I think that’s a bit irrelevant. Finance has had a culture of paying a lot and paying based on performance for quite a long time. It is also mostly easy to measure performance of a trader’s accounts or of the firm as a whole. I think some just-so arguments for this structure are that the skills are transferable and the companies are all competing with one another, so someone can easily jump ship, and performance is easy to measure so people know what value they are creating.
Two downsides of this are that it can be unfair to people who just get unlucky (eg working on a less-profitable desk), and that it encourages taking large risks for higher returns, which is especially bad if they are taking on long-term positions. One way to try to address the latter is with a partnership structure where partners are incentivised to rein in big risks, but having joint and several liability is unusual and scary.
It’s annoying AF for me - I can 1Password into a site with incredibly secure password instantly - but with a magic link I have to find my email client, wait for the email, click it, etc. as a sign in backup it’s nice but as the Main signup it’s a pisser.
How did you come to that conclusion? The point made is that Java 8 incurs costs compared to newer versions, so you need to "budget" for it. If you can't afford to not run it, then Java 8 would be saving you money/time somehow.
Merely making assessments of an article after only reading a fraction of it (or the title!) is bad enough, but spreading those misunderstandings to other people is even worse - not only are you harming their understanding, but you're also misrepresenting the author's points.
In addition, nowhere near "half" of the article is praising Java 8 - the very first paragraph says "This is one of the reasons why Java 8, almost 7 years after its first release, is still widely used.", which is barely "praise", and then the rest (>80%) recommends that you not use it.
> the first half of the article was praising Java 8
It wasn't though... not sure why you got that impression? (I do think though that the text could use a few edits for easier reading - maybe it just isn't easy to understand when skimming)
I thought the same thing at first. But Apparently there are newer versions of java. For those who learn java in school and don't much touch it again, it can be quite confusing.
It seems java was relatively stable from 2006 to 2016, where there where three versions. But instead of slowing down, there have been 8 since then. They`re on v16 now?!
Don't worry, all that's not getting widely used anyway. Cool startups don't touch Java anyway, and places like banks are still firmly at Java 8. My current employer is somewhat progressive, whole system is just a couple of years old, design is very much modern, microservices, event sourcing, reactive, cool reactive frontend on websockets, etc etc.
Still Java 8 for the most part. Java 11 is actually allowed, but not many people care including me. Existing Scala code is getting thrown away and rewritten back into Java.
JDK is different story tho. I think devops are actively experimenting to put 11 into base image by default, but startup time different is funny argument. 1 second, really? By the time your usual spring boot service comes up and connects to all topics and caches and what not it's good part of a minute anyway.
Well, the fact that all of the sudden there are all these new versions is surprising. That makes the title of the article confusing, because one doesnt expect that v8 is considered super obsolete.
> To me, your comment sums up modern online discourse.
Misinformation is a problem in society today, and false headlines are a contributing factor. People, whether rightly or wrongly, incorporate false information from headlines into their model of the world, as surely not everyone is reading the entire article.
An honest writer can not compete with the clickbait headlines, so it tends to get worse and worse over time as they need to one up each other to invoke emotions to get the clicks.
I see nothing wrong with trying to fight back by pointing this out. I opt not to click on these types of links to avoid financially rewarding this type of behavior, however futile it may be. I also trust the source less since I’ve already been lied to in the first few words I read, so why should I bother continue reading?
However tiny the effect of this specific publication, it chips away at trust in society.
This is "correcting" in the sense that someone is pointing at something and you're "correcting" people to look at the finger instead of the something. Yes, you are technically correct, but you aren't making any friends.
They could try to bog down photopea in permanent lawsuits, but that would risk some EFF-style organization taking the other side, and now they're fighting an equal opponent, earning a lot of bad PR, and most importantly, they're providing a lot of cheap advertising for the competing product while also making themselves unpopular.
The interesting thing about the universe is that it appears, as far as can be measured, to be flat. This implies that it’s either infinite or so large that if it’s curved then we can’t detect the curve over 90 billion light years.
Either way, the universe is unbelievably, vastly bigger even than the observable 90 billion light years we live in.
What my mind fails to understand is, if the universe was infinite, how does that work with the "big bang" theory?
Apparently the universe originally (somehow) began as a point of infinite density and expanded outward from this point.
During this process, it would seem to need a defined size in order to be expanding at all. Even with the "blowing up a balloon" way of thinking of the universe, while the individual galaxies are growing further apart, the surface area is measurable (not infinite).
I am likely thinking of this incorrectly but I can't fit "infinite size" in with "expanding universe" in my head.
Unless these theories are incompatible, and to get infinite size you need the steady-state theory.
Technically I think yes, it may have a finite extent. If inflation theory is correct though, it will continue to inflate at extreme rates (if unevenly) for infinite time and so depending on how you think about infinity will have infinite extent in spacetime.
On the other hand if Roger Penrose is correct about Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, and cosmic inflation is false, then ultimately the universe will reach a state where scale ceases to matter and it will become mathematically indistinguishable from a hot dense big bang again.
