Wow, this is a very categorical view that does not provide any additional data or useful information.
As somebody who a few years ago was looking to move to London and was getting depressed reading all sorts of alarmist comments I feel the need to respond. This place is wonderful!
Concrete data:
* I pay a bit over 1/8 of my salary (_excluding_ stock, I consider that extra) on rent. I live in a nice two bedroom apartment in zone 1 and share a room with my GF; the second bedroom is rented by a friend of ours.
* I walk to work; pay nothing for transport unless I want to go visit something. I don't own a car and don't need it.
* The culture is awesome. For example, I like music a lot and I constantly find stuff I love that I can see live. I go to at least one concert a month. I don't think there's another city that tops London on music (at least for the genres I like).
* The food is awesome, quality is way, _way_ better than anything I've had in the US. Super varied and affordable - there are plenty of street markets selling delicious food for £5-8 / portion during lunchtime in the week. I don't have catered food at work, but I think I would still prefer the street food.
* I didn't realise how _green_ the city is. There are a lot of trees, parks and nice places to walk around.
* The weather's nice enough that I can run outside a few days a week for the duration of the year. The summer's lovely and there are loads of places to spend time outside.
* I don't have kids and am not interested, in the short term at least.
* I was lucky enough not to need any medical assistance / GP services so can't comment on that.
Please stop with these baseless categorizations. I lived in Slough for almost a year so I understand that there are places less than perfect here but let's try and base the discussion on objective facts.
Median London salary is ~£35,000, or £2,247.27/month after tax - 1/8th of which is £280. Most people are paying a lot more than that, even for a room share, way outside of Zone 1. I would suggest yours isn't a representative financial situation.
Keep in mind that most "unlimited" backup systems have one or more gotchas. Like:
* horribly inefficient clients written in java
* annoying retention policies
* limited compatibility, often no linux
* bandwidth throttling
* IOP throttling etc.
* horrible restore times
However if you skip that an pay as you go you typically get much more control, much more compatibility (including linux), and much better performance. Like say using S3 or Backblaze's B2.
First - there is tons of 'insider trading' going on. It's easy to do, and hard to prove.
Second - though maybe not 'insider' in the illegal sense - but once you have a lot of wealth, you have access to information and systems that others do not.
Warren Buffet made huge bank of a loan to Goldman during the crises. He was one of the few to have the cash and the reputation. Buffet can take advantage of so many situations that very few others can. So that's a lot of leverage.
I'm not saying anything against them, but big finance is an 'insiders game'.
> He prefers to invest when it is actually possible to possess information or insights that have not been widely distributed to other potential buyers via public disclosure.
This is exactly the opposite of what he claims in his essays. One quote:
> The other way we differ from some arbitrage operations is that we participate only in transactions that have been publicly announced. We do not trade on rumors or try to guess takeover candidates. We just read the newspapers, think about a few of the big propositions, and go by our own sense of probabilities.
There are several others in "The Essays of Warren Buffett" where he also describes how he just uses public information.
Again, there is a distinction between buying private businesses outright and buying in the open market.
In the former case, Buffett solicits sellers to directly contact him. He makes this solicitation every year in his letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders.
In the latter case, Buffett recommends the Financial Times as a source of information.
Don't quit. Validate your idea first, then implement it.
Read "Nail It Then Scale It" and "The E-Myth Revisited". You'll save time and money. You might also study business strategy (free courses on Coursera) so you can evaluate your idea from business fundamentals first. The more you can invalidate it (no market, massive incumbents, no demand, too costly, etc.), the less time and money you'll waste building something nobody wants, and the better placed you'll be to spot a truly great opportunity.
As a developer it's natural to focus on your strengths. You need to validate ideas before doing that.
Nice example. I was learning Rust over Christmas so I see how it works. But one issue I have is that from the outside it's not obvious that your `close()` method will take ownership of `self`. I'd probably prefer it if there was some (compiler-enforced) convention that made it obvious to clients that `close()` would consume `self`.
As it stands, Rust code can break the principle of least surprise, since what happens in a method can affect the associated instance variable (in this case `open_socket`). A user could easily write several lines of code and only discover that `open_socket` has been moved into a method at compile-time.
I found myself having very small coding-compile iterations when writing in Rust to catch issues like this (but that was also undoubtedly due to the fact I was learning).
> it's not obvious that your `close()` method will take ownership of `self`
I'm in the middle of reading the Rust book right now, so this may be dumb, but... Isn't this exactly the point of using a naked `self` instead of the reference `&self`? If it's not a reference, `self` is consumed by the method. At least that's my current understanding
If you mean that the one-character difference is very small for such an important semantic distinction, I might agree.
As for the state machine example, I like it a lot as well. It's very similar to the idea of "making illegal states unrepresentable" from the OCaml world: http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/designing-with-types-...
(This particular post is F#, but the idea is general.)
> Isn't this exactly the point of using a naked `self` instead of the reference `&self`?
Yes it is, but you only see it's a naked self if you look into the method. From the outside there's nothing in the name to indicate that it doesn't take a reference. So potentially it means that for every method call you need to check that it takes a reference to `self` instead of ownership. This would be especially annoying with third-party libraries.
The alternative in other languages is the error (using a socket that has been closed/resource that has been semantically moved away) is only found at runtime. The compiler flagging a mistake like this exactly the point of having the compiler and is a great example of how Rust helps defend against mistakes. Compiling early and compiling often is a great way to develop, IME.
In Rust, I personally don't think about moving vs. not until the compiler tells me I have to, because it usually doesn't matter. Rust previously required moves to be explicitly marked, but it wasn't worth it in practice: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2012/10/01/move... (see "Wait, doesn’t this make it hard to know what your program does?" in particular.)
Am I the only one who finds it pretty unprofessional to release the exploits when the fixed version hasn't been released yet (and anyway was only scheduled to have been released 48 hours beforehand)?
I'm all for disclosure, but seriously - if RH want Ansible to be used in enterprise they can't expect patches at this rate. The researchers releasing the exact exploits so quickly is just irresponsible IMO.
No, you're not the only one, but this is one of the oldest debates in computer security --- possibly the oldest debate --- and at least as many people as agree with you vigorously disagree and think that delaying information to conform with enterprise patch cycles does harm to organizations with strong security teams who can handle and respond to reports like this; those organizations tend to be the ones with the most users and the most sensitive data to protect.
While I sympathize far more with the full disclosure people than with the patch choreography people, I'm really only pointing this out to demonstrate that you're not going to resolve this debate in the HN comments about an Ansible vulnerability.
> Resolution
----------
Ansible has released new versions that fix the vulnerabilities described in
this advisory: version 2.1.4 for the 2.1 branch and 2.2.1 for the 2.2 branch.
I think there's a reason lots of famous billionaires keep working. I've been hearing from my parents how boring retirement is, and from my own experiences of extended vacations I've come to the conclusion we evolved to work.
"Man's Search for Meaning" by Frankl graphically illustrates the importance of having a sense of purpose, which I think a lot of people lack when they retire to live the dream of doing nothing.
I think the key is to be able to choose not to have to work for some asshole boss, or do work you don't generally enjoy.
I've become very disillusioned by the dream of insane wealth and the ability to retire early. Instead, I want to work on something I feel will make a difference and that interests me for the foreseeable future.
They would usually have it (you cannot add a word to circumvent trademarks), but they sold a license to Piwik Pro. So there was no intention to avoid the naming issue, rather the opposite.
Isn't the name Piwik PRO confusing for customers of Piwik? Can I call my company Microsoft PRO? Or can I call my product Windows Pro? I at least can't call it Lindows in the USA, that's for sure.
Or pollution. The city is a cesspit. I can't wait to get out.