Rust was beta for many years and started becoming mainstream only 2-5 years ago. Go was in production almost its entire existence, it's specifically a simplified language.
I don't understand... I work as a software contractor in EU. I don't see a single thing I'm missing by not being in a coop. 5% of my income is a lot of money. For that money I can buy all the accounting and tax advisory services I need with enough money left over to get a Wework All Access membership and even then I'd have a significant portion of the 5% left. Why does it make total sense that people are interested?
I would assume that the benefits are in having coworkers that fill in the gaps in your own business skills. For example: finding clients, invoicing, server maintenance, customer service, training, documentation, implementation consultants. There are a variety of job skills that one person will not have or want to contribute 100% of the time that are valuable jobs for junior or more senior coworkers.
If you are paying someone to do any of these jobs, you are doing it out of income that you've paid taxes on. If they are a part of your cooperative then it comes out of the businesses own funds pretax. There are also incentives to share in other resources, such as buildings, child care and other invisible labor that we normally place little value on.
Also, some cooperative companies will only outsource work to other cooperative groups.
Not to mention the camaraderie of working with people with similar goals in a noncompetitive environment where they value your success.
Clients find me, not the other way around. Documentation and implementation are my own lines of work.
I have an accountant, tax advisor and lawyer as subscriptions. I also have a coworking pass. These cost me about 1.5% of my annual income.
Trainings are given for free in coops? I can't imagine myself or my friends working for free, are you forced to work for free in a coop? As in, would I be forced to give trainings too? I value my time too much for this. Of course I do the occasional free tech talk for my friends/the public, but that's not in any way comparable to a "full" training.
> If you are paying someone to do any of these jobs, you are doing it out of income that you've paid taxes on.
No. As a contractor, all of the above are my business expenses (also including conference passes, trainings/certifications, driving to/from the client, all my hardware I use to work etc). Companies and contractors pay tax on profit, not turnover.
> Also, some cooperative companies will only outsource work to other cooperative groups.
Yeah indeed there's a coop like that where I live. They pay like half of what I make to their top guys (I myself am not a top guy; they offered me even less). Not encouraging.
> Not to mention the camaraderie of working with people with similar goals in a noncompetitive environment where they value your success.
I have this at the coworking space - and we don't share any money so there's no chance of any bad feelings whatsoever. I have very bad experience with that, it ends friendships.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I’m not familiar with the space but I wonder if it’s just a matter of elite-ness. Hypothesis: The top 1 or 10 percent of a field are better off in their own, whereas the rest benefit from collective benefits. Another example that comes to mind is Matt Yglesias leaving Vox. He was well paid at Vox but now on his own I’m sure he’s even higher paid and has more freedom etc. I donno just speculating.
>Trainings are given for free in coops? I can't imagine myself or my friends working for free, are you forced to work for free in a coop? As in, would I be forced to give trainings too? I value my time too much for this. Of course I do the occasional free tech talk for my friends/the public, but that's not in any way comparable to a "full" training.
No one said anything about training for free. This was an example of work that needs to be done for a client that you may not want to do yourself. A junior level member of your coop could travel to the client's site and train them on how to use your software, learn from the experience and make valuable ties, while you stay at home and work on more appropriate tasks.
Ah, okay, that makes more sense. Sorry I misunderstood. This is not really something applicable to my line of work (standard software development tasks on a larger project in an agile team managed by the client) but I can imagine some of my friends doing this.
If you're worried about rent seeking wait till you find out how a traditional business works. The owner of the company takes all the profit, and then pays out a small portion of that profit to the workers doing the work in form of wages.
On the other hand, in a coop the profit is shared fairly amongst the people actually doing the work. It's frankly incredibly that somebody thinks this is a worse model of compensation.
The labor theory of value has basically never been shown to work, while the subjective theory of value, however many its flaws, has been shown to work and bring us the world we see today.
It's never true. It's like a broken clock - it's right 2 times a day. When the conditions are exactly correct, it seems like the labor theory of value is true - but it's not. Consider a simple example - food production. Nothing changes about the labor necessary to produce it but that doesn't mean you won't have to sell your produce way under price (or let it rot) if you and other farmers make too much of it.
The question isn't about the amount of labour needed to produce food, it's regarding who collects the profit from the labour that is done. Not sure what point you were trying to make with food production there.
The labor theory of value has nothing to do with collecting profits and isn't concerned with who gets it. It argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value)
My point is that value is actually not determined by "socially necessary labor" but by supply and demand, even within a commune. The food you produce will rot if you and others produce too much of it = it has no value, and nobody collects profit (not even in the form of social capital) because everybody lost any possibility of selling for a good price by producing too much.
On the other hand during a shortage people will start valuing food much more than they previously did, gradually paying higher price as they have less of it - again totally disconnected from the "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
Most importantly - the value of most if not all things is subjective and different based on time, place, etc. Even within a commune - some people simply don't like peppers, so even though you put a lot of work into them they have no value to these people (which will quickly change once there's a food shortage).
Of course it has to do with profits and who gets it. That's the whole context for introducing the theory of value in Kapital, which one of us actually read while the other evidently skimmed a wikipedia page.
Labour theory of value is not in anyway at odds with the idea of supply and demand. In fact, the whole idea of value in Kapital is derived from supply and demand.
The labour theory of value states that the inherent value of a commodity is directly related to the combination of labour and cost of the machinery needed to produce the commodity. This is what acts as the foundation for the value that the market assigns to the commodities. The market value doesn't just appear out of thin air, it's rooted in material costs of production.
To put it bluntly, you have an infantile understanding of the subject you're attempting to debate here.
If you read the book then you'd understand what labour theory of value is. Your comments make it pretty clear that you don't. You literally don't understand how it relates to market. Kek as you say.
True, in a commune or something like that, it does work. I think though once we hit Dunbar's number, then it breaks down and we need a subjective value based market.
Yeah, subjective theory of value brought us the world where a handful of individuals have more wealth than over half the world population, while the rest live in shit.
Industrialization via the profit motive has been the single greatest lever of increasing humanity's quality of life.
The people who say that the rest live in shit in my experience have never been to a third world country and actually lived there. If they did, they'd realize just how shit the first world is.
As long as we have scarcity of goods that must be distributed somehow, communism only works in theory, not in practice.
Edit: Ah, I see, so you're a tankie who grew up in the USSR yet still supports them. Thanks, I have no need to speak to you further.
If they paid 5x the normal price of toilet paper and they were picking it up in the middle of a desert then yes I'd assume there's something shady going on.
> A real world example is esbuild, the author implemented it both Rust and Go initially. The Go version was faster and the code simpler. Which is why it's implemented in Go.
But why is swc faster than esbuild then? The code isn't even considerably more complex.
So you're saying they wrote exactly the same program in Go and Rust for the comparison, changing the syntax only? Well then it's no surprise the Go version was faster.
Don't write Rust as if it was Go. That doesn't say anything meaningful about either Go or Rust.
Actually he wrote the Rust version first, so you're wrong jumping to conclusions.
I'm not trying to say Go is faster than Rust, it's usually slower. But there are always exceptions to the rule. The Go code, on the other hand, is usually simpler and quicker to write. For that reason I'd prefer Go if the problem lends itself to a garbage collected language.
> Because different programs, implemented differently, run at different speeds...
We're talking about two programs with exactly the same purpose - ingest TypeScript and output JavaScript. It's a pretty clear-cut comparison, IMHO.
> The Go code, on the other hand, is usually simpler and quicker to write
I'm writing Go code at work, and Rust code mostly for fun (but used it at work too). I'd say this has changed significantly in the last 2 years. Now with rust-analyzer and much improved compiler output, writing Rust is very simple and quick too. I guess getting into Rust can be a little harder if you've only ever used GCed languages before, but it's not that hard to learn - and once you do it's super-effective. And the type inference of Rust is a huge reason why I'm using it - while Go has none.
Another thing to consider - usually the code in Go is much more about writing algorithms yourself instead of using library functionality (this is changing slowly thanks to the new support of generics but most code hasn't caught up yet and there aren't good libs using it so far). The resulting code in Go can be convoluted a lot and contain very hidden bugs. People also usually don't bother implementing a proper search/sorting algorithm for the sake of simplicity/speed of development - which you'd get automatically if you used a library function - so the code is less efficient. My Go code is usually 2-3x longer than the equivalent in TypeScript or Rust.
Go is great, I like it. Rust is great too. I recommend you to do what the esbuild author did - test it and choose for yourself, don't bother too much about others' opinion.
> We're talking about two programs with exactly the same purpose - ingest TypeScript and output JavaScript. It's a pretty clear-cut comparison, IMHO.
There are an infinite number of ways to design two programs for that task, with different trade-offs. You can't draw conclusions about which language is faster based on two different implementations by different people.
> Go is great, I like it. Rust is great too. I recommend you to do what the esbuild author did - test it and choose for yourself, don't bother too much about others' opinion.
I'm actually writing Rust code the last two years. It's been a while since I've used Go. But I'd rather use Go if the problem allows for a garbage collector. It's just simpler than managing it manually in Rust with the borrow checker and its rules. This is my opinion, nobody else's.
> They'll only let him come to the US if the U.S. guarantees he'll go back to the Bahamas for their charges.
The US has a law that says they will invade The Hague if the court there makes a decision they don't like. Are you sure there's such thing as "the US guarantees"?
The US has always abided by such agreements. The Hague requires the US to rescue soldiers held by an international body whose authority over US forces they publicly and perpetually deny the legitimacy of. It's not going back on your word when you keep reiterating you're not involved.
“However, this is an extreme interpretation of the act, and the act does not expressly authorize nor mention military action against the Netherlands (a close ally of the United States) or any ICC members, nor does it threaten an invasion of The Hague.”
> the law authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"
It might not be expressly stated, but it's pretty clear. Sure, it's a super-extreme case - but it's there, explicitly saying "by all means necessary ...".
Financial advisor without professional insurance? Why would anyone do that? Shouldn't they be the people who know how to use financial products and services to protect themselves?
If I was designing a security camera I'd have a way to connect two completely different networks to it so all my cameras don't go out in case one of the networks goes down. I do the same with my servers (+ a separate management network).
If that was the case, two different connection methods would make sense, not using Ethernet x2 which is what's happening here. Being able to daisy-chain cameras seems more likely.
Don't think so. Having two different networks in a building is pretty common, but I haven't seen any in-building net not using Ethernet in the past 20 years. Fiber is still being terminated and turned to Ethernet usually.
Not saying it wouldn't be better - but I don't think that's what people would usually do.
This is why the managers are on us with grooming and estimations and then are unhappy when every minute is not accounted for. Stop stealing, you're making the job much worse for the others - and that's what actually shortens our lives.
