When did HN become so... radicalized? There's nothing inherently wrong with these companies being big. The problems are with them being too board. Should Google own the creation of content (Blogger, Youtube), finding content (search) and transmitting content (fiber)? Should Comcast transmit content (TV, Xfinity) and create content (NBC, Hulu)? This is where the problems arise like conflicts of interest, diminished competition, etc. We saw this clearly in Argentina, when as soon as the government started working on legislation to prevent the telecoms from becoming monopolies, since they own newspapers and TV news, they started bombarding the public with negative press.
It shouldn't be hard to regulate this. Just split them up.
More and more hackers and programmers from outside SV/startup culture started showing up. Outside of that bubble, hacker culture leans far more anarchist, and fundamentally mistrusts large scale power structures and centralized authority. And then Snowden and Aaron Swartz happened.
So in a way, HN isn't becoming radicalized, it's becoming normalized.
HN used to lean very libertarian. I might need to say "right-libertarian" to be specific enough. That philosophy tends to tolerate large-scale power structures as long as they're not violating the rights of others and remain subject to competition.
I've noticed a shift away from that in the past couple years. The grandparent post doesn't seem to be left-anarchist though; more like state-socialist. It proposes that some central authority, presumably the US government dissolve or split up large tech companies. The problem I have with that is I fundamentally mistrust large scale power structures and centralized authority. The US government is one of the most extreme manifestations of those things.
> It shouldn't be hard to regulate this. Just split them up.
Actually this is exactly what I suggested. The bigger question is 'how' to split them up - and to be able to do it consistently across ever shifting market dynamics.
The telecom case is easy to define and split cleanly. The ads/search/browser and the like marketplaces will take the entire US government to make sense of.
By invoking China you're implying that blocking US monopolies would be bad because everything China does is bad. Doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me.
Maybe not, but it becomes compelling when you consider what it means for a state to go as far as to block web sites in such a manner. It isn't merely a simple act of blocking. It brings with it an entire mindset as to how the state should behave, and how much freedom it allows for its population.
The runtime performance lost using ES6 features is minuscule compared to the runtime performance lost by using Node.js in the first place. If the difference in performance for the ES6 features actually matters then you have made a grave mistake using Node in the first place.
Are you comparing node to C or Go or something else?
It's funny, my big a-ha moment on performance happened when I was working at a bank and could only code in vba (i.e. excel). All of a sudden -- even on small data sets -- O(n^2) was unacceptable and I needed to think about algorithms to get to O(nlgn).
The book The Martian, big-budget movie coming soon, has some pretty awesome fictional-yet-very-well-informed situations of things that were so unimaginable to have an impact on anything and still caused things to go terribly wrong. Highly recommended.
In my country the potential employee would have to be registered as an independent contractor before being able to charge for the provided service. And then if he wanted to become a full time employee he'd have to unregister as a contractor.
This is an area where the new syntax for modules in EcmaScript 6 does really well. Since exports are static, a dead code elimination tool can figure out which exports from a module are being used and remove the ones that are not being used. As mentioned in comments about how the Closure Compiler works, you can't really do this with purely dynamic code, but you can do it with static imports/exports.
You can do this in the current dev tools by setting a conditional breakpoint. Conditional breakpoints allow you to write an expression which you can force to always be falsy. For example, "console.log()" returns undefined so it's falsy and it won't actually break.
> You can do this in the current dev tools by setting a conditional breakpoint.
It only performs one of the possible actions, is not extensible and the UI is terrible. So no, you can not "do this", you can do about 20% of it (possibly less so in the future) and stab your eyes out while doing it.
I know about that option, and I'd very much like to stop having to use it thanksbutnothanks.
It shouldn't be hard to regulate this. Just split them up.