No it's not sad, the man was basically an unelected official, laid off thousands of government workers and the second order effects of that will affect millions. All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?
"No it's not sad, <I disagree with his politics>." really just proving GP's point imo. Imagine if you couldn't post a thread about Microsoft products on HN without republicans feeling the need to jump in to talk about how much they hate Bill Gates for his donations to Kamala Harris's campaign in 2024. It's really tiresome.
The problem here is that one side of the political debate now uses "hate" as a synonym for "political opinions I disagree with". The political rhetoric has gotten so out of control that it's making it difficult to have a civilized discussion about anything, even topics that aren't inherently political (like a freaking flying car that does 0-60 in 0.8s!).
Not really. It would be very simple for one of these parties to just not use symbols of old hate, or avoid spending hundreds of millions of dollars to remove crucial aid for millions of people. These are active choices. Glossing over these choices is not helpful to anyone.
It's not politics to dislike a guy who fired thousands of Americans from their jobs for fun, disproportionately veterans. Failed to even do the thing he set out to do which is save the country money, and then quit. That's just incompetence with material negative effect on people's lives
Its the character. Buying a global media platform to "promote free speech" and then shunt the entire thing and himself behind a particular political party. This guy uses his money and his twitter account to support neo-nazi hate groups in my country (Britain First, Patriotic Alternative, Hundred Handers, Tommy Tennames). He has no self-restraint. Its abhorrent. Its not "about politics" when the politics is about racial superiority and ethnic cleansing.
> Imagine if you couldn't post a thread about Microsoft products on HN without republicans feeling the need to jump in to talk about how much they hate Bill Gates for his donations to Kamala Harris's campaign in 2024. It's really tiresome.
and if Bill Gate was literally campaigning for the Dems, getting up on stage, handing voters cheques and THEN being employed by the government to run a department then you'd have a point.
He repeatedly crosses the line of what is appropriate. People with that level of wealth should stay the fuck away from politics and respect democracy instead of using their money and business to have excessive influence on democratic outcomes. Its unseemly and disrespects the idea of everyone getting the same amount of votes. I respect that donations have similarities but there's a difference between making a donation and being excessively public.
> People with that level of wealth should stay the fuck away from politics and respect democracy instead of using their money and business to have excessive influence on democratic outcomes.
People with that level of power — because it is power — will do what they will. “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”.
> Its unseemly and disrespects the idea of everyone getting the same amount of votes. I respect that donations have similarities but there's a difference between making a donation and being excessively public.
We have transitioned, it would seem, from the pretence of “goodness” to naked displays of power. Unseemly, definitely.
Justice. Righteousness. Old fashioned words and old fashioned ideas. Oh for a good and righteous king!
Well Mr. Gates didn't publicly gloat about the hundreds of millions of dollars he funneled into some political campaign or boast loudly about how inefficient the government is or get the green light to create an entire department that haphazardly altered core government functions or stir up controversy over a questionable hand salute, so, no, not tiresome for me. It felt like a bait and switch. If I knew that our car purchase was, in part, going towards sponsorsing DOGE, I can confidently tell you I would not have bought in.
This is legitimately the stupidest comment I've seen on HN all year. One of these people have devoted billions of dollars to eradicating disease, providing education, developing living conditions and essential infrastructure, and improving quality of life and life expectancy for the worlds poorest, globally, for decades. The other has cozied up to corrupt kleptocrats and every other manner of scum to benefit himself while enriching himself at the expense of everyone else, particularly in his recent quest to become the worlds first trillionaire.
The temptation to succumb to Godwin's Law is so, so, so strong. How shitty and horrible of a person does one have to be for someone on HN to admit that they are a shitty and bad person? At some point the Big Bang sterotype of "nerd" who jerks off to the idea of a rich guy who "computers" and "businesses" and "engineers" outgrows tiresome and becomes despicable once said rich guy facilitates/encourages/actualizes concentration camps. Grow up.
We also weren't discussing GoDaddy as a registrar without mentioning it's CEO killing elephants and being an all around douchebag. Or Oracle without the lawnmower.
It's tough to ask people to dissociate the CEO from the company, especially when he's doing all the PR by himself.
His lies are what made him rich. He hasn't delivered even close to a majority of what he promised. We are literally supposed to be on mars 5 years ago according to him.
Parting fools from their money is not respectable work in my view.
If they fired 90% of the government employees, nobody would feel the difference. Most people are just paper pushers and part of the nonsense system. He wanted to manage it like a company, and what any CEO would do when they just start working: trim the fat.
They might choose to do that after gaining a cursory understanding of the actual inner workings of the organisation. Especially if that organisation functions differently than corporations.
"If you want a reduction in seat warmers in government you deserve to lose your job where you're actually being a productive member of society"
Guess he hit a nerve, eh? My condolences you got hit by the layoffs, try to not browse Reddit and Facebook all day at your next government job. Or do, but ONLY if you work for the IRS or ATF, they deserve nothing less.
I have seen my share of useless employees in private companies, though. You don't have to work for the government for that. But if it makes you feel better to think that you are useful because you are in the private sector...
I have seen my share of government funding going to private companies that completely wasted that money (or worse, used it to fuel their stupid ideas). The only thing they did well was convincing the government that they would do something useful - of course they did not. I'm sure you would take that as a reason to criticise the government, "not able to spend the money properly", but before you do: more often than not, it's VCs who invest in ridiculous projects. You want to stop wasting tax money? Stop investing in bullshit tech startups, too!
VCs are interesting: they are people put in a position where they are incompetent and dominant at the same time (i.e. they invest in technologies they don't understand, but they have the power of life or death over startups). That's a perfect recipe to create overconfident assholes (similar to getting rich, actually)!
At the very least, government employees contribute to a system that does stuff for the people. Like roads and schools. Not goddamn flying cars.
You want to be actually critical? Most white collars are doing bullshit. At least those who don't work in technology may contribute less to destroying the planet. But they don't get to be condescending assholes for that.
> they deserve nothing less.
I would be curious to learn about what useless job you do for a living.
I normally don't like talking politics on HN, but as someone who actually worked alongside talented and diligent federal employees I really can't abide this slander. Most of the people I worked with were brilliant and technical people. You think we didn't know we could pull down 2-5× the salary in the private sector? We stayed in the civil service because we were mission-driven and we cared about impacts beyond a quarterly profit motive, even though it paid like shit.
We are talking about people with STEM doctorates and 30 years of experience working 60-80 hour weeks for a 120k salary, because that's about where the GS scale caps. People are on the road for weeks, flying economy class and sleeping in roadside motels with a $50 per diem and when they visit a vendor or a lab or a client they cannot accept a meal or a beer or anything beyond a cup of coffee because of government ethics rules. I worked in an office in Washington, DC where all the staff pooled their money to buy a water cooler, and people gave voluntary donations of $2/month to join the "water cooler club" to defray the cost of maintaining an office water cooler because OPM considered that an unnecessary expense.
The first thing DOGE did, literally in the first week, they implemented a "deferred resignation plan" — they paid people 8 months of salary to not work. The smartest and most talented people saw the writing on the wall at that point — folks with PhDs from MIT or Stanford; self-made founders; crusty veteran engineers who preferred work to retirement. They took the money and they had no problem finding alternative employment, or they took it as a sign to hang up their spurs for good. Many of them were subsequently rehired by their agencies as contractors at 2-3× their previous salary when it became evident they were irreplaceable.
(I had friends in the NNSA, the branch of the US Department of Energy that manages the nuclear arsenal. DOGE fired hundreds of employees without realizing what they did, then attempted to rescind 90% of the firings months later. Plenty of the fired employees had already found new employment. Others simply did not want to return to a job with such contingent status where they would be treated disrespectfully. Several fired employees could not be rehired because they were fired so abruptly there was no way to contact them and offer reinstatement.)
You know who didn't take up the deferred resignation offer? The unproductive layabouts you claim to despise. The ones that knew they couldn't get a better job elsewhere. Yeah, there are bad employees in the federal government, same as anywhere else. DOGE bullied out all our best talent and now we're stuck with the dregs. They paid billions of dollars for people to not work for the privilege of doing so. "Department of Government Efficiency".
If you are interested in learning more about excellent and unglamorous work done by underappreciated American civil servants, I highly recommend the book The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis.
Did you not hear the claim that was widely quoted in the media that USAID had saved more than 91 million lives over 20 years? Anyone who believes that hasn’t done any math on it, or even thought about that number at all. I’m too hungry to be eloquent about it, so here’s someone else who is: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4eQZdxlPCU>.
You'll have to disagree with a lot of scholars, in addition to this HN comment, to make your point. This is the '90 million' study:
> This finding indicates that 91 839 663 (95% CI 85 690 135–98 291 626) all-age deaths, including 30 391 980 (26 023 132–35 482 636) in children younger than 5 years, were prevented by USAID funding over the 21-year study period. USAID funding was associated with a 65% reduction (RR 0·35, 0·29-0·42) in mortality from HIV/AIDS (representing 25·5 million deaths), 51% (RR 0·49, 0·39–0·61) from malaria (8·0 million deaths), and 50% (RR 0·50, 0·40–0·62) from neglected tropical diseases (8·9 million deaths) [1]
30B+ is pocket change for the US, but makes a massive impact in poorer countries.
It also had a soft power effect that the current US government seems completely oblivious to [2].
I'll watch the video in full when you read the paper. It starts with obviously flawed math: mortality rate decreases + 'lives saved' doesn't have to add up, and a flat death rate does not equal "no change" because of aging and other factors. It then jumps into mischaracterizations of the study, completely ignoring the data, "it's just a lot of numbers to make it look sophisticated" and false allegations like that excluding high income countries (which do not receive USAID) is manipulating the results. The author clearly has no idea what the scientific method is just randomly finding "holes" in the paper.
The 90M figure is probably exaggerated, but this video is completely nuts. This is exactly why the internet has failed us.
Only the President and Congress were elected. The rest are all appointed.
> laid off thousands of government workers
He did at the direction of the President, who was elected. Government service is not a jobs program.
> the second order effects of that will affect millions
speculation
> All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?
Decisions about Ukraine go through Trump. Musk is in a delicate position - it is illegal for him, as a private businessman, to be a combatant, but he seems thrust into that position.
I've worked with engineers "on the spectrum" my entire career. They can be difficult to get along with. None of them were evil, none intended to offend or hurt others. It would just come out wrong.
Once I understood, it wasn't an issue for me any more.
Reporting literally just came out that throttling starlink for ukraine was his idea…but sure he is just a helpless innocent billionaire with no control whatsoever
Musk replied to that post, defending his company's involvement.
"Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS," he wrote.
Musk added that Starlink is for "civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company".
So you don’t dispute this reporting, don’t dispute that this was Musk’s idea, which implies he lied about it immediately afterwards.
And just so i am clear on your philosophy there is no guilt that rides whatsoever with presenting this capability to the leader of the free world who then goes and does exactly what you suggested resulting in many people dying while a nation fights for its life.
How the chain of command works is the person making the decision takes full responsibility. In this case, it's the President. The function of his advisors is to give him options (i.e. ideas) and present the pros and cons.
There's a lot of conjecture and motivated reasoning from all sides, enough that I'm doubtful that we can know what really happened. So park the actual facts for a moment. Let's just consider the situation in the abstract.
Musk is many things, but I've never heard anyone seriously claim him to have any particular aptitude or expertise around military strategy or conflict resolution. So if Trump is unilaterally executing on Musk's musings, we can derive two definite (and highly conservative) observations:
Both him and Trump hate Zelenskyy and want him gone. The receipts are there.
Him possibly suggesting that Trump pressure Zelenskyy to comply with his demands by temporarily crippling Starshield’s performance in an active war zone, which means making it harder for Ukraine to defend itself against Putin’s jet-powered Shahed drones, is not merely an opinion. It’s an attempt to influence policy by proposing a way to harm Ukraine, without regard for the lives at stake.
We’ve seen this behaviour from him before. He doesn’t care whether any of his actions or ‘advice’ will harm others.
Everything you said is highly plausible and potentially correct, but I think my previous post still applies. There's a lot of conjecture and motivated reasoning from all sides, enough that I'm doubtful that we can know what really happened.
Of course you're correct that Trump and Musk both hate Zelenskyy, and this established fact and not conjecture. Nonetheless it all still boils down to:
My comment was more in regards to saying 'Musk has opinions' (who doesn't) is downplaying his involvement.
I'm basing this on what the 4 sources have stated mentioned in Telegraph article and also based on his previous behavior and comments about Zelenskyy / Ukraine and overall affinity and support for authoritarian political leaders.
As far as Musk's opinions are concerned, I'm a fan of YouTube analyst William Spaniel's oft-repeated adage: "Don't listen to what leaders say, watch what they do."
Whatever it is Musk actually said to Trump (reporting of which we should take with a heaping grain of salt, since there are plenty of people with obvious motivations to lie and fabricate) we can see that the service SpaceX controls (Starlink) has remained unaffected, while the service the US military controls (Starshield) is what's in dispute.
Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
To this day full speed hasn't been restored, continuing to endanger lives.
'Zelensky stated that Ukrainian military commanders, the Ministry of Defense, and foreign diplomats are conducting active negotiations to resolve the constraints. However, he noted that management at SpaceX has declined direct dialogue with Ukrainian military representatives.'
Even in a degraded state, Starlink and Starshield remains a critical strategic advantage for Ukraine, even if it's less so now than before. Being less helpful to Ukraine isn't good, but it's still actively helping Ukraine, and that is worlds apart from actively helping Russia.
If you can't shoot down jet powered Shahed drones to protect your citizens and vital infrastructure, because a key component has been crippled by your supposedly ally and partner, then it equates to sabotage.
Musk, Trump and co know that they can't openly turn things off as it would be a PR nightmare, so the next best thing is to cripple it and deny deny deny that you've done it.
I think it's pretty clear by now that those statements are not speculations anymore and Musk / Trump with their pettiness continue to endanger Ukrainian lives and instead help Putin.
Trump is an idiot and does what the last person told him. When you interact with such a person, you can't wash your hands and say "I just advised, I have no blame".
Not really. Multiple independent sources and reports have confirmed the damage done by Musk during his time at DOGE.
> Decisions about Ukraine go through Trump. Musk is in a delicate position - it is illegal for him, as a private businessman, to be a combatant, but he seems thrust into that position.
He is as "thrust" into that position as he was "thrust" into the DOGE role.
What are your thoughts on his illegal state-sanctioned intimidation of ex-FEMA CFO?
You're wasting your keystrokes; it's WalterBright, whose personal mission is to defend the idea that money is virtue, that those with money should be worshipped, and that anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is demonic.
Free markets drive prosperity, socialism does the opposite.
What are the most expensive things in the US? Healthcare, housing, and education. Those are the most heavily regulated and subsidized by the government.
What are the cheapest things in the US? Software (free), TVs, computers, consumer goods. The least regulated and subsidized.
thanks for demonstrating why arguing with you is a total waste of time; you have a very simple set of principles and apply them bluntly and draw the conclusions you want from them. it's childish.
lets not forget that this isn't a thread to argue about economics (which is quite a dull thing to be so enthusiastic about), so I'm not really required to have an argument. It's about how pathetic it is to lick Elon Musk's boots.
It is. That is the whole thing where American setup is supposed to be better then European - you can fail, fail again and then again with little punishnent or consequence. And it is not like European consequences were grave, you are just less likely yo get another investment once you failed.
Frankly, too many people like to talk about risk taking in fairly low risk situations.
When you look at capital and risk, the risk are not that large. And economic policy favorwed capital over labor literally for decades on top of it.
The normal non-tech-savvy person already does this. They simply don't know that their ram is upgradeable or something else breaks first, before having to touch ram.
what is this too much RAM thing you mention? I thought the only valid RAM situation you could find yourself is not enough RAM. Too much? That's just fantasy
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
This was very interesting, but the ending was a bit abrupt. I was under the impression that there was something more that I was missing under the subscribe banner.
But to the point of the article - are there cases in which manually moving objects around to compact them in a specific area is done with golang? I don't use golang that much, and I'm sure that there are very strong arguments for not compacting the heap post-GC, but I've always wondered how it avoids crashing in the 0.0001% of cases in which heap is defragmented in such a way that there's no way to allocate a new large object
It's because of what's in the second paragraph, which I will paste here for convenience:
"Taking a step back, Go manages memory by allocating objects of the same size class (an object’s size is rounded up to the nearest size class) within a contiguous chunk (or span in Go terminology) of one or more 8KiB pages. Size-segregated allocation is common in some malloc implementations (like tcmalloc, which Go’s allocator descends from)."
(No passive-aggressive snark about reading the article intended; it's a good question and I really am just pasting it for our convenience.)
You can't get the inability to allocate some large object because there's a spray of small objects in its way, because the small objects don't share space with the large object. The large objects live in their own space, and the fragmented small objects can be efficiently utilized later by putting other small things in the empty space later.
In the 64-bit world, you also don't have to worry about how you arrange things in physical RAM so one size doesn't end up impacting another. You can always allocate some suitably-sized new chunk of ram that's incredibly distant in the virtual address space and let the OS map that back to the real RAM. It may do something more clever than that because there is still 32-bit Go and that trick is less freeing in that scenario, but the principle would still hold. You don't get the inability to allocate a large object by small objects because they don't live in the same place. You might still "run out of RAM" before you've quite literally run out of RAM, but you'll get closer.
And ultimately that's a problem shared by a lot of memory allocation schemes, not particular to GC or Go. For a lot of reasons, it's a good idea not to run resource usages right up to 100% if you can avoid it and you can expect across a wide range of resources types to encounter problems and expect to do a lot of careful work to make it possible to hit truly full utilization if you need it for some reason. Beyond computers, even... it's rarely a good idea to plan on 100% utilization of anything be it physical or electronic.
One of the drawbacks of relying on the virtual memory subsystem is large page tables, that the machine has to manage on your behalf, and that pollute (or at least occupy) caches. That is another reason why Go, like all other software, benefits significantly if you adjust your Linux boxes to use huge pages, or larger-than-default pages, or ARM contiguous page bits, or whatever other features your platform offers to make virtual address translation more efficient. It is unfortunate that Linux usually comes out of the box with all of these post-286 features disabled.
AFAIK, FreeBSD has been doing transparent superpages for decades (I think it was implemented in 2002 for x86 [1], and 2014 for arm [2]) and I don't know of any real issues with it? (I'm sure you could build a test case where it thrashes and causes trouble) Not sure why Linux wouldn't do the same??
Linux also has support for it but it is up to the distribution, or the user, to enable or disable it. The whole discourse was poisoned years ago when the author of Redis told everyone to disable THP on Linux, but this was caused by Redis being a poor program, not by THP being a poor feature. Unfortunately, even though the Redis project finally removed their document about this, many people still carry this bias.
> The whole discourse was poisoned years ago when the author of Redis told everyone to disable THP on Linux
What's the story behind that? Do normal programs really get affected by this?
Normal programs are most likely using glibc's memory allocator, and I'd be surprised if it was incapable of handling arbitrary page sizes. Only reason why I have to care is I implemented my own memory allocator.
Redis uses jemalloc by default, if I recall correctly, but its hostility to the way systems actually work arises from the way that it forks, then changes one bit on every page in the entire virtual space, which causes a lot of kernel work to support copy-on-write by blowing up huge pages into smaller pages. That's what happens when your program is antagonistic to the way the machine actually works.
> then changes one bit on every page in the entire virtual space
Yeah that sucks. Naively implemented garbage collectors have the same problem: they put the live and mark bits in the object itself which spreads those bits all over the address space. This leads to the garbage collector touching every single page when it scans and writes all of those bits.
The proper solution is to allocate separate bitmap pages. This dramatically improves cache efficiency. Machines always want a structure of arrays.
I've always struggled a bit with the fact that "machines want SoA but readability/clarity/etc is easier with AoS". And wonder if it would be possible for a language to have the code representation be AoS but the implementation transparently be SoA.
There was also an issue with Linux about 8 years ago where the THP daemon would start busy-looping searching for pages to amalgamate, wasting loads of CPU time (and I believe freezing the processes it was inspecting), and so people were advising switching off THP for that reason until it was fixed. It hit our large Java processes quite badly.
> You can't get the inability to allocate some large object because there's a spray of small objects in its way ... The large objects live in their own space
Assume for the sake of argument that the large object space is for objects >=1MB.
Allocate lots of 1MB objects then free every other one (by address).
Unless you're willing to let the large object space grow without bounds....
There is a theorem that is often stated in operating system courses as "For any possible allocation algorithm, there exist streams of allocation and deallocation requests that defeat the allocator and force it into severe fragmentation.". You can ask your friendly local AI about "Bounds for Some Functions Concerning Dynamic Storage Allocation" by J. M. Robson in the July 1974 Journal of the ACM and some various follow-up papers. For any non-compacting memory management algorithm, including traditional malloc/free, there will always be a way of defeating it and forcing it to fragment.
However, consider that Go has been in production for 14 years now, and one of its bread-and-butter applications is network servers, which will collectively exercise quite a bit of the memory allocation pattern space, including some pathological aspects of it. You should expect to need to do better than that to really throw it for a loop.
While the theorem proves some such sequence exists, there's no guarantee that the sequences will be easy to describe in some sort of English sentence.
I haven’t read the article, but for allocations that large, chances are they get allocated as entire memory pages and the garbage collector returns that memory to the OS.
Also, even if it doesn’t, in a 64-bit address space it takes lots of 1MB objects to make that cause problems (there’s room for over 10¹⁶ of such objects)
