There’s a lot of “And then for some reason we did this, and it was more complexity” in this paper. I think that’s missing the point of languages, as a conversion layer between machine code and weird, squishy human brains. We think better, hold abstractions in our minds better, when the language maps more closely with how we’re structuring the problem in our minds.

Not sure if you were even looking for paper reviews.

Buying the company usually means buying all of their user information as well. Other companies can change their policies too. I think you should judge them by their actions, and give them a chance to answer your questions before you condemn them.

(Did you try asking them about your concerns?)

I’m with you, stuck at a billion dollar software company with an AI fetish. It’s a great search tool, can write some decent unit tests. But God help you if you let it write production code, for any of the “you won’t find this on stackexchange” stuff we all work on.

Traffic shapers can prioritize connections or streams differently, even if they can’t see inside them. Higher priority for quick connections, like interactive web page views, diminished priority for “oops that’s actually a bulk download it seems”.

How much stock ownership remains with the nonprofit Raspberry Pi Foundation? And will that be enough to hold off shareholder complaints that they aren’t being evil enough?