> "The FDIC is not supported by public funds; member banks' insurance dues are its primary source of funding. When dues and the proceeds of bank liquidations are insufficient, it can borrow from the federal government, or issue debt through the Federal Financing Bank on terms that the bank decides."
If you're trying to say "look, 'taxpayer' isn't mentioned, all good", you're either in self-delusion or you're playing dumb.
It doesn't matter how you dress it - "taxpayer money", QE, Sammy's piggybank - the inflationary repercussions will affect everyone.
> On top of that, SVB has the money to pay back almost all of the depositors. They just don't have it liquid right now because it's in bonds that won't mature for a while and would need to be sold for a loss.
This is a self-contradiction, yet it's written as an explanation.
Bravo.
> You can vote for people who are dumb enough to let the entire banking system collapse because they want to hurt rich people. But of course that would probably put "peasants" out of work while the rich get slightly less rich.
This isn't about "hurting rich people", you can throw away that straw man (along with the twitter favorite "it's not a bailout, the bank equity goes to zero!").
It's about the response to a complex system's failure.
Most would agree injecting liquidity ASAP is mandatory in the short-term, but that does not mandate insuring 100% of deposits.
Any sort of response has negative repercussions, but it isn't a matter of fact that the banking system would collapse otherwise.
Nobody has "the answers", it's a complex system.
The VC tech bro take draws a line in the sand and cries wolf for any approach that doesn't cover them 100%, and it's done under the guise of looking out for others; "the workers", "the banking system", "the economy", "a generation of technological progress evaporated".
Is it possible that the best thing to do for the long-term is to allow a worse short-term outcome (affecting a small part of the economy more drastically), so that the system is altered in a way that actually fixes/improves it?
Even if we grant that hypothetical, should it be done? It's a complex question with no right answer.
The VC tech bro take on technological advancements that have negative short-term side effects, wiping industries and causing people to lose jobs usually falls in the range of "learn to code" to "that sucks, but we must march forward".
There is a poignant sense of hypocrisy when grandstanding holier-than-thou "technologists" who claim in abstract that progress and efficiency trump all, find themselves on the other side and act oh so predictably.
The cynical responders aren't partaking in the question of "what is the correct response", but just because they don't gobble up the predictable VC tech bro take as gospel doesn't make them dumb.
Besides the other use cases that benefit others have mentioned, there's much more to perf than req/s for a webserver.
Basic examples:
- Latency/processing (which suffers as req/s grows or peaks)
- Memory usage (idle, at peak)
- Startup time (one-off jobs, serverless cold boot)
The "thousands of req/s" benchmarks are often unrealistic - either super simple (the benchmark you linked serves a static tiny JSON payload) or hyper optimized and not representing a run-of-the-mill webserver.
> The "thousands of req/s" benchmarks are often unrealistic
A hello world Fastify project can get you into the 20k reqs per second. On the same hardware with a real project you probably will get a couple thousands which is more than enough to satisfy 99% of projects.
> Last I checked Bun still handily beats SWC (and ESBuild) on basically everything
What did you check?
Bun only has basic transpiring currently. I can't imagine what "everything" is, and without bundling, minification, and down-transpiling support I don't see how any meaningful project could have been tested on.
> Bun’s perf obsession has been percolating a lot of optimizations upstream to WebKit/JSC
Source?
AFAIK claiming either "bun devs made a lot of JSC perf optimization PRs" or "bun devs pointed perf hot spots to JSC devs" would be incorrect, but I'd love to learn otherwise.
> Bun only has basic transpiring currently. I can't imagine what "everything" is, and without bundling, minification, and down-transpiling support I don't see how any meaningful project could have been tested on.
Yeah, build/bundling use cases have lagged in priority. I’ll rephrase “everything” as “every transpiling use case”.
> Source? AFAIK claiming either "bun devs made a lot of JSC perf optimization PRs" or "bun devs pointed perf hot spots to JSC devs" would be incorrect
Jarred’s Twitter has been frequently highlighting these contributions. This seems like a weird thing to object to if you’re so familiar with the project!
typescript(tsc) is the only one that does type checking.
bun, deno, esbuild, swc etc. can parse the syntax, but they chuck the TS (they probably don't even add it to the AST, but I haven't checked).
Keeping up with syntax is very doable. It doesn't change often, and updating the parser when it does isn't much work.
There are some past/ongoing projects[1][2] to create type checkers faster than tsc, but they aren't going to reach full parity and probably don't plan on keeping up with language features.
So tsc runs on bun and deno? Do they implement any node apis used by typescript? I guess there's very little surface area - process, fs, maybe stream, event, and worker_threads or process?
People argue that Flash has been completely replaced with HTML5, but, there is no GUI / interface for designing games / animations for the web that even comes close to what Flash had. I miss me some movieclips =(
Flash-the-format is gone, but Flash-the-editor never went away. It's just called Adobe Animate now. It now exports projects (incl. arbitrarily-complex ActionScript-based games) to HTML5 rather than SWF, with literally no loss of functionality (and in fact gains in functionality instead) compared to the SWF days.
Animate also exports to Adobe's AIR runtime — which isn't just "that weird Adobe thing you had to install on your PC once to run a business presentation", but much more importantly translates to the ability to export a project to a native mobile app for iOS/Android, since these platforms have AIR-runtime implementation as libraries you can link into an app project.
Not sure why everyone seems to have forgotten it existed. It's not like it went unmaintained or anything, the way Fireworks was for a while before its death. Animate is still a great and modern tool, with new features being added all the time. It's become a first-in-class tool for animation studios to produce cartoons with — thus the updated name/branding. People just seem to have lost, in the process of that rebrand, all awareness of the fact that it can still be used to make games/interactive experiences. Which is a shame.
I believe what went away was the ability to get Animate for cheap. Flash was extremely highly pirated and that served as an entryway for young would be web devs/game makers. In the Creative Cloud era, pirating Animate has become a lot harder to do. So fewer people know of what it can do after the easier to pirate eras, and in turn fewer people see it as an on ramp to web animation and/or game development.
Not that pirating is the right solution nor that Adobe doesn't have a right to make money from their software, but that Adobe is missing a possibly huge audience they could attract with more "middle options" than super locked down Creative Cloud accounts such as for kids without access to the family's purse strings, for lower income and education use, for try before you buy needs, etc.
I learned to program with Flash MX 2004. I had no idea what I was doing but within a day or so I had made some pretty cool stuff that I was proud of. Was hooked from then on.
The Flash IDE was top notch. And the fact that it made a one-file executable was pretty cool too. And their version of javascript with classes was damn cool (was it es6?).
Flash had a nice dev-to-executable experience, too bad it was soured by its browser inclusion. It could've been a great alternative to Java/Electron as the build once run anywhere lang. Adobe was a bit too early with Air
Would love to hear more regarding Microsoft evil, invasive and user hostile.
I've certainly consumed the last ~5 year PR propaganda, and am not aware of the bad stuff?
I fail to see how Windows is not the epitome of user abuse, granted I only occasionally have to use it nowadays so might be off. For starters migrating users to Windows 10 via dark UIs and even forced upgrades. Generally abusing the update channel and forcing updates users be damned. Enabling and re-enabling telemetry. Adding and re-adding Microsoft services people did not ask for. Ads in the Windows start menu.
Intercepting installation of Firefox/Chrome.
If you're trying to say "look, 'taxpayer' isn't mentioned, all good", you're either in self-delusion or you're playing dumb. It doesn't matter how you dress it - "taxpayer money", QE, Sammy's piggybank - the inflationary repercussions will affect everyone.
> On top of that, SVB has the money to pay back almost all of the depositors. They just don't have it liquid right now because it's in bonds that won't mature for a while and would need to be sold for a loss.
This is a self-contradiction, yet it's written as an explanation. Bravo.
> You can vote for people who are dumb enough to let the entire banking system collapse because they want to hurt rich people. But of course that would probably put "peasants" out of work while the rich get slightly less rich.
This isn't about "hurting rich people", you can throw away that straw man (along with the twitter favorite "it's not a bailout, the bank equity goes to zero!"). It's about the response to a complex system's failure. Most would agree injecting liquidity ASAP is mandatory in the short-term, but that does not mandate insuring 100% of deposits. Any sort of response has negative repercussions, but it isn't a matter of fact that the banking system would collapse otherwise.
Nobody has "the answers", it's a complex system. The VC tech bro take draws a line in the sand and cries wolf for any approach that doesn't cover them 100%, and it's done under the guise of looking out for others; "the workers", "the banking system", "the economy", "a generation of technological progress evaporated".
Is it possible that the best thing to do for the long-term is to allow a worse short-term outcome (affecting a small part of the economy more drastically), so that the system is altered in a way that actually fixes/improves it? Even if we grant that hypothetical, should it be done? It's a complex question with no right answer.
The VC tech bro take on technological advancements that have negative short-term side effects, wiping industries and causing people to lose jobs usually falls in the range of "learn to code" to "that sucks, but we must march forward". There is a poignant sense of hypocrisy when grandstanding holier-than-thou "technologists" who claim in abstract that progress and efficiency trump all, find themselves on the other side and act oh so predictably.
The cynical responders aren't partaking in the question of "what is the correct response", but just because they don't gobble up the predictable VC tech bro take as gospel doesn't make them dumb.