (like Docker, Tezos, etc.) and need a strong prediction about the memory consumption first. Then, the push command is a big lack of the last implementation. And, finally, the GC and encoding of the PACK file is the key to solve all of these problems.
As I said in this PR, I worked with Thomas Gazagnaire and some others peoples of the MirageOS eco-system to improve ocaml-git, implemented the Git GC, Git push and tried to avoid any problem about the memory consumption in a server context in the low-level API.
So, yeah, it's a +19k -8k PR, of course. But it's not like a OCaml's noob and tries to restart the world like: yeah, I recoded Git in OCaml in my only opinion and don't care about what was it happens in the OCaml world, Haskell world and industrial world, like just for fun.
In this PR, I explained IRL and in comments what happens. Why I did this choice compared to something else. The point of Thomas Gazagnaire (who reviewed my PR) and my point. What the MirageOS team expect and what I did.
So, clearly, yeah you did not read my comments and just see a big PR like a noob to try to strike all of this project but this is not what happened unfortunately for you. It's a result of a big discussion between Thomas Gazagnaire (specifically), others peoples and me to find the best for all (in the implementation and in the API).
Now, I can say this PR will be merge. I need to polish some details, improve the API and test it. So, yeah this big PR will be merge because it's what expect the creator of ocaml-git, what expect the MirageOS team, what expect my boss and what expect others users of this library if you just interest by the issues.
I'm not saying that your implementation of Git is bad. I didn't look at your code at all; it could be perfect, for all I know.
What I'm saying is you are not using git effectively. It is much easier to read and understand merge requests the smaller they are. Someone who didn't write the code should be able to go through your merge request in one sitting and understand all of its implications.
You may have written a good "implementation of Git," but you have also demonstrated that you don't know how to use it effectively.
> It is much easier to read and understand merge requests the smaller they are.
I'm always amused by people telling others what is more readable and understandable as if it was a hard fact and applied universally to all situations.
In reality, you can have a +19k diff which is easier to understand than a +100/-100 diff, and it happens quite often. Have you ever read a PR and clicked the "view" button to see the whole file? Have you ever clicked on the arrows to expand the context of a particular diff line to learn what the heck a given name is? Consider that you wouldn't have to do this if it was all in the diff in the first place.
The readability of the code is an elusive quality, with largely inconclusive research. There's very little in terms of facts to rely on. The best you can say is that a particular way of presenting the code, or changes, feels better to you. Good for you, but don't try to force that way on others, as you're guaranteed not to improve the readability and instead encounter a violent pushback.
Your personal preference for how a tool should be used is not the same as using the tool effectively. Pull requests aren't even an inherent part of the Git workflow, and not all projects prefer short-lived topic branches.
From the OP's other comment, it sounds like this merge strategy was the preference of the repository owner. Why substitute your own preferences for theirs?
ETA: Also note that the PR was reviewed several times over the summer. GitHub has a feature that allows you to only review changes to a PR since the last time you reviewed. You can also manually use `git diff` to review that difference.
What you are saying is bullshit, OP clearly explained the situation.
You just had no idea about the constraint he was facing, but even after he gave you a detailed answer you still not bother.
A lot of people want to work on more cutting edge problems - at present we don't have companies solving healthcare problems with datascience, or self driving cars, or tesla like companies.
There is also a charm of moving to a more developed economy too.
For many people living in developed countries, moving to a developed economy seems like a good way to travel the world. Though it might be more of a mindset and exposure issue, travelling the world is much easier when one earns in dollars.
That seems to be the meme of the decade. Do you think all republicans are Nazis too? You're living in a bubble. Think for yourself.