> But when this happens to the educated professional class, all hell breaks loose.
If the programmers fall into the "educated professional class", then no, not in Canada. I personally know people with engineering/science degrees who became "warehouse sorters", baristas, metal workers, parcel deliverers, cooks in cafeteria. Some of them eventually found programming jobs again, others are still employed in blue collar/service jobs after 3+ years.
Canadian programming job market is weird, places are hiring and can't find people, and people are looking and not being hired. IMO nobody wants a junior and everyone wants the mythically perfect candidate. Employers are gonna have to bite the bullet and hire people less qualified and train them up but they refuse.
It's always been that way. They're looking for a senior at the price of a junior. That kind of job listing has always been around, and it makes companies look good to have openings.
They're not doing so here, but shipping a wasm-compiled binary with npm that uses node's WASI API is a really easy way to ship a cross-platform CLI utility. Just needs ~20 lines of JS wrapping it to set up the args and file system.
There's no such thing as a truly "cross-platform" build. Depending on what you use, you might have to target specific combinations of OS and processor architecture. That's actually why WASM (though they went with WASI) is a better choice; especially for libraries, since anyone can drop it into their environment without worrying about compatibility.
I think GP's point is that instead of having 3 target-specific rust-built binaries, they have 3 target-specific node binaries running rust-built wasm plus wrapper code.
I found that strange as well. My guess is that `npm` is just the package manager people are most likely to already have installed and doing it this way makes it easy. They might think asking people to install Cargo is too much effort. Wonder if the pattern of using npm to install non-node tools will keep gaining traction.
It's still weird. Why not just use an effing install.sh script like everybody else? And don't tell me "security". Because after installation you will be running an unknown binary anyway.
A lot of people who are not web devs use it, that's what I see. I even saw some mainframe developers use npx to call some tool on some data dump.
Also, this is a web project anyway. Google Workspace is web based, so while there is a good chance that the users aren't web developers, it's a better chance that they have npm than anything else.
If you had to pick one package manager that was most likely installed across all the different user machines in the world, I'd say npm is a pretty good bet.
For many, installing something with npm is still easier. It chooses the right binary for your OS/architecture, puts it on your PATH, and streamlines upgrades.
Their Github releases provides the binaries, as well as a `curl ... | sh` install method and a guide to use github releases attestation which I liked.
Agreed! The `curl ... | sh` is sketchy, but it's more obviously a security risk and easier to inspect. With install hooks, `npm install ...` also allows arbitrary code execution when you run it, but this is less obvious.
To my knowledge NPM isn't shipped in _any_ major OSes. It's available to install on all, just like most package managers, but I'm not sure it's in the default distributions of macOS, Windows, or the major Linux distros?
pip might be but it was historically super inconsistent (at least in my experience). Is it `pip install`? `python3 -m pip install`? maybe `pip3 install`? Yeah ubuntu did a lot of damage to pip here. npm always worked because you had to install it and it didnt have a transition phase from python2 being in the OS by default.
system pip w/ sudo usually unleashes Zalgo, i’d rather curl | bash but npm is fine too. it’s just about meeting people where they’re at, and in the ai age many devs have npm
if you build for the web, no matter what your backend is (python, go, rust, java, c#), your frontend will almost certainly have some js, so likely you need npm.
python packaging / envs is solved now by uv. its not promising or used by people in the know like the last 2 trendy python package managers. i was a big time python hater since it was a pita to support as a devtools guy but now its trivial. uv just works, it won.
I'm not a python dev, but I see a bit of its ecosystem. How does uv compare with conda or venv? I thought JS had the monopoly on competing package managers.
> The install script checks the OS and Arch, and pulls the right Rust binary.
That's the arbitrary code execution at install time aspect of npm that developers should be extra wary of in this day and age. Saner node package managers like pnpm ignore the build script and you have to explicitly approve it on a case-by-case basis.
That said, you can execute code with build.rs with cargo too. Cargo is just not a build artifact distribution mechanism.
> NPM has become the de facto standard for installing any software these days, because it is present on every OS.
That's not remotely true. If there is a standard (which I wouldn't say there is), it's either docker or curl|bash. Nobody is out there using npm to install packages except web devs, this is absolutely ridiculous on Google's part.
I learned TS after a few years with JS. I thought having strict types was cool. Many of my colleagues with much more (JS) experience than me thought it was a hassle. Not sure if they meant the setup or TS or what but I always thought it was weird.
As someone who has actually studied art - right back at you.
All the most famous paintings are done like a hundred times - certain scenes were done by ALL Masters, as like a rite of passage or proof of arrival - pretty much the whole time between the OG Masters and modern art.
"Who is your favorite Sebastian?" Is a legit question, for example.
And? Have we all already lost any ability for actual consequential thinking?
Each one of those Sebastian is the living proof of a human experience, each with its subtleties, each unique. That is why you ask that question.
How on Earth can you compare that to a series of shitty pictures done in a few seconds by a stochastic machine?
Governments pick the size of their country's financial markets when they decide what parts of society get traded in those markets.
Pension and healthcare are the two most obvious pieces governments can decide to "make it themselves" or "let companies solve it", and the later option creates the pieces of paper that get traded in financial markets and "frees" money to buy those papers.
And the article ends with the obvious notice that "large markets" is not something good by itself.
He seems to be saying that Funded Pensions like 401k can lead to asset inflation such as high housing prices. While public pensions which are pay as you such as Social Security do not lead to financialization and asset bubbles.
It was a tough read. He should tighten his word choice.
This seems like an incomplete analysis since many countries with pay-as-you-go schemes borrow money to fund them sometimes, which contributes to general inflation.
When economists were worried about "savings gluts", to decrease savings demand they advocated for things like government funded pensions.
If you read some of the literature out on China and their anomalous savings rate (household consumption is only 40% of national income) studies show that the lack of a social safety net exacerbates the problem and savings rates decline once you have the safety net.
One difference they noticed was the dramatic decline in savings rates as you go from rural to urban areas. In urban areas you have a different social safety net -- a government pension, but in rural areas the pension is optional and savings rates are dramatically higher. Because much social spending in China is handled at the provincial or city level and there are differences, it is a natural laboratory for these types of studies. It's also why you need a citizenship document when trying to "emigrate" into a city or different province, and there are internal controls that limit what city you can be registered in, which also affects things like car registration, real estate purchases, and access to local education in the city for people that are considered "migrants" - e.g. they physically live in the city but do not have enough points to be registered there.
I feel this in my own life. From well before my working years I had a message ingrained into me: “Do not count on social security to be around when you retire.”
It’s probably not all so drastic as that, but for me (and many other American millennials) my financial ethos has been squarely centered on saving and making hay while the sun shines. Compound that over 300M people and multiple generations and you do get overly deep and inflated capital markets.
As genX this was my experience too. The numbers have been clear for decades, SS is unlikely to be a great option by the time anyone working today gets it. (including people who retire in a month). Generally I think there will be SS when I'm old - but it will barely be enough to live on. I'm trying to save money so I can not only eat but also do other things I enjoy [that cost money] when I retire.
It’s not just you, I also read it and had little idea what the central thesis was. I see there are a number of points made but the author could do better job bringing it all together.
>Public pensions and family benefits may seem old-fashioned compared with asset-based solutions. But they provide security without locking households into markets, without generating trillion-dollar investment pools, and without driving asset inflation that prices younger generations out of housing and wealth. Sometimes, the non-assetising path may simply be better.
It's an obvious propaganda post intended to demonize the financial markets, and promote unsustainable social security policies.
If the options are pensions or self investment, how is one sustainable and the other isn’t? The investment dollars in scope are similar, with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.
> with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.
Only if they are. Some pensions are well managed. Some are not. Some seem well managed for years, but in fact they are not. Some have been well managed for a long time, but someone incompetent gets in power. Can you tell the difference.
Oh, and if you can tell the difference, can you convince everyone else and thus get this fixed? Or will voters be happy with the mismanagement because it is returning great results now on low investment leaving more money to spend on other things now?
In the worst case no pension (either personal/private or public) is better than a pension. At least if you have no pension you got to use/spend your money today - it didn't go to whatever the corrupt pension manager did with your money.
Before pension reform in the US I had some distant relative who was laid off 3 months before his planed retirement when the company went bankrupt - it then came out the pension he was counting on was entirely invested in the now worthless company stock. This is the real risk you need to worry about if you have any form of pension.
In principle defined contribution plans should be a good way to split the difference, although I recognize that it's a lot harder politically to make them mandatory than it is for pension contributions.
The question is who is managing the pension. Defined contributions can be a really bad deal if you can't control who is managing the money.
The other major problem with contribution is you don't know when you will die. If I'm going to die at 65 like some relatives I should retire at 50, but if I'm to live to 97 in great health like others I should wait a few more years. (family history says my expected lifespan is about 80, but it follows a statistical curve ranging between 65 and 95 - just like nearly everyone else in a "first world" country). I want a system that acounts for how long I will live and my health and ensures I have plenty of money - group pensions should be really good at that.
Most pensions are Pay as You Go systems where no investment actually occurs (or if it does it is vestigial).
Effectively no different from a regular ponzi scheme being used to purchase votes.
Self-investment has the actual investment there.
If pensions were fully-funded you'd be right, but they aren't in almost every country. Unfunded pension liabilities are well over 300% of GDP in most european countries, but since they don't show up on debt to gdp metrics, people aren't aware of it.
>The investment dollars in scope are similar, with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.
Retirement is going to be effectively pay-as-you-go no matter what you do (at least until we invent much more sophisticated robots).
You can't stockpile nurses and save them up for when you retire.
If you save money or invest in financial instruments, you're still relying on labor from subsequent generations and if there aren't enough of them, higher labor costs will eat up everything you saved.
The only way to really save up for retirement on the society-wide scale is to spend money on things that increase the productive capacity of future generations.
> The only way to really save up for retirement on the society-wide scale is to spend money on things that increase the productive capacity of future generations.
Indeed, and we didn’t do that. We invested in issuing debt and other non production capacity efforts.
Well, the current situation is equally effectively unfunded because you’ve got gains in an investment account that will be competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population in concert with large amounts of voters who don’t have investments but have a vote to vote for someone who will increase taxes to increase benefits. Pick your illusion of generational contract and financialization performance art.
Pensions are no more a Ponzi scheme than a capital market predicated on growth that will not occur due to structural global demographic dynamics. People are too bought into an abstraction while the underlying crumbles, for obvious reasons.
>Well, the current situation is equally effectively unfunded because you’ve got gains in an investment account that will be competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population in concert with large amounts of voters who don’t have investments but have a vote to vote for someone who will increase taxes to increase benefits. Pick your illusion of generational contract and financialization performance art.
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what the current situation is.
There is no "gains in an investment account" because social security is unfunded, and has only vestigial investments (many of which are primarily fig leaf to finance the government at lower costs/lower returns).
There won't be any "gains in an investment account that will be competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population" because there fundamentally aren't any gains.
Now, assuming that your misconception was correct, and that there was a pot of unrealized gains to be consumed when you retire... That still wouldn't cause any "competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population" because the thing about having resources is that you can spend them to get more of the things you need. Sure a large influx of capital requiring some specific goods or services would increase the price of those things... which would in turn increase the incentive to provide more of those things.
Frankly that isn't an issue if it's fully funded.
> large amounts of voters who don’t have investments but have a vote to vote for someone who will increase taxes to increase benefits.
And this is the problem.
Theft and its normalization through political power is what causes the self-funded and fully funded model to fail, not anything inherent to it.
>Pensions are no more a Ponzi scheme than a capital market predicated on growth that will not occur due to structural global demographic dynamics.
There is nothing to capital markets that requires growth. Indeed historically it is the opposite, and investors tend to overpay for growth resulting in lower returns.
I was just looking into this today but it seems pricey. $29/user/month for basic features like codeowners and defining pr approval requirements. Going with Forgejo.
Wait, what? So you're on the hook for backups, upgrades, etc. and you have to pay them for the privilege? I thought GitLab was free as in speech and beer.
Can't you see that they are using immigration questions as an excuse to consolidate power that exceeds immigration enforcement by a large margin? The ability to detain lawful workers or pull people off the street without a warrant from a judge & hold them illegally for a significant duration can become political retaliation or terror tool and a racial profiling vehicle very quickly.
And more over, they basically have proved that the law has no sufficient ability to actually enforce court orders on the ground when the administrative branch is firmly on not obeying them. Even worse, the public opinion has been just mildly annoyed by this - by mildly I mean that only some people decided to bring themselves to the streets, separately and only on the weekends or a single day in most cases.
I think you missed my point. I do not deny the existence nor validity of the immigration questions, or whether certain implemented policy is questionable or not. What I tried to argue was that the Trump administration uses those issues, and people's discontent over them, to engineer a mass power consolidation that may do so much harm in the long run (or, probably, within merely a few years) that even if in the process it helps some Americans to gain jobs or whatever it still by no means worth the price yet to be paid.
Did border crossing drop? Yes. Is economy gotta improve? It is complicated like usual. Do these worth to give up a working democracy , i.e. the ability to replace a leader other than waiting for their natural death or committing a revolution? Absolutely not. Democracy's merit isn't that it's the most fair system to pick candidates, but the power to replace leadership without bloodshed and do so within people's lifetime.
What could be the better answer to immigration policy is out of the scope, therefore I would echo the other comment that says this is not about immigration. If this wasn't clear before, it should've been after the two Minneapolis murders and the arrest of Don Lemon, etc etc.
Normalizing paramilitary forces in US cities/areas, especially Democrat-leaning ones. See also early actions of deploying National Guard units (from Southern areas into Northern ones).
It is a salve for the status wound the dimished social and economic station poor white males found themselves in after the civil rights act and the deindustrialization.
It assumes that "I deserve the benefits I or my family once had because I see someone else that now has them."
It sees the social and economic territory as fundamental limited and wants to secure a living space within them.
And it does so by binding to the state and using the state to create that void so that they can regain what they feel was lost.
It must feel amazing, like psychic fentanyl to see what's going down.
These are already arbitrary detentions, well unlawful at least (they're purposeful, just not for legal purposes).
The tens of thousands of detainees aren't being put in hotels... they're going to concentration camps; either in USA where they're forced to work (slavery you might term it, as many (most?) have not broken the law, nor been detained legally); or abroad where the regime's intention appears to be that they die.
You know the revanchist militias who would openly hate everything about our country, while claiming to be "patriots" ? You know how they've been awfully quiet lately ? It's about putting them in charge, at least as far as the bottom-up.
The top-down is something like destroying the United States and subjugating what remains, with many foreign interests aligned here - Russia, China, Big Tech eager to create their surveillance society, religious fundamentalists who just want the world to burn so their ideologies might regain relevance, etc.
reply