> HN readers are going through 5 stages of grief

So we are just irrational and sour?

> People are willing to pay $200 per month

Some people are of course, but how many?

> ... People are willing to pay $200 per month

This is just low-key hype. Careful with your portfolio...

Sad that they acquired Finn.

Point is it is misleading, and part of the hype cycle.

Also interested, since that is my same impression.

Serious question, Do we need another type checker in Python?

I've never really felt the existing options were lacking for our use case. Completely fair game if this was just a passion project, but at this point at best this feels like noise, at worst some overzealous developer is going to implement this in my teams pipeline and waste time. Waste his time because the existing type checker did the job and there was not reason to change it, and waste our time because they will likely change (probably tighten) the existing behavior and waste our time while we adapt our habits to it.

The existing type checkers are slow. That's their reasoning for creating it. The type checking world in python is now reasonably well specified (and the type checkers are beginning to work more similarly), so I would expect (once ty is out of beta) you could replace your type checker with ty and just see a 20x speedup in CI and much much faster IDE diagnostics.

If it was going from 3s -> 1s then you'd probably be right, but on my work codebase pyright (which is the faster one!) takes 15 seconds (ty takes 0.8s) and takes a bit for errors to appear in the IDE. This is now fast enough for us (mypy was taking >30s, which was not fast enough), but if the project grew another order of magnitude (which it might) then it would probably be too slow.

It's the same reason ruff is great, linting the codebase is so so fast.

laws of physics still apply. Car still takes time to slow down, even with perfect reaction times. Well, maybe you could get it to stop in time, but it might break the necks of everyone in the car.

At 30 miles per hour, the majority of the stopping distance is reaction time from a human. Self-driving cars have maybe 10/20 of that reaction time in the case of immanent collision. I also don't know about you, but my car can stop in significantly less than pretty much all of the stated distances by a fraction.

at 30mph breaking is about 50/50 perception time and breaking time for a total of 3-4s. Self-driving cars would an improvement for sure, they would have a max 2 second emergency break, but not quick enough as far as I understand. Even if that were enough, I would not appreciate my cab emergency breaking randomly because a kid steps out in front of a bus. Its best to slowly stop, then slowly accelerate. Maybe the optimal solution is to creep past the buss?

Given how hidden children are walking in front of the bus, if the AI instantly applied breaks upon seeing the child, would the car slowdown in time? probably not. Better yes, good enough? no.

So Waymo should go relatively unpunished? Sure the laws might be draconian, but at least apply them evenly, or change them for everyone.

I don't think punishments should be decided relative to social media anecdotes. If there's some area of the country where local police routinely show up in assemblies or other gatherings and arrest people for driving past school busses, I support reforming their laws; in my local jurisdiction it's a traffic violation and police don't do that.

Edge case that Waymo missed. They'll fix it. Their track record is good enough I have no problem with not punishing them.

> What social contract? Companies have always been for shareholders.

You are not wrong, but the contract is/was metaphorical. For a long time people were able to make a living for themselves by studying hard (usually STEM) and end up with a career which payed off. That was the invisible "contract". Hell I went to university for things which seem like academic navel gazing, but I still got a good tech job on the other side. That's not the reality for a lot of graduates nowdays who take more practical degrees at masters and phd levels.

Again even if the literal statement is clearly false, it is the sentiment which matters, and this sentiment does not just apply to graduates. I think many just feel like working hard does not work anymore, especially in the face of housing, cost of living, job competition and social media flaunting the wealth of others.

I get the idea from my younger siblings, "Why try if you are already a looser."

> For a long time people were able to make a living for themselves by studying hard (usually STEM) and end up with a career which payed off

Recessions like the GFC, the Dot Bomb, the early 90s, the Asian Financial Crisis, the early 80s, Stagflation, and others show otherwise.

The extended bull run that SWEs had from the early 2010s to 2022 was an outlier, and the whiplash being felt today is comparable to what law and finance grads faced in the 2010s, accounting majors in the 2000s, and Aerospace/MechE majors in the 1990s.