My impression of Vietnam is that people there are pretty chill indeed, but also that answering truthfully in such surveys might not be in your best interest if you are a local.
They're authoritarian, but not that kind of authoritarians. I feel like they have an easier time criticizing their government than Cubans,but they do it less (Cubans will imply worry/dissatisfaction rather than say it, Vietnamese will say it plainly). It's a bit like China pre-Covid (I never went post-covid, maybe it hasn't changed), Vietnamese overall like/trust their government so they'll avoid talking shit about it, but without the weird nationalist 'pride'/defensiveness/victimhood that I found in China.
[edit] I compared it to Cuba/China because all three of them are communist countries, and I visited them all, but probably comparing Vietnam to its southern neighbors could be more appropriate
In Ukraine alone, there have been two major instances of military destruction of hydroelectric dams (Dnieper Hydroelectric Station during WWII and Kakhovka Dam during the current war) with the number of casualties far greater than that of all nuclear power incidents in history combined. Somehow, nobody's using that as an argument against hydro power.
If anything, Germany's reliance on Russian gas did a lot more to put the country in danger of war.
Why are people building their software in Python when they need performance? There are other languages that excel at this. Python strengths lie elsewhere and they are increasingly being diminished with all these "upgrades". Splitting the ecosystem with async was already a major blow and now we are looking at another split along gil/non-gil axis. It's just sad.
Python is the de-facto default and main language in data science and ML community. You start because it is easy and have a great ecosystem but then after some time you start to worry about performance at some point. And it takes time, efforts and money to re-write in rust,C++.. etc.
I think running inference engines is one particular case of that. You can train and tweak your model using python with its wonderful pytorch and numpy. Then at some point when scale and performance matter then this becomes a potential problem.
To be a bit pedantic, I guess may be it is fairer to say python is the main glue language for scientific computing where DS and ML are part of. The “big bang” seems to have started from Numpy/Scipy and friends and cascading from there.
Companies like Facebook also have huge interests in speeding up python as they have a lot of stacks written in python.
Mostly projects / products that start off with very low usage thus python is perfectly fine (Why overoptimize). And then it becomes useful - and a rewrite isn't worth it.
How is that Python’s problem though? If you paint yourself into a corner by choosing the wrong language then eat the rewrite or eat the hardware costs.
There was a consensus after the Python 3 debacle of “No major breaking changes”. We seem to have lost that because of moneyed interests and that’s sad.
That's such a strangely distorted world view. If a car company releases a, idk, trunk-extension in response to customer feedback would you go "How is this Ford's problem? If you didn't think about the trunk size eat the loss and buy a new car" ? Python developers want python to remain useful to the developers who want to keep using the language. It's not an incomprehensible motivation.
If I attach something to my car it doesn’t affect your car.
Who does no-GIL benefit? For the majority who use Python for single threaded code, no-GIL will make their code slower because a thread-safe interpreter is always going to be slower than one that can assume ST operation.
For the minority who want parallelism, there’s two other options: OS processes and subinterpreters. If you can use either of these then you will get better performance with a GIL for the same reason.
So no-GIL will only be faster for a minority of a minority who want parallelism but can’t use OS processes or subinterpreters.
Meanwhile everybody else writing libraries has to make sure that their code is no-GIL safe, to support this tiny minority, and if no-GIL ever becomes default then everybody else has to do something to turn it off.
> If I attach something to my car it doesn’t affect your car.
Yes, that was my point.
> For the majority who use Python for single threaded code, no-GIL will make their code slower because a thread-safe interpreter is always going to be slower than one that can assume ST operation.
I'm almost sure the python developers said that they will compensate the slow down with other optimizations, so that you'd never have single-threaded performance degradation version-to-version.
> So no-GIL will only be faster for a minority of a minority who want parallelism but can’t use OS processes or subinterpreters.
One would hope to 1. open new use cases for python thus attracting developers that would have otherwise not given the language consideration and 2. other users could benefit from new optimizations that could be implemented further down the dependency stack.
Of course there's no guarantee that that will materialize, but the idea the adding support to an established, lightweight and well-supported concurrency primitive is so obviously a "stupid idea" shows to me that your (rudely expressed) opinion is entirely self-centered and nearsighted.
I might add that the move from python 2 to 3 was incredibly painful, but I assume most agree (with the benefit of hindsight) that it was entirely correct.
You make it sound so easy. I've ran small businesses for most of my career and I've never made more than a quarter of what I currently make working as a contractor (ironically, for a business I once started, now owned by someone else). And most of the time I earned 5-10% of that.
Good to get your message, I have some of the same experience.
I do better as a consultant/contractor for a client who is a previous customer from when I had my own facility. Fundamentally I used to provide the paperwork (the deliverable/invoiceable product) and supported everything needed to generate it, including any free advice which goes along to smooth the flow. Now I'm paid to help their paperwork achieve and maintain value with none of mine in the mix at all, but I'm basically doing a lot of the same stuff when I'm on site.
As a contractor aren't you now a small business operator of a different type, perhaps much smaller?
I would estimate in more of the exact same business in so many ways very few ever come close to that.
Maybe even doing some of the same things under different degrees of ownership and responsibility, and this could be a good example of way different compensation when the only difference is the underlying arrangement.
I'm not sure how I made it sound so easy, because presumably getting a 250k job at a FAANG isn't easy either. Which is what my point was - if you're going to deal with the time and stress to get one of the most desirable jobs, why not use that same time and effort to build a business?
Except, it kinda is for people that have the right background and are well suited to it. That is, the reason I think you're getting a lot of pushback is that many folks are just inherently risk averse. There are people who are smart, know how to work hard, and know that if they have a path laid out in front of them, they can succeed.
For entrepreneurs, there is simply much more variability. You can be smart, work hard, do everything right, and still fail in unexpected ways due to things outside of your control.
I don't think entrepreneurship is bad at all, but it's not surprising at all to me that people who want to go the FAANG route aren't well suited to starting their own business.
Getting a 250k job at FAANG is P hard. There is a finite set of tasks that you have to execute to get a job at one of those.
Starting a business is NP hard. At the end of the day, you have to convince people to give you money in some form and way, and that is not a guarantee. You could land on a lucrative idea, or you could do trial and error, failing every time.
Furthermore, once you have either, maintaining a FAANG job is much easier than maintaining a business.
Because it's a lot more predictable. Put in the necessary effort and you are almost guaranteed to get a FAANG job. And the best part, it's completely clear where that effort needs to be directed. Yes, you need to have the smarts, but for a business that pays as much you need to have a lot more than that, plus luck. I'm all for entrepreneurship and personally couldn't work for one of those companies, but with FAANG salaries being this high I don't think those people are making an irrational choice at all.
I am conscious. What's the purpose of me having consciousness? As far as can tell I could have functioned the exact same way without experiencing anything whatsoever.
My tongue in cheek answer is that you need consciousness in order to get up in the morning and eat something, or else you die. What are the chances that food comes on its own into your mouth?
The serious answer: consciousness has the role to protect the body by adapting to the environment. At the same time consciousness is based on system trained with environment data, all we know comes from outside.
Your subconscious clearly has different priorities, try listening to it. If it's concerned about your safety, then maybe your daily activities aren't bringing you closer to safety as quickly as they could. If it's concerned about injustice then you may try more directly contributing to bringing about justice.
> We operationalize unrealistic optimism as the difference between a person’s financial expectation and the financial realization that follows, measured annually over a decade.
Sounds like they proved that smarter people are better at predicting their (financial) future, which is pretty much a tautology.
Still do and I used to enjoy it until just a couple years ago when the suggested content completely overran my feed. I don't know how they've managed to make the alorithmic recommendations so bad - they range from boring and cringeworthy to ouright offensive (like pages praising Putin for his anti-imperial efforts for instance). I've tried to be a good user and engage with that stuff just the way Facebook recommends - marking what I dislike etc., but no luck - it's still mindbogglingly awful. I've stopped posting and reading the feed and now only ever use it to comment on a single page.
