The Changing World Order - <AUTHOR> https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#introduction <comment><USER2> I couldn't tolerate this writing long enough to get through more than half the article. There's the "history is cyclical" trope, the "I have learned how to read history" repeated self-aggrandizement without any specifics, despite going on long enough to repeat himself, and really obvious statements meant to read like profundity ("when there's great inequality of wealth, there will be social tensions", paraphrasing only slightly.)

I read a book by him once. It was short and vapid and full of pseudo- profundity. It was cheap and highly rated on Amazon, so I'd given it a try. I didn't realize he was banking on his name as an investor. Now I understand why anyone would bother reading his writing once, but not why they would read it twice.

<comment><USER3> On the flip side, the writing has an increasingly rare property that the whole article (essay?) is divided into sections with proper titles. More often than not, I lose patience and give up on most articles these days, simply because there are no visual markers when scrolling through. I have no way to know where to stop and scan a few lines as I scroll through ... it's all just a continuous torrent of words and sentences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The world order, in terms of socio-economic and politico-legal structures, is for sure changing, but it's more a matter of demographics and communication.

We have shattered certain assumptions about the world economy to ensure the continuing welfare of the oldest of us. This is an unprecedented act of selflessness by everyone younger than seventy-ish, because we love our elders so.

The real change in the world order is logistical, which has caused significant re-pricings of almost everything (even the things that are roughly the same price are so in a very different set of market conditions).

It is no longer a matter of how nations compete but how they collaborate, and the markets are adjusting accordingly.

I'm quite optimistic, but then I study Science.

[Edit (apart from mis-spellings)]:

The shattered assumptions pertain to debt management by governments, which are trivial compared to the volume of daily trading. We are in for a reckoning on resource measurement hopefully not of catastrophic proportions and this pandemic is merely a spur. In a nutshell: money fails dimensional analysis.

[Edit the second]:

By the way, if any of you would like to get together and discuss type theory and dimensional analysis and maybe reach out to the folk on the n-category cafe and lambdatheultimate and suchlike I'll happily help. We've a problem needs solving and Hacker News is populated by folk who like solving problems. I'll end (cheekily, give it a search engine result) with a reference to Terence Tao: A mathematical formalisation of dimensional analysis. I keep coming back to this blogpost. The subject kinda weirds me out.

[Edit the third]:

Removed the first paragraph as snarky, mea culpa

<comment><USER5> Lots of people seem to believe that Ray Dalio knows anything, with anymore certainty than we do.

In financial circles the man is not taken seriously, and allegations of fraud have been whispered for years now.

I would be curious to know why anyone believes that Ray Dalio should be taken seriously here?

<comment><USER6> I've worked personally w Ray and can attest he's the real deal.

If the "financial circles" you run with don't respect $100bn+ AUM, there not really "financial circles," sorry.

If you want to make up your own mind, take a look at their work on debt crises. Sometimes hard to see how it connects to day to day trading, but not the hallmarks of a fraud.

[https://www.bridgewater.com/big-debt-crises/Principles- For-N...](https://www.bridgewater.com/big-debt-crises/Principles-For- Navigating-Big-Debt-Crises-By-Ray-Dalio.pdf)

All that being said, still think he's wrong about China.

<comment><USER5> Thanks appreciate the perspective. What kind of work did you do if you don't mind saying?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > a rising world power (China) challenging the overextended existing world > power (the US)

This is a pretty bold claim, at least for now. People have been claiming this is the case for decades, but I still don't see it.

Western (US / EU) demand is what drives China's growth.

Technology in China is still by and large imported / copied.

The West can move manufacturing back home (or anywhere else with cheap labor) and China's economic prowess will be severely undermined.

China doesn't have a whole lot of leverage – it's cheap and convenient, but its cheap labor is easily replaceable, while Western demand (mostly US, really) and its technology are not.

EDIT: Additionally, the balance of power used to change much more frequently back when we didn't have nuclear weapons. From the introduction, it seems this analysis is entirely economic when it ought to also factor in politics (domestic and international), strategy and military power.

<comment><USER8> I think at the end of the day if a country's strongest asset is its "demand", that is, its ability to consume goods and services instead of produce them, then i think that country is in for a world of hurt.

<comment><USER9> A country's demand is linked to its supply. After all, it has to pay for the goods it demands with something.

<comment><USER10> That's a very loose link in a world where fiat currency and reserve currency exist for printing money.

<comment><USER9> But not negligible. The USD wouldn't be where it is without the US economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Highly recommend listening to this full interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxYhv2O3wU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxYhv2O3wU). It's long but worth it, and it touches on many of the points he brings up in the article. In fact, the interview occurred just a week after this article was published.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm currently reading _Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World_ by Peter Zeihan. [1]

The book discusses the upcoming world order from a geopolitical perspective and gives original insight into potential developments. For example, I wasn't aware the US Navy has been securing the maritime shipping lanes, thus boosting global trade; and if that stops, well, you can imagine the implications.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Disunited-Nations-Scramble-Power- Ungo...](https://www.amazon.com/Disunited-Nations-Scramble-Power- Ungoverned/dp/0062913689)

<comment><USER13> Zeihan and George Friedman are really good. After getting perspective from reading them, prepared to be annoyed by geopolitical commentary on HN.

<comment><USER14> Generic dissing of other commenters just adds noise to HN. If you know more than others, why not share some of what you know so we all can learn?

(Edit: I originally wrote "one of the worst ways to add noise". That was overkill; it gets worse.)

<comment><USER12> I beg to differ. The comment was perfectly reasonable in my view. I also learned about someone new, namely George Friedman.

<comment><USER14> You're talking about a different part of the comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Everything Ray Dalio writes he presents like the prophet come down from high to give us the Sacred Truths.

Dalio is a successful trader and is beyond wealthy. He's a smart guy who has a true interest in history. But he is just one opinion of many and he is absolutely not saying things that are uniquely known to him.

I read the whole thing and it's like, "Powerful countries decline! Declining power leads to social strife!" No shit dude.

<comment><USER16> It's not just that Dalio is a "successful trader." He runs the world's largest hedge fund and their expertise is in predicting global macroeconomic trends. His experience is directly relevant.

<comment><USER15> I'm just not impressed by what he writes about in regards to "universal principles of world history". His credentials don't make me assume everything he writes is true and what he writes is long winded and obvious.

<comment><USER17> Glad it's not just me. I'm halfway through reading the linked post, and it seems like he hasn't yet gotten to the point.

<comment><USER18> It's the introductory chapter of a book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Chapter 2 doesn't seem to be available there yet, but Dalio did post it on his linkedin page:

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-credit-debt-ray- dalio](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-credit-debt-ray-dalio)

</comment><comment><USER20> Worth mentioning Pure Alpha was down 20% in Q1. Someone else observed Ray Dalio has been too busy building his brand as a financial sage (cough cough) and either not keeping his eyes on the road or he just got lucky in 2008.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-03/bridgewat...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-03/bridgewater- s-main-hedge-fund-loses-about-20-in-first-quarter)

<comment><USER21> Dalio admits in this that he didn't see the pandemic coming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Unless the US losses a major war either economical or physical they are hard to upend because of globalization. Everything is very dependent on the US dollar and switching it will take a lot of persuading. Like losing a world war type persuading.

<comment><USER23> I think that the "de-dollarization" can happen gradually, with the dollar slowly becoming a smaller portion of a bucket of currencies used for international transactions. Even countries that want to get out from under the dollar tax probably want this to be a slow transition.

That said, I have no idea what the next few years will look like economically. Probably income inequality will greatly expand and I wouldn't be surprised if new national alliances occur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "This site is not viewable without JavaScript, and your browser currently has JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript and refresh the page to properly view this site."

</comment><comment><USER25> "The slow one now will later be fast / for the times they are a Changin'" -Bob Dylan

Loved reading "Principles" by Dalio. Great read.

I find it apparent that the U.S. is declining while China is in a prime position to reach new heights. The U.S. greatest competitive advantage has been culture which is quickly being copied by the new middle class in China.

The U.S. has allowed the wealth gap to grow to levels that are pretty scary. The U.S. has continued to elect inept and crony politicians who wish to look backward instead of bring the nation forward.

<comment><USER26> > The U.S. has allowed the wealth gap to grow to levels that are pretty scary.

China has scary levels of wealth gap too. I think it is probably has more.

[https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/04/06/income- inequali...](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/04/06/income-inequality- is-growing-fast-in-china-and-making-it-look-more-like-the-us/)

> The U.S. has continued to elect inept and crony politicians who wish to look > backward instead of bring the nation forward

China is perceived to much more corrupt than the US. It is not even a competition. This index is not perfect but this is the closest we have to measuring corruption uniformly across different systems.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)

If the US is declining and China is ascending, why do we so many Chinese PhDs students (many of them my friends and hate going back) who want to stay back in the US with many years of wait time?

[https://www.boundless.com/blog/visa- bulletin/](https://www.boundless.com/blog/visa-bulletin/)

Let us please stick to facts and data.

(All the falsifiable statements in this parent comment are false but for some reason it is on top.)

<comment><USER15> It's amazing that someone who has a deep nuanced view of American politics and critiques the minutia of American current events from the inside, then blindly believes vague propaganda from China ("China united and strong! Great and competent leader!"). Super common perspective from upper-middle class Americans who argue on HN and Reddit.

If you don't live in China, don't speak Chinese, didn't grow up in China, have no Chinese family, then you simply have to idea what the fuck is really going on there.

<comment><USER14> Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You have a good point here, and this way of making it just makes everything worse.

We've had to ask you this kind of thing many times:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22781294](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22781294)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22543721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22543721)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22343386](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22343386)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21740392](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21740392)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19010638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19010638)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17822100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17822100)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20805021](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20805021)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21667959](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21667959)

... and that's just for starters. Would you please review [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and use HN as intended from now on? I appreciate the good comments you make here and don't want to ban you, and at the same time, there is a problem.

<comment><USER15> Was the problem the class component? I thought it was relevant because there is a monoculture on HN and Reddit, and most of the readers likely identified with that.

<comment><USER14> Only insofar as it's part of a putdown package. Really it's the combination of pejorative language (especially when personal), outright insults ("blindly believes vague propaganda"), putdowns ("super common perspective from [etc.]"), aggressive argumentativeness (your last sentence). The whole deal.

I'd be careful about perceptions like "there is a monoculture on HN and Reddit". Trying to pin down anything concrete about that is really slippery. Such perceptions are notoriously in the eye of the beholder, meaning we tend to create them without realizing it's we who are creating them, and it leads us to do battle with our own demons. Large statistical clouds like HN (let alone Reddit) furnish tons of material to craft demons with, far more than we need. That makes the pictures extremely convincing—with enough degrees of freedom you can fit any curve to any picture.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980339)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22098687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22098687)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Lost me in the first paragraph. Examining a history of money supply and debt that predates Bretton-Woods is simply not relevant. Everything I read could have been lifted from a comment thread in /r/Libertarian 10 years ago. The last financial crisis was the ultimate test for fiat currency. One that was pointed at as the moment that debt-driven currency would crash and burn by a lot of gold bugs.

Instead, a deluge of loose money came and went. Banks recovered. Markets recovered. Jobs recovered. Everything recovered. Even if the face of continued fiscal profligacy. There is absolutely no logical conclusion that can be drawn except for fiat currency being one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century.

<comment><USER28> debasement happens all the time [https://money.visualcapitalist.com/currency- and-the-collapse...](https://money.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the- collapse-of-the-roman-empire/)

<comment><USER29> OK, but what's your point? The US dollar doesn't seem to be debasing too badly since 2008, despite all the new money created.</comment></comment></comment>


Deb Roy: The birth of a word - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/talks/deb_roy_the_birth_of_a_word.html

<comment><USER2> I've read about this project with some interest.

Seeing this presentation was remarkable. Beyond the absolutely amazing technical achievement here, I don't know why, but I found myself incredibly moved by this.

Some of the most stunning and _beautiful_ research I've ever seen.</comment>


Ask HN – Are there any YC companies offering student internships this summer? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a student and would love to learn from a YC team. Are any hiring interns this summer? <comment><USER2> I would suggest getting in touch (ie. emailing, Tweeting) with 20 or so startups that you're interested in and asking to meet the founder(s) over coffee. Ask them everything you can about their company/product and their specific role in everything. Let them ask you about what you're up to and subtly mention your search for an internship.

HN is a great place to start, though. Good luck!</comment>


What's the greenest way to shave? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2278935/

<comment><USER2> The 'greenest' way is not to shave at all.</comment>


Yescrypt – PHC Finalist from OpenWall, John the Ripper - <AUTHOR> http://www.openwall.com/presentations/PHDays2014-Yescrypt/ <comment><AUTHOR> I nearly got thrown out of uni for using JTR to easily crack hundreds of NIS password hashes conveniently served by the CS dept. boxes:

        getent passwd > passwd.txt && john --show --wordlist=dict.txt --fork=6 --stdout --session=lose-your-scholarship passwd.txt

Where dict.txt is from [https://crackstation.net/buy-crackstation-wordlist- password-...](https://crackstation.net/buy-crackstation-wordlist-password- cracking-dictionary.htm) (and buy the OpenWall list, or donate, to support them too)</comment>


New Google+ app for iOS - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/google-mobile-app-with-sense-and-soul.html

<comment><AUTHOR> After playing with it for a while it really reminds me of the Twittelator client for iOS. Especially the way it shows images and other content.</comment>


Censorship of images in the Soviet Union - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union <comment><USER2> This is not censorship. This is just an example of falsification of history. The whole history of USSR and current Russia is based on lies.</comment>


The Problem with Solano County's Rail Plan - <AUTHOR> https://solanorail.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-problem-with-solano-countys-rail.html <comment><USER2> The Bay Area used to be dotted with military bases.

      Alameda NAS
      Concord Naval Weapons Station
      Fleet Industrial Supply Center Oakland
      Hamilton AFB
      Hunters Point
      Mare Island
      Moffett Field
      Oakland Army Base
      Oakland Naval Hospital
      Presidio
      Treasure Island

In fact Silicon Valley used to be defense industry before it was silicon.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo)

Losing Travis would cost jobs but CA would eventually recover. Vallejo is finally recovering from Mare Island closing and losing that tax base. However, we pay for those jobs which get shipped elsewhere with CA taxes. Also, military jobs are less impacted by economic cycles and provide more stability to the local economy. Solano should fight hard to keep Travis but the article doesn't provide good news on that front.

<comment><USER3> That misses the point that the problem is transit created as political footballs. That basically results in grand plans that end-up worthless.

I used to live in Sonoma County. To fight congestion, they created the Smart Train. But through a similar process, the train wound-up a seldom running, expensive medium rail from nowhere to nowhere.

Maybe there's a reason to not put trains where people generally good but you'd have to spell out what that is.

<comment><USER4> They made the mistake of trying to build that train through Marin. Good luck. Marin's home to some of the most regressive local politics imaginable.

<comment><USER3> The mistake of thinking they could go halfway through Marin and extend it later.

And the mistake of having the train use a single track for half it's length (once an hour service at most, any time of day).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Remember to read "protecting the environment" as "protecting our segregation" when anyone opposes constructing housing or transportation of any kind. From the summary of the linked slides:

> "Recommendations: Halt work on sites for Benicia and Vacaville-Fairfield. > Develop plans which better serve the majority of residents along the Capitol > Corridor Route"

Now, I wonder what "the majority of residents" in Benicia might want? (or, might not want?)

[https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san- franci...](https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco- bay-area)

"Rio Vista and Benicia are the two most segregated, and heavily white cities of Solano County."

<comment><USER6> NIMBYism is just Conservatism bereft of any kind of principles or values.

<comment><USER7> You're definitely correct that NIMBYism is a form of conservatism (in the classic sense of the word), but what I find really interesting is how effectively NIMBYism crosses party lines. I've noticed both very liberal and very conservative people will both be anti-development, but their rationales will change. The conservative will raise objections around things like "neighborhood character" and "small businesses", while liberals will raise objections around "the environment" or "displacing disadvantaged communities". Either way, the resultant viewpoint is the same: everything is perfect the way it is right now and nothing should ever change.

<comment><USER8> In support of your point, Margaret Atwood (the author of The Handmaid's Tale) is famously NIMBY [0].

[0] [https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo- con...](https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-controversy- in-toronto/)

<comment><USER9> On the other hand the article calls "8-storey 16-unit building" a "modest condo development". I'm not NIMBY, and I would be opposed to that.

<comment><USER10> OK, where should those people live instead?

<comment><USER11> When you're a NIMBY, depending on your political persuasion they might say:

* I don't care, just not here

* One of the housing developments in other towns, which I don't oppose

* Working from home is the future, why do people need to move here anyway?

* Further out, served by improved public transport infrastructure.

* Homelessness is really more of a mental health services problem. So the real solution here is healthcare reform.

* The problem is billion-dollar corporations all centralising in one place for no good reason. We should spread the jobs out.

* Who says the population has to grow at all? Capitalism is the problem, the endless growth it demands isn't possible.

* The solution is a bay-area-wide master plan to deliver an integrated response, addressing our current and future needs for jobs, homes, schools, equality, desegregation, mass transit, homeless and mental health services, and a response to the climate crisis.

Needless to say, these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. But the NIMBY's alternative is only to assuage their conscience, so realism isn't important.

<comment><USER9> There's also a whole range of possibilities between "people don't have a place to live" and "oh, let's build sixteen 8-storey buildings".

> these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos.

They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out.

Unfortunately, as I see it in trends around the world, this is what's happening in almost every country. Why create a "master plan to deliver an integrated response" when you can plop down a few apartment buildings and be don with it.

<comment><USER8> > _They are probably within the power, but they really don 't care. It's > cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space > (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage > to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out._

The reason we have gotten to this point is building out instead of up, sprawl instead of vertical expansion. Surely the solution is not more sprawl.

<comment><USER9> There's definitely a sweet spot in between.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The traffic in the Greater Bay Area is so bad, the effect of chokepoints so profound, and the geographic concentration of jobs is so strong, that the Park-and-Ride model actually works there, and isn't just wishful thinking. This means that the exact placement of stations in the exurbs is much less relevant.

The viability of P+R makes the Benicia station worthwhile to pursue, despite the challenging site. It's clear that transit-oriented development won't happen there, but in terms of transportation geography, it's a chokepoint at the Solano side of one of the few crossings of the Strait.

The newly-opened Travis station is as close to the base as they could've cheaply made it, being completely greenfield and not clashing with any existing land use. If the base really wanted to, they could arrange a traffic- avoiding shuttle between the station and the base, through a new, dedicated northwest gate. But it's worth remembering that any threat Travis makes about encroachment is likely tough talk to keep the neighboring towns from getting too clever, because Travis encroaches just as well on itself: half of the base is housing, there's elementary schools...

I admire the author's passion: I'm the same way, poring over GIS and aerial photos, reading draft plans, EIS documents, and public comments. But the author perhaps overestimates the county's appetite for well-placed rail stations next to which a higher density of construction becomes worthwhile. Just look at the Suisun-Fairfield station, which is nearly as well-placed as the one in Davis. If a midrange suburban hotel, a two-story office building, some offramps, and some underutilized public space the most the two cities can offer for this key gateway, what hope is there for a site where Vacaville's sprawl gives way to farms on its eastern edge?

</comment><comment><USER13> It's an admirable effort and I'm glad the author is concerned about such issues -- we need such concerned citizens. I hope she applies her local enthusiasm to wherever she is now.

I think the presentation could use some help though, for the idea to come through clearly (I don't know enough locally to comment on the merits):

1) The webpage and title purport to tell the story about what should be done, but it's filled with tangential information not relevant to the issue. It took me about 3 casual readings to realize there were conclusions about the alternative plan that should be pursued, written on the page. And I didn't realize what this page was for, until I clicked the PPT link -- which is relatively hidden amongst text despite it leading to the primary document of substance.

2) The document itself (PPT -- unfortunate vertical format and page/text layout I have to say) is also not clear about the disadvantages of the current route, and advantages of the proposed route. Despite being so short, it rambles. It really needs some summary bullet points and maybe a table for someone to quickly grasp what the proposal is.

3) Visually, the map differences between the existing planned route and the proposed alternative are not at all clear -- the maps look almost identical to my quick glance at this scale. If some of the conclusions are that the stations are poorly located, the point is to show some of the locations in detail and the alternative location in clear comparison. It's almost without point to enlarge the maps so much, yet not point out what is distinguishing about the original versus the proposed route alternatives.

Overall, given that county/city authorities signed off on the project, and that this reads as someone's interesting but casual idea, I can only (as a uninformed observer citizen) assume that forces at play have made their decision, and an effort like this, unless professionalized and given some real attention, are probably too late (see other comments below on why).

But if there is opportunity to make change, I wish the author (or others interested) good luck in going after it!

</comment><comment><USER14> I live in Benicia and I think the alternate plan is slightly disingenuous in removing Vallejo as a consideration for the Benicia stop. Much of Vallejo is only 20 minutes away from the rail line.

</comment><comment><USER15> Tragedy of the commons in action

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm not surprised to hear that bay area politicians would be happy to rid themselves of something "unpleasant" like a military base. Also, I wish we would give up all the grandiose and expensive plans for trains as a means of public transportation in the US. This pandemic has just added another reason why they are not viable here.

<comment><USER17> Bus rapid transportation could be a better fit, given existing freeway infrastructure. But good luck taking away two lanes of highway anywhere in the United States (true right-of-way separation is necessary for any effective _rapid _transit). A lot of other BRT ends up most of the time being express buses with fancy stations/shelters that still cost a bunch of money.

Honestly I think that the way we plan cities in North America is broken to the point where any transportation strategy is doomed to result in sprawl and congestion. To use a train analogy, I'd say that city planning is the true third-rail of American politics.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that moonshots do not work for solving bread and butter problems, and generally speaking you need to do lots of legwork before a metro area is ready for such things. The poster child I like to use for this is San Jose VTA, which has not a lot to show for its large light rail network despite being the home to Silicon Valley, but similar stories can be told in most major US metropolitan areas.

The odd one out in terms of public transportation in the last two decades is Seattle. Seattle is now investing tens of billions of dollars to extend the tentacles of its light rail throughout the region, eventually to 116 miles. But before this has even been completed, the metro area is one of the only non-NYC metros to have recorded consistently positive transit ridership growth in total, and probably the only one that had an actual percentage growth in mode share too, all with a rapidly expanding population.

This has mostly occurred via the normal, no-frills bus. The vast majority of bus routes do not have lanes or traffic priority or separation, but the very important thing is that frequency was massively increased; 70% of Seattle households are a ten minute walk from very frequent transit in 2019, up from 25%. [1] It turns out that if bus services are actually convenient, and driving is a pain in the ass, people will switch to transit to save themselves the frustration of having to actually pay attention to maddening road congestion. In addition land use in Seattle has long been focused on smart growth, with growth being funneled into dense regional nodes and highway buses being set up to link them on an hourly or half-hourly basis.

[1] [https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/10/30/seattle-tbd- annual...](https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/10/30/seattle-tbd-annual- report/)</comment></comment></comment>


.NET 5 - <AUTHOR> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-5/ <comment><USER3> I'll be honest, as much as I love the improvements with .NET Core/.NET Standard, Microsoft's branding strategy leaves _a lot_ to be desired.

vNext has already been historically used in the context of ASP.NET to refer to ASP.NET (not to be confused with ASP.NET MVC) v6. We restarted the versioning back with ASP.NET Core, now on version 2. Entity Framework used to be a .NET framework component but is now standalone, and has a Core version? Does Blazor (or is it Razor Components now) share the .NET branding?

Separate to the web stuff, we have the .NET platform - .NET framework is the non-cross platform version for which we're on version 4, but it implements .NET Standard v2 along with .NET Core, which has a Linux runtime. Mono also implements .NET Standard v2 and has a Linux runtime.

I remember many years ago when we also had Microsoft .NET Passport.. which was completely unrelated to everything else that I've mentioned related to the .NET brand.

And now we have .NET 5 which is neither Framework nor Core - so will ASP.NET drop this Core branding too? Is it just me, or is this all incredibly convoluted?

<comment><USER4> > And now we have .NET 5 which is neither Framework nor Core

Just to note, the blog post explicitly says that .NET 5 is the next version of .NET Core. It's where .NET Core is going, and given that so much more of the .NET "picture" is being realized with it, the name is changing to be more reflective of the fact that it's not really a "core" (small) thing anymore.

<comment><USER5> I look at this ".NET 5" thing as a PR move to end full framework.

"We aren't ending full framework, we have .NET 5!"

If you are developing new apps in full framework, you are doing it wrong.

<comment><USER6> If you're developing an application with a Windows desktop GUI, you're still doing it on full framework (WPF, WinForms, UWP). They're folding that into .NET 5, and I haven't seen anything indicating that they see that as "doing it wrong". This is only one case of developing for full framework, but it's a big one. I imagine any other cases where the developer community really needs full framework capabilities that still aren't ported to CoreCLR, they'll fold that in just the same as with the UI frameworks, as a Windows-specific capability. Maybe they end up sunsetting more than I think, but for now this seems more like consolidating Core and Framework than ending Framework.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "There will be just one .NET going forward, and you will be able to use it to target Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS, Android, tvOS, watchOS and WebAssembly and more."

<comment><USER8> This is remarkable, and impossible to predict from the Microsoft of 10 or 20 years ago. Satya seems to be the rare visionary CEO of a megacorp, instead of just defaulting to a defensive and reactionary stance like most other leaders.

<comment><USER9> I don't know. I think they're still the same at the core, they just do enough to try and stay relevant.

Office for Linux would be easy, but that's not going to happen.

My companies online outlook shows that MS is adding clones of all the tools (slack/trello).

They've been successful and monitizing in this new era

<comment><USER10> > Office for Linux would be easy, but that's not going to happen. They're > rewriting Office in React Native so Windows, OSX, and mobile ports will have > a lot more in common.

But "Desktop Linux" will always be a million support headaches for no market share; which begs the question "Dear Lord, why?"

<comment><USER11> And the only way to build market share is through cannibalization of windows licenses. Not in microsoft's interest. If you hae a proper office for windows, I bet many companies would consider seriously switching to Linux.

<comment><USER12> Office has been available for Mac for well over two decades. There are so many more reasons for companies preferring Windows on the desktop than just Office.

<comment><USER11> I think there _were_ so may more reasons. But what I see is all internal apps moving to be web based. 5 more years and Office is really going to be the last thing tying up corporates to Windows.

<comment><USER13> Call me when Linux has anything that works as well as AD.

<comment><USER14> It does; it's called AD. :)

The _actual_ problem is the lack of Group Policy support (or even a viable equivalent - preferably one that's cross-platform).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have extensive XP with .NET Core 2 in production on huge services with 1M+ users - we started making some stuff before 1.0 and had it in production after having few sessions with local MS.

WebAPI, APS.NET Core, Pwsh, C# 7... I dont work for MS, but that is some seriously good tech stack. Performance is amazing too. I highly recommend it. Worked in 50+ environments so far but this is top stuff. MS really nailed it this time. No, don't tell me that JAVA is comparable to C# in elegance, that linux dudes had python/ruby/perl/whatever before Powershell etc.

The only problem we had so far was with the Oracle db drivers which were non existent until several months back, but that is on Oracle... which sux more and more each day - commercializing java for example will just give a boost to .NET now, a lot of it - who at Oracle made up such decision escapes me, but maybe he works for MS.

<comment> pickle-wizard Do you run .Net Core on Windows or Linux?

I have a project in the early design phase that I was thinking of going with .Net Core on Linux. I've thought about going with Java, but with all the recent Java licensing changes don't think I want to go that route anymore.

<comment><USER15> I currently run on Windows servers, some of which are Core. Tried nano but its terrible as there is no package manager and no support for msi files. If you install anything in docker it takes GB's so we used VM's for bakcend/frontend running Windows Server 2016 behind IIS/kestrel/nginx and every other supporting tech on Linux (not core). One of the reasons to use Windows was Sql Server but mostly PowerShell which we do all automation in. Backend service is used to register invoices for entire country and it has 1M+ users, we have 60-100 logins per minute and 500+ concurent actions. Backend is served by single server (!) and never gets more then 10% CPU load and 20% memory with that load. I am amazed honestly. Zero dev fucktitude (once we ditched Angular, but that is another story). Almost zero downtime (30-50s to build and deploy with db migrations).

Now, we use Linux alpine docker containers, use postgre instead Sql Server and pwsh with Invoke-Build to run CI/CD stuff. Sworm for orchestrations and compose for local. Have 2 incoming country-level services this year for production. Currently on dev/stage it works really fast but load is trivial.

We did a lot of performance test on Windows and achieved 1.5-2K req/s with hello world and our setup on IIS/kestrel. Did no test for linux variant so far.

> I've thought about going with Java,

Java compared to latest C# is like ... Clojure to VBA. No brainner really, plus Oracle (sure, there are alternatives).

Also, entire Java enterprise stack is overengineered beyond repair. I need 77 classes for basic stuff. Take .NET core you wont regret it.

<comment><USER16> I assume your docker taking GBs above is for Windows Containers? Also, most of that overhead is first use, updates and parallel similar containers are much smaller. Also, as you mention, alpine containers are what I'd consider "just enough" when wanting to diagnose an app in a container.

I've found that .Net Core on Linux and in Windows are close enough that scaling should be the bigger concern. Unless you're tethered to windows, the broader tooling is much more mature with Linux containers/pods.

<comment><USER17> .Net has some caveats with GC: Server GC preallocates heap per CPU core so if you have 8+ server it could be a waste of RAM if app uses less than 1GiB. We are tinkering with microservices on .Net Core 2 in k8s and came up with using WS mode with clearing unused allocated memory on health check calls which is dirty but working trick.

On the Java side though there is a hack in JRE which checks if JVM runs inside a Docker container in order to not get out of memory limit by cgroup.

<comment><USER18> I believe the are changes coming in .NET Core 3.0 to fix the OOTB server-GC situation.

Of course for now you always have the option of enabling desktop GC instead

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am very pleased with the direction Microsoft has been moving the last few years. Every release of .Net has incrementally made our lives easier.

We are already on top of .Net Standard/Core 2.0 and are building successfully against 3.0 prerelease targets without modification. I would anticipate the move from Core 3.0 to .NET 5.0 would be trivial for us, and as long as self- contained deployments are still around in 2020 our build & publish pipeline won't know the difference (aside from msbuild & SDK updates on Jenkins).

Exciting times ahead.

</comment><comment><USER20> So, does this also replace/update the .NET Framework that is bundled with Windows 10, meaning that you can release a .NET EXE and ask people to use the latest version of the .NET like you can release a .JAR and you can ask people to have the latest version of Java, or you have to bundle the entire runtime (be it via a fat compiled AOT or regular bundling) with your application?

I ask because one of the positive things about .NET Framework 4 is that i can create a tiny .EXE and give it away and expect that people will have the runtime to run it since it is already part of Windows.

<comment><USER21> From the 3.0-preview5 announcement:

>You can now publish a single-file executable with `dotnet publish`. This form of single EXE is effectively a self-extracting executable. It contains all dependencies, including native dependencies, as resources. At startup, it copies all dependencies to a temp directory, and loads them for there. It only needs to unpack dependencies once. After that, startup is fast, without any penalty.

[https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-net- core-3-...](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-net- core-3-0-preview-5/)

<comment><USER20> This is for .NET Core 3, not for .NET 5. While .NET 5 might provide the same tool, it doesn't answer if it will _also_ provide a .NET Framework 4-like functionality where the .EXE relies on a runtime already installed on the user's system and if that framework will be something the developer will need to provide and/or be part of Windows 10 like .NET Framework 4.

<comment><USER21> And .Net 5 will be the release after .Net Core 3, so I assume they won't go ahead and remove the feature for it.

<comment><USER20> Sorry, i edited my message above after you replied it to add a bit of more detail what i mean.

<comment><USER21> Ah, got it. You want to be able to ship something that relies on an existing installed runtime and _don 't_ want to bundle the runtime with your executable.

<comment><USER11> Me too. Requiring to run all executable with a command line is a major inconvenience. And by choosing ".dll" as an extension it is not even possible to assign the extension to dotnet as a default application like you could with a jar file. And if you want self-executing binaries you not only have the version problem you mention, but you also have to bundle all sort of assemblies. And there doesn't seem to be anything like ILMerge for .net core assemblies to merge them into a single file.

<comment><USER22> What you are looking for is called a "framework-dependent executable" (exe file with no framework) rather than a "self-contained deployment" (exe wrapper for dll file with framework included) or a "framework-dependent deployment" (dll file with no framework)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Any word on F#? Last I checked there wasn't any REPL still and type providers weren't working.

<comment><USER24> The F# repl (FSI as fsharp interactive) works in .net core 3.0 preview already, you can do `dotnet fsi` to run it

Type providers works in general, but depends if the type provider library was updated to use latest type provider sdk. Also generative type provider may not works, erasing works

<comment><USER4> Just adding to Enrico's post here, Type Providers have been fully supported since .NET Core 2.1; some libraries just may not be updated yet.

`dotnet fsi` is planned to be fully released later this year with the .NET Core 3.0 release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was really excited to see this; finally a consolidated .NET. Then I read this...

Taken together, the .NET Core and Mono runtimes have a lot of similarities (they are both .NET runtimes after all) but also valuable unique capabilities. It makes sense to make it possible to pick the runtime experience you want. We're in the process of making CoreCLR and Mono drop-in replacements for one another. We will make it as simple as a build switch to choose between the different runtime options.

<comment><USER26> Mono is a large part of mobile and Unity for gaming. It's not going to disappear anytime soon and they can't go back to it being completely separate. This is the best compromise to keep the runtimes the same but share as much as possible between them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Java interoperability will be available on all platforms."

Where can I find more details on this?

<comment><USER28> There are not really any yet. We intend to take the Java interop that Mono already supports, improve it as needed, and make it available to other scenarios beyond just Android. If there are certain things you would like to see, I'd love to know.

<comment><USER27> I'll read up on how Mono handles it. I've never done too much .NET and I'm a recovering JVM dev, I was just asking out of curiosity since that is a pretty thorny feature to tackle. I can think of a number of dangers/shortcomings with any approach I can think of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Does this spell the end of .NET Standard?

And does this explain why they don't seem to care about making .NET Standard versions at all logical to developers (e.g. making a major breaking change, not supporting .NET Framework, to .NET Standard in a minor version)?

Edit: And before someone says ".NET Framework is choosing not to support .NET Standard, you shouldn't version based off implementations but off changes in the API": That only works if you have many implementations, .NET Standard has 3 major implementations! Losing 33% is pretty significant :)

<comment><USER28> We haven't made a decision on .NET Standard yet, in terms of what its role will be going forward. Major point is that its forward-looking role will be significantly diminished with this plan.

<comment><USER30> You guys should seriously consider the mental load all of this rebranding is having on your community. You have too many brands, too many names, and too many seemingly overlapping ideas.

I want to see .Net Standard die, not because of the technological merits of it or problems, but because you guys have created such a confusing mess and .Net Standard is perhaps one of the worst examples.

.Net Standard seemingly exists to consolidate compatibility between Core/Framework/whatever, but with you consolidating them under the "Framework" branding anyway there's no reason it should exist except to confuse further.

Either something is or isn't .Net 5 compatible. The end.

<comment><USER31> This was the entire reason I stopped being a .NET developer. Made the jump to Ruby a year ago.

<comment><USER32> Because handling gems compatibility issues and monkey patching is so much better experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I haven't used .NET since 2011, if you're in the same boat take a look at C# today. They're grabbing all the best features of other languages and making it their own, WHILE also allowing you to deploy static binaries to _any_ major platform.

Write C# code purely in VSCode or Rider, compile to all three platforms while on a Mac, and run your code in Linux. All from supported, non-hacky features.

Why use Go if you can use C#? C# is now incredibly compelling. The C# of today is not the C# of 6 years ago.

<comment><USER34> Goroutines and Async-Await are two very different takes on the same problem. In that regard, preferring Go over C# is an incredibly good reason to keep using it instead of switching over to C#. Choice is good, I prefer more languages than fewer.

<comment><USER18> I know essentially nothing about go - could you explain simply what goroutines are?

<comment><USER34> I'm far from being an expert at Go, but I will try: goroutines are green threads (very light threads, if you prefer). The main difference between async calls and threads is that threads remove the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous code.

In C# or Python 3, each function is colored as either sync or async. You can quite easily call an async function from a sync context, but doing a blocking sync call from an async context is forbidden (although possible).

In Go there is no such distinction: you just write your functions in a straightforward fashion, as if everything was synchronous, and then wrap whatever you want to run in the background in a goroutine. If you don't need the return value from that function, it is has simple as issuing:

      go my_func(param_a, param_b, ...)

Note that goroutines are green threads, not OS threads, so you can easily spawn many tens of thousands of them without bringing your system to a halt.

<comment><USER35> Async is to deal with io not for all concurrency in general. It uses interupts, not threads. Although the implementation can use threads for optimisation, it is not the point. If you're waiting on a network socket or reading lots of files, you don't need to spawn a new thread for each item. You can instead schedule a task to run one an interupt is received.

<comment><USER34> You are entirely correct. My sentence "The main difference between async calls and threads is that threads remove the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous code." is pretty weird: I wasn't talking about threads in general, but green threads as used by Go (i.e. Goroutines) in particular.

The idea that I wanted to express is that, very broadly, there are two ways of dealing with concurrent io. One is to deal with it explicitly at call site, using some variation of async/await semantic, futures, promises, or just callbacks. That's the C#/Python 3.4+/javascript way of doing it. Although implementations vary wildly between these languages, the core idea remains the same.

The other way of dealing with concurrent io is using green threads (or related concepts like actors) as in Go, Elixir, Python with gevent, etc. IO calls don't look special (no await, no yield, no special keyword, no callback), that is to say they behave like any other function call (although the implementation of these io calls is non-blocking to allow other green threads to run). Concurrent io from the programmer perspective is achieved simply by spawning many green threads/actors.

I personally find green threads easier to reason about than async calls, especially in the long run when maintaining large software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think there are some developers who would consider .NET 5 a huge breaking change. .NET (Framework) 4.8 looks like the predecessor but has features (rightfully) not available in .NET 5.

I like the vision but hate the name. .NET Core 4.0 would have done it. When you market software engineers stick with patterns. This looks like a lot of managers have feedback to stuff they did not understand in the first place.

<comment><USER37> I love the name. The numerous .Net monikers are confusing. Framework, Core, Mono... each with overlapping support for various frameworks and platforms. I expect new .Net developers to be overwhelmed trying to figure out the differences, as I was.

The monikers were misleading. This feels clean, looking forward to it.

 _Does "Core" mean core functionality? Then what is ".Net Standard"? Is .Net Core cross platform or Mono? Why can't I use .Net Core library with Xamarin? Is Xamarin .Net Mono? Should I use .Net Core Winforms or .Net Mono?_

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Funny how this announcement comes the same week Oracle decided to kill Java EE. MS has always been good to it's developers and broadening the .NET platform this way makes one really consider to give it another look. Oracle in the other hand basically spreads FUD about their own platform, even though they seemingly don't even care about it anymore.

<comment><USER39> I agree. Shame on Oracle.

J2EE is widely popular and continues to have a vibrant community. Oracle just doesn't have the vision of how to encourage and mature that community and turn it into the proverbial golden goose. All they want to do is kill it to get all the eggs today. They can just copy/learn Microsoft's strategy and come out on top.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> For the newbie here, can someone tell me if this is open-sourced? Many are fearful of building on a MS platform in case they change their minds in the future etc?

<comment><USER41> There are some open source components here, but I don't think the .NET platform as a whole is being moved to open source. The core compiler and runtime are open, but some of the most popular libraries and frameworks are still closed, it looks like.

<comment><USER42> There isn't much that hasn't been open sourced in the past few years: The runtime, standard library, C#/F#/VB compilers, ASP.NET, Entity Framework, Xamarin, PowerShell, Winforms, WPF are all open source or (in the case of WPF) being open sourced.

[https://github.com/dotnet/](https://github.com/dotnet/)

<comment><USER43> How about the C# debugger?

<comment><USER44> Roslyn is open source.

<comment><USER45> Roslyn is the compiler. There's not much of a debugger in it, is there? I mean, I guess the debugger will use Roslyn to parse watch expressions and evaluate things in the Immediate Window, but beyond that I think debugging is handled by something else.

<comment><USER46> I think the debugger is Visual Studio itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This seems like it would be a prime opportunity to introduce UWP applications to macOS and Linux. That would be a welcome alternative for developers looking to develop high quality native + cross platform applications.

<comment><USER48> .NET desperately needs a first-party supported solution for cross-platform desktop apps. I was searching this news for any hint of that, and don't think we're going to see it yet.

I am unsure if they would try to push UWP to those platforms, or focus more on expanding Xamarin which is already cross-platform. I know WinForms and WPF are considered far too dependent on Windows proprietary APIs to ever be officially supported elsewhere, I assume UWP is the same.

<comment><USER5> I would rather stand on the shoulder of giants and use Qt.

You can use .NET Core with Qt/QML. [https://github.com/qmlnet/qmlnet](https://github.com/qmlnet/qmlnet)

<comment><USER48> That looks pretty cool. I've also seen Avalonia, which is a more .NET-focused approach, meant to be very similar to WPF: [https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia](https://github.com/AvaloniaUI/Avalonia)

But the main issue for me is that Microsoft just needs to pick something, and say "this is how to write cross-platform desktop apps in .NET", and support it. I don't really care what it is, they just need to have one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Interoperation with java, swift, and obj-c is interesting. I wonder if they have an actual jvm, or they're just implementing java-the-language?

<comment><USER28> Like this: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/xamarin/android/get- started...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/xamarin/android/get-started/java- developers#interoperating-with-existing-java-code)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> We just started a new project on .NET Framework 4.7.x, because not everything that we care about is available on .NET Core, not even with the upcoming .NET Core v3.0.

Lets see how .NET 5 will sort out the current state of affairs.

In any case, it is a welcome change to sort out the mess that the whole WinRT and .NET Core 1.x have brought out.

<comment><USER19> I am curious what specific features you are using in .NET Framework 4.7x that are not accessible in .NET Core.

We use 'legacy' APIs like System.Drawing and System.DirectoryServices from .NET Core without any issues today - [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/core/porting/windows...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/core/porting/windows-compat-pack).

Although, we exclusively target Windows platforms right now (RID == win-x64). We are considering replacing these Windows-only deps with cross-platform alternatives in the future (e.g. Novell LDAP and Mono drawing) so that we can start looking at Linux as another hosting option.

I have even had reasonable success with retargeting 3rd party libraries to .NET Standard 2.0 without much coding effort. It's mostly just *.csproj XML soup management.

<comment><USER50> <I am curious what specific features you are using in .NET Framework 4.7x that are not accessible in .NET Core.

Windows Communication Foundation (WCF)

<comment><USER50> To expand on this. As I understand Microsoft has started to create a new version of WCF for .NET core (or 5 as it is called now). I should a multi-year development project to do this, because it can no longer be "Windows" Communication Foundation since it also must work on Linux.

They same goes for EWT tracing which is the logging mechanism you can use. That also has to be cross platform.

So for some years to come, I (on some projects) are "stuck" with .NET 4.X until WCF and EWT has been re-architectured.

<comment><USER32> Not at all, they just made it official that we are forced to rewrite those apps.

<comment><USER50> Since much of the banking world is heavy users of WCF, Microsoft has no other option that to implement WCF in. Net 5 unless they want to loose the banking industry. I did come across a post from one of the WCF products managers who said that they are working on a cross platform solution but it will take some (much) time before that has been completed. Cannot find this post, but I consider it safe to say that WCF for .net 5 is coming and that I am stuck util it does as there really is no alternative to using WCF

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Off the topic, but I come from Python / Django / Flask. (Have experience programming desktop apps with .NET 4 and C#). I just don't _get_ web app development with asp.net core.

Is there a ground up tutorial, concept-wise, about how asp.net works?

<comment><USER52> I've gone straight to the official Microsoft docs multiple times to try and get the same experience as when you read the Django documentation, but it's just not there. Django's docs explain the what, the why, and more. The Microsoft docs just have the what.

I want to love .NET Core development because I love Microsoft's open source effort, but the support (or lack thereof) from the documentation is quite the hindrance.

<comment><USER35> The docs are open source too. There's countless blogs and books. Visual Studio is a bit easier for some to get started than vscode. It's free.

Maybe your struggling in other areas?

<comment><USER52> Not "struggling in other areas" but thanks.

Been using VS and VSCode for a long time.

Don't care that the docs are open source.

My issue is that I guess I have high expectations for the official docs of a platform/framework/library/whatever. You shouldn't have to buy a book or read a random blog to find critical information on core functionality. The official docs should provide that, and Django is a great example. It includes how to do things, why things are the way they are, how to customize workflows, best practices, pitfalls, and on top of all that the source code is super easy to read and understand.

The pages at docs.microsoft.com are mostly just basic walkthroughs that leave me with a lot of questions. And the .NET Core source code is not nearly as readable.

It's getting better though. And I don't mean to take jabs at Microsoft because I truly do appreciate how much they've done in open source over the last few years, especially with VSCode.

<comment><USER53> Do you have a concrete example or two from the Django docs that you consider to be representative? Not doubting you at all; honestly just curious to see what you're looking for in documentation.

Microsoft docs are constantly under revision, including general improvements (not just reaction to changes), and the writers are very receptive and responsive to feedback.

(I work at Microsoft on docs, but not on the ASP.NET Core docs)

<comment><USER52> Hi. Sure thing.

First off, thank you for what you do. Microsoft is kicking ass these days and I don't want to sound like I'm unappreciative or unimpressed with what you guys are doing.

A quick example could be user authentication:

[https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/auth/default/](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/auth/default/) [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/aspnet/core/security/author...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/aspnet/core/security/authorization/secure-data?view=aspnetcore-2.2)

The first thing I see when scrolling down those pages is that the Django page is ~90% descriptive text and ~10% code. The ASP.NET page is the opposite: ~10% descriptive text and ~90% code.

Obviously that's not the best metric but I need to get off HN soon so that's the best I have for now :)

In any case, this could support my earlier claim: Django docs give not just the "what" – they also provide the "why", along with super useful background/supporting information, and even alternative approaches (e.g. in the "Limiting access to logged-in users" section there are at least five avenues you can choose from to meet your needs).

That was the quickest example I could find. Sorry it's not more substantive. I'll post again later if I find something that could be more helpful.

And again, I really appreciate what you guys are doing and don't mean to sound like I'm sending any negativity in your direction <3

<comment><USER53> No negativity received on this end at all!

I definitely see what you're saying - that section of the ASP.NET Core docs drop straight into a top-to-bottom code-driven tutorial, whereas the Django docs go concept-by-concept. This is great feedback, so thanks!

If you get a chance, check out Microsoft Learn (microsoft.com/learn) - we're working on _guided learning_ as opposed to _documentation_. Most of our content is interactive and task-based, but we try to ground the interactivity with conceptual information, context and scenarios. Much of the technical content published to date is Azure-focused, but we're growing other topics, including ASP.NET Core.

<comment><USER52> Hey thanks! I hadn't gone through that site, but I'm reading [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/modules/build-web- api...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/modules/build-web-api-net-core) now. Looks great! Nice work!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Since planned release date is well after Windows 7 EOL date (2020-01-14), I wonder if .NET 5 will be released only for Windows 10.

<comment><USER55> Windows 8 extended support doesn't end until 2023.

<comment><USER45> Isn't extended support only for security updates?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm cautiously optimistic.

> Moving to a single .NET implementation raises important questions. What will > the target framework be? Will NuGet package compatibility rules be the same? > [...] How does writing code for a specific architecture work? [...] We are > working through these issues now and will soon be sharing design docs for > you to read and give feedback on.

This, however, is my biggest worry. Between runtimes, content files, analyzers, native references, asset visibility rules, etc., packaging has become kind of a mess. I'd love to see a move away from monolithic packages, but IDK if that's on the table. Fingers crossed.

</comment><comment><USER15> Oh, small lies, nobody noticed...

GUI is not cross-platform in .NET 5 which is not visible on the graphic.

<comment><USER37> No Lies! Mono already supports cross platform winForms, and recently the ability to embed Xamarin.Forms views in both mobile and desktop.

<comment><USER57> But isn't winforms pretty much legacy? Microsoft has been encouraging the use of WPF.

<comment><USER15> Xamarin.Forms is not Win Forms AFAIK.

Legacy or not, Win forms would be better then nothing. For that to happen GDI+ need to be ported to core and for WPF to happen DirectX needs to be ported to core. Its all into UWP now.

So I guess it will not happen soon. MS should reboot IMO.

<comment><USER45> GDI+ is available on .NET Core as Mono.Drawing, I think. Windows Forms is tied to a lot of Win32, though, so GDI+ alone isn't really enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The more they use the word "throughput" the less I understand it.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'd just like to know what do they mean by ...

        > Java interoperability will be available on all platforms.

What, is that possible now on some .NET platforms? What does it mean? That I can use java classes in my .NET application??

<comment><USER36> Xamarin technology to bridge between .NET and the Android stack. This is old tech re-packaged, bringing Java classes and their APIs to .NET.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I really love the direction. Finally a single platform AND java compat. this is so good.

</comment><comment><USER61> What does it mean to standard ASP .Net (not core)? Will I be able to run all the enterpisey apps that use ASP MVC and WebForms on Linux in 2020? And if not on Linux, then will WebForms / old MVC work on NET 5 on Windows?

<comment><USER12> No. The legacy stuff will be ported to be compatible with .Net Core but will still be Windows only.

<comment><USER62> But presumably only the Core 3.0 WCF/Winforms "most things work, but in all likelihood your million+ line of code app will have all sorts of little things that won't work".

Presumably if you are using any of the following heavily in your applications, you will never be able to run on .NET 5 without major porting effort (I.E. reworking everything to avoid these):

* Remoting

* C++/CLI or Managed-C++

* App domains

* code access security

* ASP.Net Web Forms

* Exposing registered COM interfaces from .NET code for access from Win32 code.

* WCF Servers (Technically, nothing prevents somebody from porting this, since WCF is basically pure managed code, and its tricky Proxy related code is already ported as part of the client code. It is just that Microsoft has no plans to bother with this.)

Will SQL Server upgrade its .NET support for .net 5? (Potentially breaking compatibility with certain currently supported use cases)?

I'm guessing IIS Managed modules will never upgrade beyond .NET 4.X.

<comment><USER63> It's not like they have to re-implement all the code for these things; the majority of this code can just be moved over as-is from .Net framework to .Net core on Windows with minimal modification.

I'd be surprised if the goal isn't 100% compatibility. If Microsoft can get Linux applications to run on Windows, they can probably get .Net applications to run on .Net.

<comment><USER62> Remoting/app domains/Code access security were ripped out of the .NET Core codebase, and there is really not much of a chance of them returning. The CoreFX codebase has systematically removed all the code needed for things to safely work with those features, and re-implementing them would be unfeasible.

As for webforms. Well, the whole hosting model for IIS worker processes was based on appdomains. Further, w3wp.exe has special code for loading and integrating with the Framework, enabling managed modules. This is the whole System.Web.dll concept. Microsoft really does not seem to want to put in much effort to fix that.

Since Microsoft always recomended hosting WCF services in IIS, which therefore relied on the whole System.Web.dll mess which I think is a large part of the reason thy don't want to port that.

That said, other than replacing XML configuration, self-hosted WCF services should be pretty easy for them to port.

<comment><USER60> app domains basically now have a better alternative with Application Parts or for the heavy lifting AssemblyLoadContext ([https://docs.microsoft.com/de- de/dotnet/core/tutorials/creat...](https://docs.microsoft.com/de- de/dotnet/core/tutorials/creating-app-with-plugin-support))

<comment><USER62> AssemblyLoadContext with assembly unloading is not at all compatible with .NET Framework 4.X, which can be a pain if you want to gradually migrate stuff.

Also it does not have anywhere near the same level of isolation, which is part of what System.Web.dll was using them for. Would it be possible to it in a system.Web.dll port? Certainly, but you would be changing the semantics enough that some applications would notice the difference, and probably not in a good way.

<comment><USER60> yeah I mean unloading is not even that good without a .net core 3.0 preview. I think that in 5-10 years new stuff will emerge based on AssemblyLoadContext, maybe even some kind of OSGi just a little bit easier. Some examples are really promising and AssemblyLoadContext does not have the same problems as Java solutions. (duplicate Class Files, etc...)

the only thing that is missing is some kind of security related stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Interesting but as there is a 3.1 LTS version due before this comes out and this 5.0 release is not LTS, with any of those features not going LTS until 6.0 in Nov 2021.

So that kinda diminishes my initial excitement, much could change in a short period and we are talking over 2 years until any additional features becomes set in stone with LTS support. So for me, it's probably not looking at until 6 months before LTS release. As is the case with many others.

But some good changes - a rebrand would of cut of any confusion and historical hangovers. As between now and Nov 2021, much could change.

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the .NET ecosystem is super confusing, coming as a developer outside of that ecosystem (mostly web).

I'm a JS, Python and PHP developer who sees a majority of jobs in my area as .NET centric. To this end, I'm interested in familiarizing myself with .NET [1] but I'm totally at a loss wrt/ where my entry point to the ecosystem should be.

[1] Insofar as starting a new small project or re-implementing an old side project in .NET as a learning process.

</comment><comment><USER66> The most interesting piece of work happening in the .Net world is actually CoreRT (which is already beta quality), which lets you write fully native apps with access to the large .Net ecosystem. For many, it could be an alternative to Go/Rust. c# is a more capable language that Go, and easier than Rust - <USER2> particular sweet spot.

Instead the announcement was primarily about unrolling the version mess created over the last few years.

</comment><comment><USER67> As you can see from 300+ comments at the time of writing, the post is entirely unclear about what's happening seeing as everyone still argues about it.

My read of it is that .NET Core becomes the new .NET, not that .NET Core has parity with the existing .NET.

Specifically I can't just retarget my existing projects against .NET Core (or the new .NET) and have them just work.

</comment><comment><USER68> Damn, hard to believe 2020 is just next year!

</comment><comment><USER69> Good. It's so confusing right now.

<comment><USER70> It will still be confusing. At some point you'll need a library that doesn't support it. ".NET" promised backwards compatibility. Now, old ".NET" stuff won't work where you'd previously expect it to. Everything was quite clear when these 2 incompatible platforms had separate names. It's like merging Java and JavaScript "for clarity".

<comment><USER71> > ".NET" promised backwards compatibility.

Except for 2.x-3.x, .NET Framework didn't provide backward compatibility across major versions, so a break at the 4.x-5.0 transition would be in line with .NET Framework history even if .NET 5 was viewed as .NET Framework 5. Which seems to be why the version of what is basically .NET Core after .NET Core 3.x is .NET 5, so it fits expectations whether viewed as a .NET Core version or a .NET Framework version number.

Enterprise will no doubt keep legacy .NET Framework 4.8 around for legacy apps—the same way they do Framework 1.1 and 3.5.

> It's like merging Java and JavaScript "for clarity".

Not really. .NET Core can be viewed as just a production-ready but not feature complete early release of the next major version of .NET Framework, which involved major reengineering, and which will be released as .NET 5 when it is feature complete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Sounds good. Let's hope they won't change their mind until release in 11/2020.

<comment><USER73> It would be kind of dumb on their part. They're competing with Java, Golang, a reborn C++, Python, Swift, Rust, etc.

They badly need .NET to get adoption outside of Windows, which is a stagnant platform regarding dev adoption.

<comment><USER72> "It would be kind of dumb on their part. "

Agreed. However they have a long tradition of doing the right thing and then killing it immediately with stupidness and arrogance

<comment><USER73> They were knocked down a peg when they completely missed mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Coming from mainly python I must say I'm extremely impressed with .net core.

I think my mac days would be over if Windows had better font rendering and a usable terminal -- even ConEmu leaves a lot to be desired.

<comment><USER26> A new terminal is coming: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19840447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19840447)

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Still of limited usefulness as long as WPF is not cross-platform.

<comment><USER16> See [https://platform.uno/](https://platform.uno/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> "Java interoperability will be available on all platforms" I wonder if we will see a resurrection of the long gone Scala on CLR?

</comment><comment><USER77> Is it fair to say after 30 something years the basic is dead? I dont see any mention of it on any of the posts I read about .net 5

</comment><comment><USER61> Will VS 2017 support NET 5 ? Will VS 2019 do it ? Or will I need to buy yet another VS upgrade to enjoy it in full ?

<comment><USER71> > Or will I need to buy yet another VS upgrade to enjoy it in full ?

Don't most developers using non-Community VS get it via a Visual Studio subscription, either annual Standard (formerly, MSDN) ir monthly Cloud, both of which also include current and former Visual Studio downloads?

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> How does this compare to the Java ecosystem in terms of enterprise adoption?

</comment><comment><USER79> Sorry for my ignorance but how is .NET 5 different from Standard (2.0)?

<comment><USER16> My take on this, is it means that .Net Framework and Mono will cease as separate platforms... and .Net 5 will be effectively Standard 3.0 with code from Core, Mono, etc as a single, unified framework.

The are deprecating all of the past in favor of .Net 5

<comment><USER79> I don't think they would deprecate Framework yet. A lot of application rely on it. I think they would support it less (see OWIN implementations), but Framework still feels very active.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I'm curious and don't see anything. But what about things like IPC? Is WCF available yet? Is there an abstraction for namedpipes for all the platforms?

<comment><USER28> IPC is already supported. We have no plans to support WCF (as a server) on .NET Core.

<comment><USER25> What components of.NET Framework 4.8 will not be supported on the Windows version of.NET 5?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Is this pretty much like how Java is today?

<comment><USER55> Java is a programming language that can target many different run times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Semi-tangent, but as someone who didn't try to follow AOT compilation but very much wants to, would anyone have tl;dr instructions using the current version of .NET on how to turn a HelloWorld.cs file into a native HelloWorld.exe? You'd think it's just calling a couple of commands on the command line, but every time I've searched for it I've come across pages and pages of documentation I had no time to look through.

<comment><USER79> 1\. Get Visual Studio. 2\. Install .NET. 3\. New > Create New Project. 4\. Choose Console Application (C#). 5\. Rename Program to HelloWorld. 6\. Go to properties and change Startup object to "ProjectName".HelloWorld. 7\. Run

<comment><USER82> That just gives me a .NET EXE, not a native EXE. Also I was looking for compilation instructions I can run myself (like csc HelloWorld.cs), not an IDE to run everything for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> what kind of license would it have? i suppose MIT like .NET Core?

<comment><USER28> The post clarifies that everything will be open source. We use a combination of MIT and Apache 2. MIT is our default license for new code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Is it just me, or are all critical comments being downvoted here. It seems like this thread is overrun by PR folks and microsoft employees.

In the techcrunch windows terminal thread, one of the top comments starts with "I've been developing on both MacBook Pro's and Windows laptops for 15+ years now, on a daily basis, and I can confidently say that Windows laptops are superior to MacBook Pro's for development in every way.".

It reads like an infomercial. What is going on? Did the "hacker" community suddenly fall in love with Microsoft?

Another gem: "Satya seems to be the rare visionary CEO of a megacorp, instead of just defaulting to a defensive and reactionary stance like most other leaders."

<comment><USER84> I see many for and against points towards Microsoft. I don't pay attention to Satya comments but I feel the same can be said for those as well. More importantly, why do you believe the opinion of the dev community towards Microsoft should be swayed one way or another?

If they do a good job at supporting development on all platforms, and their intentions are clear and any intrusive additions can be spotted and built out effectively, why should they not be commended for it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> .

<comment><USER73> .NET Core 3 will come with compatibility packs.

<comment><USER12> For Windows only....

<comment><USER86> .NET Framework is only available on Windows, so I don't get your point.

<comment><USER12> It was for clarification that while .Net Core/.Net 5 are cross platform, "porting" Windows Forms doesn't mean it will be cross platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Will it support Windows 9?

</comment><comment><USER87> They took years to rewrite C# compiler and delivery became _slower_?

</comment><comment><USER88> Looks like MS realized they made a mess with .net core ...before thinking through how they should have done this... It was really not difficult to see ..if they wanted to make .net open source and their BA, PM and developer should have seen this coming... after MS bought Xamarin..they could have worked on mono and make things easier for everybody... Now they are abandoning again this new '.Core' bandwagon...so much money and time was spend by community on creating and building libraries product...

I just convinced my PM and team, that we should consider .net core and they have agreed...we have started development of our new app..

This news will make things more complicated...Sigh

Edit: Quite negative votes..No need to down vote..just explain your viewpoint with more civilized means using "reply"

<comment><USER89> Unless I misunderstood the article is it not the case that this is just .NET Core 5 (we're currently on/near .NET Core 3)?

This announcement sounded more like unifying the various different bits of. NET on 5 in future rather than yet another breaking change?

<comment><USER28> It is both things ... basically .NET Core 5 (as you say) but also making it so that .NET Core can support all modern .NET scenarios.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Downloading all of your comments - <AUTHOR> Hey guys,<p>Random Sunday question: is there a way to download all of your comments from HN? <comment><USER2> Have you read the API? [https://github.com/HackerNews/API#users](https://github.com/HackerNews/API#users)

IIUC, this list all the comments, submissions, polls, ... of a user, so you have to manually query each one and filter the comments.

Also, hnapp has filters and a json option, but I didn't try it: [http://hnapp.com/?q=type%3Acomment%20author%3ADanielBMarkham](http://hnapp.com/?q=type%3Acomment%20author%3ADanielBMarkham)

<comment><AUTHOR> I knew there were some good search APIs out there. I had tried a couple but to be honest there are probably dozens. Just wondering if anybody knew of any that would allow one-click downloading, instead of having to get all the comments one page at a time.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: GO or Ruby on Rails? - <AUTHOR> Seem like there's a lot of Go > Rails speak going on, and as someone who's currently using Rails but never tried Go I'd like to hear your opinions. Should I drop Rails? <comment><USER2> Depends on what you do. If you're looking to do freelancing then you'll find a lot more jobs if you're strong in Ruby.

Go is growing rapidly and we'll probably see quite a few full time jobs looking for Go skills in the years ahead. So if you want to invest in future hire-ability then Go isn't a bad place to use your time.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're looking for a contemporary alternative to Ruby, you might also like to investigate Clojure ([http://clojure.org/](http://clojure.org/)) - it is far more mature than Golang, has excellent libraries for web development and arguably has made better language design decisions (no shared mutable state). It also has excellent support for clientside web development, which is becoming increasingly important.

</comment><comment><USER4> I never could stand the Ruby syntax and after a few days with Go I loved it. I would definitely recommend giving it a shot. Web work took some time to get used to but once you get the hang of it things just feel natural (and I guess that's what happens when you have the brains of the Go team).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting. I too am not a huge fan of the Ruby syntax, but I've learned to live with it for the most part.

It does make me miss Python though.

One nice thing about Rails is that there are a LOT of resources out there for learning it like One Month Rails, CodeSchool, etc. I haven't seen the same for Go (yet).

<comment><USER4> That is definitely the case. The one extremely important part though is that even the standard library source is readable and the documentation is incredible. There are a few books around including on on leanpub ([https://leanpub.com/go-thestdlib](https://leanpub.com/go-thestdlib)). Effective Go ([http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html](http://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html)) is a great lesson for syntax also.

EDIT: add links

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How hard is Go to pick up for beginners? Any recommendations for basic tutorials?

<comment><USER6> "A Tour of Go" [http://tour.golang.org/](http://tour.golang.org/)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for this!</comment></comment></comment>


Google's Infrastructure is its Strategic Advantage - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2007/12/04/google-infrastructure/

<comment><USER2> If this is news to anyone at all, they haven't been paying attention. Why else would Microsoft have been destroyed in the search race? The one thing they lack more than anything else is the expertise to build a scalable infrastructure. And it has destroyed them.

> Instead of trucks and assembly plants, however, Google's supply chain is > made up of fiber networks, data centers, switches, servers and storage > devices

That's what you think, isn't it? Reality is that they are nearly one and the same. QA is expensive when you farm it out -- so don't. Delivery is expensive -- handle it yourself. Assembly -- well, given commodity components and stamped parts to hold them, designed by talented industrial engineers for rapid assembly and disassembly, who needs a proper assembly line? Truth is stranger than fiction...

True story: One of my roommates at the time (2000-2001) came up with the idea to transport Google clusters (the old corkboard pieces of shit, not the relatively sleeker editions that followed) via truck. The initial run was a disaster -- it turns out that U-haul D-hooks are rated for about 80 pounds, not 800 as advertised, so one of those racks almost ended up on the 101 at rush hour when they took a turn a little too fast. Bonded, licensed carriers have been used for the deliveries ever since and Chris moved over from operations to purchasing ;-)

To say that Google's internal efficiency is like no other I've ever seen (and I have worked at IBM Microelectronics, for example, so I've seen some pretty hard-core automation) is to understate the matter. Apparently there is no lack of applications for this infrastructure (Amazon is the only other company that I have seen come close, and it's no surprise whatsoever that Google and Amazon used to choose many of the same datacenters before Google started building its own), my only concern is whether Wall Street realizes this. On second thought, given the fact that Wall Street basically drove the scaling of Unix the first time around, maybe that's why Google's stock price is up 800% since the IPO.

> It has been rumored to be a big buyer of dark fiber to connect its data > centers,

Again -- if this is news to anyone at all...

Why pay someone else to do a shitty, unreliable job of transferring your data, when you can do it better and faster yourself? The devices to light up a piece of fiber sufficient to hook up a MAN are about $40K apiece -- chump change for the gain in efficiency and cost savings.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can be king in two ways: bring the content or make the content.</comment>


There's less and less about AI/ML on Hacker News: is AI winter coming? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> The hype cycle is still growing. Google trends for:

1\. "Aritifical Intelligence" [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0mkz)

2\. "Deep Learning" [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=D...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Deep%20Learning)

The hype is just lagging indicator of the underlying factors, like investments. It would be better if the AI fewer would inflate to sustainable level gradually, but it's not likely to happen. Even if AI/ML field is in good shape for long term, its still likely that investors overshoot in short term. Overshooting leads to period of underinvestment that hurts.

</comment><comment><USER3> There have been at least 50 stories about ML in just the past week.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastWeek&type=story&query=%22machine%20learning%22)

I don't think anything going on on HN is evidence of any pending "AI Winter". Actually, my personal suspicion is that there aren't going to be any more "AI Winters" at all, at least none of the severity seen in the past. Maybe there will be an "AI Fall" at some point. But existing AI/ML techniques are already creating so much real world value that people aren't going to start dropping it like a hot potato like they did with Expert Systems or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER4> It isn't just AI/ML. The same could be said for a few other topics here. The problem isn't that there's less, it's that there's more of everything else.

</comment><comment><USER5> Even with the current advances we have only just seen a glimpse of what can be optimized and improved using ml/ai.</comment>


Show HN: Add OpenDNS servers to resolve names with most recent successful entry - <AUTHOR> If my experience is any indicator, the DNS issue seems to be getting worse as the hours go by, not better.
However, I have found that adding OpenDNS servers (184.108.40.206, 126.96.36.199) to my list of DNS servers has completely eliminated the issue, at least for the time being.
So, under my IPv4 configuration, in the "DNS Servers" field, I have "184.108.40.206, 184.108.40.206, 22.214.171.124" - the last one is the Google DNS server.
I'm able to resolve Twitter, Github, etc. <comment><USER2> For Github, you can try this as well: echo "126.96.36.199 github.com" >> /etc/hosts

This will work good for pull/push but web UI is broken.

I have tried your method but doesn't make any difference.</comment>


Least Known C++ Keywords - <AUTHOR> http://www.thejaywalker.net/2011/01/least-known-c-keywords.html

<comment><USER2> If you don't use any of these keyword, then please do not present yourself as a C++ programmer at all. Some are quite infrequent - I've never used "auto", "register" - but I can't think about any serious C++ OOP code lacking "explicit".

<comment><USER3> The auto keyword has been repurposed to do some basic type inferencing. It helps save a lot of typing (both senses of the word apply here). This is in c++0x and most compilers already implement this usage of auto.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am not a good or a professional C++ programmer by any means, but still I find these quite basic. I think you will encounter them in the first 5 items or so of Meyers.

</comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone here actually seen (or written) C++ code that used the _and_ , _not_ , or _or_ keywords (from iso646.h)? These keywords seem cleaner and are standard, yet I have never seen (or dared use) them in practice. In my day job, I write code that must be portable across a dozen platforms, so I am paranoid about using "unusual" C++ features.

</comment><comment><USER5> Kind of reminded me what a gigantic, arcane mess C++ really is. It's not enough that there are half a dozen different semantics of "const" -- the "mutable" keyword let's you break the convention of the const function (not changing member values) without a user of your interface ever knowing about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Isn't it the cost of having direct access to the memory? Can you name another language where you can control so many aspects of the system, and still remain "clean"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> And a true C++ programmer can name ALL the uses of the 'static' keyword.

<comment><AUTHOR> which are?</comment></comment>


How much CO2 does a single volcano emit? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d <comment><USER2> TL;DR: Volcanism contributes 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year. Humans contribute 29 billion tons per year. The impact of volcanism is insignificant compared to the impact of humans.

<comment><USER3> I remember having quite a few arguments with climate change denialists claiming it was natural causes for the climate change we're seeing. It's a pretty good argument until you actually look at the numbers like this.

<comment><USER4> What bothers me with climate change 'apologists' is that they act all religious when it comes to the science of climate, but don't do a single thing in their life to reduce their footprint (and even if they do it's so insignificant it doesn't matter). It's like they think it's enough to convince people that climate change is real and man made to save the planet (it's not).

Myself I'm a climate change 'whateverist' ;-) I don't have the intellectual means to understand the science for myself and won't trust the scientists on their words (especially when it's the media that is talking for them).

The way I see it : if climate change is really going to happen like they say we're doomed. Even if it's man made, humans won't change until it's too late, so why bother having arguments with people, do you really think they're gonna abandon their way of life just because you're right ?

<comment><USER5> > Even if it's man made, humans won't change until it's too late, so why > bother having arguments with people, do you really think they're gonna > abandon their way of life just because you're right ?

Within living memory globe-spanning Fascism seemed inevitable. A bit later, Nuclear annihilation seemed practically guaranteed. Why resist when you can just go with the flow eh?

<comment><USER6> Yea bud, I'm sure you're out there "resisting".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love this article but in the comments I'm reminded of an issue in the discord around climate change.

It seems to be an issue of 'denial' and 'belief' to many - the same terms we use for religious belief.

We owe it to ourselves to treat doubt about climate change like any other valid doubt (see geology pre plate tectonics for an example of mainstream science being in short supply of doubt) and to stop treating climate change as a matter of belief.

'Believing' in climate change turns it into an opinion - the type of opinion that can never be truly right or wrong; "you have your opinions, I have mine."

<comment><USER8> We owe it to ourselves to treat doubt about particle physics like any other valid doubt, perhaps?

There is no "valid" doubt about mainstream particle physics, or climate change, etc. because those fields embrace that doubt and then try to eliminate it.

Equating climate science with early stage geology is extremely ignorant of the data and analysis that happens in climate science. Drive-by smearing like that should not be acceptable to you, as a healthily skeptical person, because you cannot back up that claim. Such skepticism must be applied evenly and not merely against one direction of claims.

<comment><USER9> The models climate science have created have had very little success in forecasting the climate. Healthy skepticism would doubt the analysis.

Note, there is a consensus around the narrative that humans have an impact (which is quite different from the analysis of that human impact). These are totally separate and you seem to have them confused.

<comment><USER10> > The models climate science have created have had very little success in > forecasting the climate

Can you give us some sources for that claim?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> won't global warming merely make humans go extinct, the planet will recover and host new life.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've heard so many times, how human contribution of CO2 is insignificant comparing to: Sun (already debunked by NASA), then Volcanoes. And just recently, that oceans are the biggest contributor. I guess this will be debunked soon too. And even if not, how deniers can explain constant raise of CO2 ppm starting from industrial era? And how many more myths has to be debunked, before we get serious about climate change and start to act accordingly?

<comment><USER12> How do you explain temperatures dropping from 1940-1975 during the same time that CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing faster than ever before?

<comment><AUTHOR> To sum up, anthropogenic sulfur emissions appear to be the main cause of the mid-century cooling. These emissions decreased the mean global surface temperature by approximately 0.5°C during this period, while anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused a warming of approximately 0.4°C. Therefore, even though greenhouse gas emissions continued to have a warming effect during this period, it was more than offset (hidden) by anthropogenic aerosol emissions, until those emissions were brought under control by government intervention while greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase unabated.

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th- cen...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century- advanced.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Geologist Peter Ward fears too little CO2 in a future Earth. Below 100 ppm photosynthesis ceases. Plants and animals all die. Only alternative energy organism survive.

Earth likely began with 50% CO2 (like Mars and Venus). By the time life emerged from thebsea is was only a couple percent; just 0.04% (400 ppm) now. During ice age advances its been as low as 180 ppm.

As the Earth cools off, there will be less plate tectonics and volconism to replenish CO2. Ward predicts a half billion years or less for the CO2 apocalypse. If there still is sentient life then, there is an easy remedy. 98% of near surface carbon is in limestone. Just burn enough limestone (as we currently do for cement manufacture).

<comment><USER14> An apocalypse half a billion years away? In what context does the word "fears" make sense on that kind of scale?

If we're still around then, and still dependent on this planet, and haven't transformed it into an entirely different ecosystem (all these _if_ s seem incredibly unlikely), then as you say there are easy fixes that even we at our current technological level could pull off.

So I'm not clear why Ward would "fear" this.

<comment><USER9> The point is not to blindly class CO2 as good or evil.

<comment><USER14> And why would that be a useful viewpoint today?</comment></comment></comment></comment>