This seems to be a persistent source of confusion. Escape analysis is just an optimization. You don't need to think about it to understand why your Go code behaves the way it does. Just imagine that everything is allocated on the heap and you won't have any surprises.
That seems unsurprising given that it’s the easiest way for most people to do it. Almost any kind of obstacle will filter out the bottom X% of low effort sludge.
This attitude sucks and is pretty close to just being flame bait. There are all kinds of developer who would have no reason to ever have come across it.
A competent developer should be aware of the tools of the trade.
I'm not saying a competent developer should be proficient in using gerrit, but they should know that it isn't an obscure tool - it's a google-sponsored project handling millions of lines of code internally in google and externally. It's like calling golang an obscure language when all you ever did is java or typescript.
It’s silly to assume that someone isn’t competent just because you know about a tool that they don’t know about. The inverse is almost certainly also true.
Is there some kind of Google-centrism at work here? Most devs don’t work at Google or contribute to Google projects, so there is no reason for them to know anything about Gerrit.
> Most devs don’t work at Google or contribute to Google projects, so there is no reason for them to know anything about Gerrit.
Most devs have never worked on Solaris, but if I ask you about solaris and you don't even know what it is, that's a bad sign for how competent a developer you are.
Most devs have never used prolog or haskell or smalltalk seriously, but if they don't know what they are, that means they don't have curiosity about programming language paradigms, and that's a bad sign.
Most competent professional developers do code review and will run into issues with their code review tooling, and so they'll have some curiosity and look into what's out there.
There's no reason for most developers to know random trivia outside of their area of expertise "what compression format does png use by default", but text editors and code review software are fundamental developer tools, so fundamental that every competent developer I know has enough curiosity to know what's out there. Same for programming languages, shells, and operating systems.
These are all ridiculous shibboleths. I know what Solaris is because I’m an old fart. I’ve never used it nor needed to know anything about it. I’d be just as (in)competent if I’d never heard of it.
I can’t find any mainstream news source corroborating the claim that the government has imminent plans to introduce new legislation on the basis of the review mentioned in the article. If you google “hall independent review state threats”, nothing much turns up.
HN is becoming so partisan, it's starting to get on my nerves. The bill text is here[1]. It's extremely benign and the article linked, in fact, argues against it's own straw-man, found in another cited article[2]:
> Yet, another way to view ‘cumulative’ or repeated protests is as sustained public action for justice, solidarity and freedom.
So yes, if you interpret some random bill amendment in whatever way favors your side, you can argue against or for anything (the logical principle of explosion[3]). The problem is that some protests were actually quite disruptive and some people think we should curb this. This isn't some insane authoritarian anti-free-speech power-grab that the original article hints at.
It's sad to see folks lacking any kind of media literacy or critical eye. Also, the source itself is biased (it's a left-wing think tank), but that's a whole 'nother thing.
> So yes, if you interpret some random bill amendment in whatever way favors your side,
That is how laws often get interpreted. It gives the decision to a police officer. Do you think the police officer will ever make a decision which does not favour their side?
Only if you really want to nitpick the phrasing. In practice there's for example "means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate" - the officer here has to interpret what is meant by this request and gets to choose.
Considering what is happening to the Palestine Action protestors right now in the UK, your waiving away of concerns is hard to read. Give an inch and they (current, or future governments) are given more scope to attempt to take a mile through interpretation or overreach.
- Broad discretionary powers
- Vague thresholds
- Pre-emptive justification
- Lack of neutral limits (time, geography, number of events)
- Expansion of police control over public assembly
Your post to waive away concerns as partisan or alarmist is either an intentionally bad act or, sorry, naive.
One of the problems with Palestine Action is the violent protests they have previously engaged in.
There is a trial in progress at the moment relating to an attack on Elbit Systems where one of the "protestors" seemed to attack a WPC with a sledgehammer. Apparently having caused serious harm to her spine.
So the folks holding signs expressing their support for the group once it has been proscribed (I believe under the TA 2000) are somewhat ill advised.
If they disagree with the proscription, what they should probably be doing it assisting in the Judicial Review of that proscription which is currently ongoing. Certainly they should be waiting until after the review before expressing any support.
As even if the proscription is overturned, those who expressed support for what is currently viewed as a terrorist org may not have the personal consequences of their support undone.
You're conflating the actions of an individual with the goals and aims of the PA organisation. I'm certain their intent is not to harm people. You've described one incident where an individual got carried away with serious consequences for the victim and, likely, the alleged perpetrator.
Also, your reasoning is a little backward about the Judicial Review. I am 100% certain than one of the reasons the Judicial Review was granted at all was due to the strong support and the arrests of thousands of PA supporters.
Lastly, those who stepped up to get arrested did so in the full knowledge of the personal consequences they may face. They used their apparent right to protest to make all of the above happen. If they'd listened to you, nothing would have happened.
That would be a good example of the chilling consequences of the Authoritarian creep we're talking about in this thread.
Well in america we had some "disruptive protests" (e.g. rodney king race riots) which were fundamental drivers of fixing systemic injustices in racial equality.
In fact, perhaps most progress toward justice required "disruption," and that's a bargain price to pay.
There are two of more things driving the cumulative protest legislation push. The test will come when the first use it, and we find out which they want to use it against.
1. We have had various highly disruptive repeated "climate" protests (Just
stop Oil, etc)
2. We have had over a year of "pro Palestinian" hate marches, more or less every weekend.
3. We have had repeated protests outside various hotels repurposed as hostels for housing illegal migrants.
Of these the latter is the most recent, least disruptive, but most embarrassing for the regime. The regime seems to be complicit with the second.
I suspect most folks expect this power to be used against '2', but I'd not be surprised if it was used against '3' instead.
Indeed. Really the last thing HN needs right now is another overheated, low information discussion about the UK. But for whatever reason UK-bashing seems to have caught the popular imagination in recent times. (There are plenty of negative things that can legitimately be said about the present state of the UK, to be clear, but this sort of low quality reporting shouldn’t be getting attention here.)
The argument - and wholly plausible prediction being made - is that these changes lay the groundwork for a legal definition of ‘subversion’ that could prioritise ideology over conduct, providing the state with a broader arsenal to classify any political dissent as a security risk.
This is ALREADY in play with the proscribing of Palestine Action, and subsequent arrest of protestors on Terrorism charges. They are absolutely spot-on in their conclusion that, "These developments reveal a state increasingly concerned with defending its own legitimacy that is weaponising security itself to shield power from accountability."
The potted history of Shabana Mahmood is a grotesquely cynical exemplar of this relatively new phenomenon.
In 2014, a backbench Labour MP named Shabana Mahmood lay on the floor of her local Sainsbury’s in protest against the sale of products made in illegal Israeli settlements. A week later, she spoke to crowds at a Free Palestine protest in Hyde Park, of the “compassion and humanity expressed for the people of Gaza … from every race and every religion.”
Mahmood is now the UK Home Secretary, and gets to decide if the more than 2,000 people arrested for alleged support of Palestine Action – mostly for holding placards stating: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action” – will face criminal trial.
But what changes specifically are we talking about? The amendment that dvt linked to doesn’t have to do with labeling dissenting movements as subversive. It’s still rather unclear to me which specific piece of pending legislation (if any!) the article is referring to.
It's on the back of Jonathan Hall KC and Government Announcements in the recent past following the Palestine Action proscription - e.g. the UK Government recently saying it would amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to further impose conditions on public protests and assemblies.
The changes to the law would allow police officers to consider the cumulative impact of protest when deciding whether or not they are lawful, meaning they could potentially re-route or totally shut down protest they believe could cause serious disruption to local communities.
The Netpol argument suggests that the upcoming annual review of national security legislation is likely to expand the protest-related clauses of the National Security Act in a similar fashion - providing the groundwork for a legal definition of ‘subversion’ that could prioritise ideology over conduct.
This seems to be mainly based on Hall’s ‘Independent Review of State Threats and Terrorism‘, published in May 2025, and his his recent review of the Sentencing Bill, published in late October 2025.
He has been sabre-rattling in the UK media since May in an effort to drum up support - whilst simutaneously playing up to the far-right agitators by supporting 'anti-woke' figureheads like Graham Linehan and his anti-trans agitation.
""I am thinking about the measures that may one day be needed to save democracy from itself. What do I mean? I am referring to counter-subversion"
This seems to confirm that the headline claim is based on little more than a hunch. At least, you haven’t pointed to any pending legislation or official government announcements relating to a new legal definition of ‘subversion’.
So HN is having an entire discussion on the basis of one journalist’s irresponsibly sloppy headline writing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You may think that the journalist’s hunch is justified in this case, but to report that the government is planning something, when that is merely a somewhat informed guess at what the government may eventually do, is just bad journalism.
Crashes caused by pilots failing to execute proper stall recovery procedures are surprisingly common, and similar accidents have happened before in aircraft with traditional control schemes, so I’m skeptical that there are any hardware changes that would have made much difference. The official report doesn’t identify the hardware or software as significant factors.
The moment to avoid the accident was probably the very first moment when Bonin entered a steep climb when the plane was already at 35,000 feet, only 2000 feet below the maximum altitude for its configuration. This was already a sufficiently insane thing to do that the other less senior pilot should have taken control, had CRM been functioning effectively. What actually happened is that both of the pilots in the cockpit at the start of the incident failed to identify that the plane was stalled despite the fact that (i) several stall warnings had sounded and (ii) the plane had climbed above its maximum altitude (where it would inevitably either stall or overspeed) and was now descending. It’s never very satisfying to blame pilots, but this was a monumental fuck up.
If the pilots genuinely disagree about control inputs there is not much that hardware or software can do to help. Even on aircraft with traditional mechanically linked control columns like the 737, the linkage will break if enough pressure is applied in opposite directions by each pilot (a protection against jamming).
True. I would say, however, that every "concept" of airliner flight deck has its own gimmicks that can kill. The Airbus "dual input" is such a gimmick. Even though there was, for example, an AF accident with a 777 where there was hardware linkage between yokes and the two pilots were fighting... each other. Physically.
The official report doesn't identify the lack of sidestick linkage as a factor in the accident. Neither of the two pilots who were at the controls had any idea what was happening. Both pulled back on their sticks repeatedly right up to the moment of impact. The captain, who eventually realized (too late) that the plane was stalled, was standing behind them, and so would not have benefited from linked sticks.
There was more than one case where pilots would accidentally fight and break the linkage, or one would overpower the other.
One glider instructor talked about taking a stick with him in case of panicking student, so they could hit them hard enough so they would stop holding the controls.
There are plenty of instances of Reform politicians saying things that are just outright racist (e.g. Sarah Pochin) and receiving no real reprimand from the party leadership. The only people not seeing the racism are the people who don’t want to.
MLK was, of course, famous for hurling vitriolic personal insults at people he disagreed with.
You should really take a step back and consider if MLK’s struggle for racial equality is an appropriate point of comparison for an open source project deciding to change to a different CI provider.
> You should really take a step back and consider if MLK’s struggle for racial equality is an appropriate point of comparison for an open source project deciding to change to a different CI provider.
To the type of nerds who crash out about a git hosting provider and publicly insult other developers, moving off GitHub might even be more meaningful than whatever MLK did.
Yeah the way this goes is before the monarch enters the city of London, the Lord Mayor of London presents them with a sword as an act of swearing fealty. This ritual has been turned by urban myth into the monarch having to ask permission to enter (which is not true- they don't have to ask permission and they don't ask permission). The crown also doesn't own most of the UK or even London. The monarch is the Duke of Lancaster[1] so if you die without a will in some areas of the North the crown can actually get all your stuff and they own a bunch of castles and estates etc. The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest people as he really does own most of the real estate in Mayfair and Westminster so everyone in a building owned by "Grosvenor Estates" is paying rent to that dude.[2]
What is true is if you go to London you can see the boundaries of the city of London which are a set of cast iron dragon markers you see around and about on all streets marking the ancient boundary between Westminster and London.[3]
[1] Weirdly this was true even when Queen Elizabeth was the monarch. She was the Duke of Lancaster, not the Duchess. Apparently a female spouse of a Duke is a Duchess but if it's you and you're female then you're the Duke. I don't make the rules. https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/
"So the reality: it’s a hyper-powerful, weirdly structured local authority with its own capital pile and special roles in policing and court infrastructure, but it does not legally own the country’s wealth or sit outside UK jurisdiction."
Almost none of that is true (except maybe the 'weirdly structured' part). Conspiracy theories about the City of London have a surprising penetration amongst people who wouldn't usually fall for that sort of thing.
It's true that the City of London Corporation is structured differently from other local authorities, for historical reasons.
> with its own capital pile
It's unclear what this means or why it's significant. The City of London Corporation certainly has money, but so what?
> special roles in policing
The City of London Police is a separate police force from the Metropolitan Police. Really this fact is no more remarkable than the fact that the Sussex Police is separate from the Greater Manchester Police. Different parts of the country are policed by different police forces. In any case, the UK doesn't have the same kind of localized police jurisdiction as the US. An officer of the City of London Police could arrest you outside the City of London, and an officer of the Metropolitan Police could arrest you inside the City of London. So there is no particular significance to the fact that the City of London Police exists as a separate entity. It enforces the same laws as any other police force and has the same powers.
> [special roles in] court infrastructure
I googled this, but all I could find was an article explaining that the City of London Corporation has funded some new court buildings and police headquarters. This does not seem unusual to me. Indeed, people might justly complain if the City of London Corporation didn't spend any of its substantial wealth on local infrastructure. What is the 'special role' that you are referring to here?
In short, your comment is just insinuation. The Corporation is 'weird' and has 'special roles', etc. etc., but you don't actually point to anything specific that's at all sinister.
reply