Also check S2: http://s2geometry.io/, created at Google before H3, which uses squares and underpins the fast indexing in BigQuery amongst many other things
At least part of the collection, preferedly a rotating part, should be a public exhibit. They can charge an entrance fee, and they will get way more support if there is public awareness compared to a 100% closed shop.
This is a fresh idea, I'd suggest you reformat as Web RFC.
The one part where I felt something felt not ideal was the
optional fields of the public personal profile reveal and
awful lot of information no sane human should share to all
7 billion other humans (including, sadly, many fraudsters):
do not disclose your date of birth to an unrestricted audience, for instance. Also, some people may break their
employment contract by disclosing the detailed department
in which they work, whereas it would be okay to disclose that
selectively after a link has been established.
What is the next step? Perhaps a prototypical implementation, as is custom before standardizing something.
Regarding the claim of security and decentralization compared to legacy email, the use of the Web infrastructure means that DNS and security certificates remain ITSEC/centralization bottlenecks.
Using the Web to get adoption makes sense from a practical point of view. Scientifically, I'd be interested to see a version of this ported on top of a P2P protocol.
> So, in some sense the author here is doing the same kind of over-generalization that many of the books do.
I read most of the main books in the "ideation/innovation/startup/scale-up/ entrepreneurship/business plan writing" available at a certain time, and had to sift through a lot of useless or redundant material to extract very little wisdom from it.
(Of course what is really useful emerges only when you then execute your own start-up idea later.)
The grandparent post cautions from "overgeneralization", so let me add a comment in the opposite direction, namely "undergeneralization": it is not only business books that are more for entertainment (and perhaps reflection) than hard facts; even the category of formal economics/business studies academic literature includes large quantities of claims that do not hold, were not properly assessed, hold no predictive power etc.
I recommend one that positively stands out, Philip E. Tetlock and his studies on forecasting abilities of so-called "experts" versus average person in the street: he wrote several critical studies that found academics (economists/business in particular, hence relevant for this post) and other experts to be lacking, and then developed a methodology for more systematic prediction (e.g. see the book Superforecasting: The Science of Prediction (2016, with Ben Gardner, https://www.amazon.com/Superforecasting-Science-Prediction-P...).
> I can't imagine it's any different in [R]ust land
Taste is important; programmers with good architectural
taste tend to use languages that support them in their
endeavour (like Rust or Zig) or at least get out of the way
(C).
So I would argue the problems you list are statistically
less often the case than in certain other languages (from COBOL to JavaScript).
> There's just too many devs and all of them, including myself, don't always make the best choices.
This point you raise is important: I think an uncoordinated crowd of developers will create a "pile of crates" ("bazaar" approach, in Eric Raymond's terminology), and a single language designer with experience will create a more uniform class library ("cathedral" approach).
Personally, I wish Rust had more of a "batteries included" standard library with systematically named and namespaced
official crates (e.g. including all major data structures) - why not "stdlib::data_structures::automata::weighted_finite_state_transducer" instead of a confusing set of choices named "rustfst-ffi", "wfst", ... ?
Ideally, such a standard library should come with the language at release. But the good news is it could still be devised later, because the Rust language designers were smart enough to build versioning with full backwards compatibility (but not technical debt) into the language itself.
My wish for Rust 2030 would be such a stdlib (it could even be implemented using the bazaar of present-day crates, as long as that is hidden from us).
I recently had a priest tell me he doesn’t know enough about canon law to settle a little debate we were having. It takes years of training. Imagine legal precedent that goes back 2,000 years, and is literally quite Byzantine.
It is an interesting game-theoretic question how to spend money x (say, hundreds of billions) to maximize good.
- Should you first educate anyone who cannot read or write?
- Should you first feed anyone hungry/thirsty?
- Should you first provide shelter for all without homes?
- Should you first make peace for all without safety?
(all the way down the Maslow pyramid of needs)
How would the philanthropic billaires united ensure peace, if he had even more money? (Should one "buy" a military force that is mightier than any country's, to send out the message that every nation that started an armed conflict would regret it? Not sure if that could suppress war, but perhaps one would not feel inclined to call that "peace"...)
If I had the financial means, by gut instinct I would start out with the most vulnerable, those that can least help themselves, e.g. orphaned small children, the handicapped, the unborn.
However, in a geopolitically unstable world one could then argue it is a "waste" of resources to help people
by first feeding them when they get invaded and killed by their neighboring country soon after. But creating world peace has historically not been something that a single person - billionair or otherwise - has been able to solve.
> Should one "buy" a military force that is mightier than any country's
You'd be better off starting a clandestine agency that simply assassinates evil people. If anyone who started a war or oppressed their people was bumped off they would soon learn.
> If I had the financial means, by gut instinct I would start out with the most vulnerable, those that can least help themselves, e.g. orphaned small children, the handicapped, the unborn.
You left out expectant mothers under control of a repressive regime that demands their death sacrifice.
Mothers are vulnerable too. All that means is that two vulnerable people need care. The law in some places says that only one of them does. Anywhere that it says that, it is wrong.
H3: Uber’s Hexagonal Hierarchical Spatial Index https://www.uber.com/en-DE/blog/h3/
reply