@dang title has been changed to "The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment", since there were complaints in the articles comments from the committee members that that was a sensationalization of what actually happened.
Unsuccessful experiments have no end unless motivation to keep trying runs out — but Rust seems to have no end to motivation behind it. Besides, if it were to ever reach the point of there being no remaining motivation, there would be no remaining motivation for those who have given up to announce that they have given up, so we'd never see the headline to begin with.
We've done unsuccessful experiments on HN over the years, in the sense that they failed to achieve anything we'd hoped for and caused enough damage that we had to call them off.
Isn't that ultimately a loss of motivation? With enough buy in there would be a lot of reason to keep iterating towards the desired outcome despite any setbacks. That is the nature of experiments, after all. Things going horribly wrong while you are in the iteration process is an expected part of experimentation.
Imagine a world where the Rust experiment hand't been going well. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from keeping at it to prove why Rust should be there. The experiment can always live as long as someone wants to keep working on it. Experiments fundamentally can only end when successful, or when everyone gives up (leaving nobody to make the announcement).
That said, consider me interested to read the announcements HN has about those abandoned experiments. Where should I look to find them?
There aren't that many FDIC coverage categories. I'd guess that individual sweep accounts would end up in the revocable trust category, the same as most "regular" accounts? Or maybe sweep accounts would end up in the individual ownership category while regular accounts (with beneficiary) would be in revocable trust? This seems like the kind of question that by the time you'd benefit from knowing exactly (rather than just being overly conservative), you're paying professionals to manage all this for you. There's no need to make an amateur determination that you won't know is wrong until it's too late.
anecdotally, i had a professor (if you're reading this, hi) who would wink in conversation at exactly the right point to add a little "isn't the world a funny place" comedy to whatever he was saying... wasn't clear if intentional or a tic for when he thought he had said something clever. I noticed that habit to have transferred to me for a while after, though I think now it's faded.
that'd cause an org wide panic, and you might lose key personel in your actually profitable business units. cutting costs at this scale is not just reducing employees, it's getting rid of employees who are working in areas you need to cut. the secrecy lets management retain control.
> cutting costs at this scale is not just reducing employees, it's getting rid of employees who are working in areas you need to cut.
Sure, but if people are going to leave after cost cutting is announced, then you can often shuffle people from those areas into other areas without dealing with whole hiring rigamarole.
my experience with python's optional type system was that the simple stuff works very well, but when you try to go down a type rabbit hole for more advanced stuff involving generics it becomes really unworkable, inconsistent, and hard to dig yourself out of.
but for little things, like just function signatures, it's great!
This is because Google Scholar treats PDFs as first class citizen, so your Important blog posts can get added to academia.
maybe a plugin can solve this particular gripe...