I have nothing but pent up frustration and rage over the fact genuinely stupid people* will waste their time in vacuous discussion while simultaneously defending Rust while making absolutely zero progress in convincing anyone in a position of authority to use Rust.
I say this as someone that was offered to skip the standard Google interview process because of my background at a healthcare startup. When I got around to asking about how to build a team, the answers were so far into clown world it completely discredited any semblance of glory previously existed at Google.
*: I'm happy to cite previous comments, but it will embarrass many notable luminaries, and probably your entire argument. Are you really prepared for an intellectual knife fight? :)
I don't think anyone needs to get into an 'intellectual knife fight' with you. Your comment on layoffs around Dart include an unrelated language, a humblebrag about yourself, an attempt to pre-discredit all potential comments, an appeal to present yourself as a higher being and expert, and an invitation to fight. All this, again, being unrelated completely to the main topic of Dart layoffs. Holy cow, man. You're off your rocker.
I don't think it's too farfetched to mention another language when this post mentions both Dart and Python.
Google is Silicon Valley's poster child. It's the company everyone else mimicked to incentivize the best and brightest to work for them. Those shareholders and potential investors are simply asking whether that strategy is still viable since their performance in the market lately has been tarnished. This has been something talked about in tech circles for many years, and when challenged, it's met with trite dismissals and attempts to reframe the conversation, rather than an earnest attempt to understand the position. Arguably, it's perhaps this unwillingness to engage in unpleasant ideas that has driven them astray.
I've never been able to get anyone to make an economic argument for Rust, which is why I believe Google needs to also axe those efforts too. Google is a business, not a charity. It's perfectly reasonable to see these efforts as a waste. And we might disagree on that point, but I can't learn anything about why we disagree if you take the least charitable interpretation of an admittedly vituperative comment.
4 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 18.8 ms ] thread[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40171125 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40184763
I have nothing but pent up frustration and rage over the fact genuinely stupid people* will waste their time in vacuous discussion while simultaneously defending Rust while making absolutely zero progress in convincing anyone in a position of authority to use Rust.
I say this as someone that was offered to skip the standard Google interview process because of my background at a healthcare startup. When I got around to asking about how to build a team, the answers were so far into clown world it completely discredited any semblance of glory previously existed at Google.
*: I'm happy to cite previous comments, but it will embarrass many notable luminaries, and probably your entire argument. Are you really prepared for an intellectual knife fight? :)
Google is Silicon Valley's poster child. It's the company everyone else mimicked to incentivize the best and brightest to work for them. Those shareholders and potential investors are simply asking whether that strategy is still viable since their performance in the market lately has been tarnished. This has been something talked about in tech circles for many years, and when challenged, it's met with trite dismissals and attempts to reframe the conversation, rather than an earnest attempt to understand the position. Arguably, it's perhaps this unwillingness to engage in unpleasant ideas that has driven them astray.
I've never been able to get anyone to make an economic argument for Rust, which is why I believe Google needs to also axe those efforts too. Google is a business, not a charity. It's perfectly reasonable to see these efforts as a waste. And we might disagree on that point, but I can't learn anything about why we disagree if you take the least charitable interpretation of an admittedly vituperative comment.