allows and doesn't stop are the same thing.

Maybe OP means "allows safe concurrent access but doesn't stop unsafe concurrent access".

And that capabilities model is one of the big differences in Pony and was the key to achieving Pony's parallel lock-free provably correct concurrency model.

Most lang/system capability models (including Go's) are open from the start -- where anyone can do anything -- and then when designing the lang/system you try to restrict access between some things at some of the time, but this gets messy fast and it's hard to get right and thus it's almost never optimal.

So rather than trying to start with an open model that's inherently flawed by definition, Pony flips the model on its head and begins from the perspective that everything is denied unless specified. You would say Pony has a deny-first capabilities model, which you can see explicitly defined here in Pony's capabilities matrix...

https://soyyomakesgames.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/ponys-capab...

And if you listen to Sylvan's talks, he is emphatic that solving the capabilities problem upfront was key that made everything else possible. All the other cool stuff you hear about in Pony like the provably correct runtime and finally achieving something approaching Hewitt's elusive Actor model that's been theoretically true for 40 years but never fully realized. Well the key to solving that mystery and unlocking the door was to take a new view on the capabilities model and building everything off that from the start.

Indeed.

Meant to write "Go allows safe concurrent access but doesn't stop unsafe concurrent access to shared data structures"

Thanks & sorry for the confusion.

I believe the point of this article was to discuss the possibilities outside of, and up until, that realm.

"I wouldn't live there if you paid me to" - The Talking Heads on suburbia.

If someone reading this went to MIT and can contact admissions, they should link them to this story. Surely there are a few MIT alums on HN? Get this kid into his dream school!

Or maybe he mentions another school in the AMA?

I have some hiring power, and I went to uni as well, and both in a liberal state (NY). We see hundreds of applications. I can tell you that ~30% percent of my colleagues at uni were female. Exactly 0% of our applicants are female. I have no idea where these women are, but were not turning them down!

It sounds like you might have a problem at the sourcing stage. How do you get leads on candidates?

Ads on urinal cakes.

On the other hand, saying a gender imbalance in the field is causing a gensee imbalance in the field....

Come on.

There is literally nothing circular about that. You're just saying the same thing twice.

Yes, there is. Allow me to rephrase it using Boolean logic to elucidate:

IF women aren't interested in programming, THEN none of them go into programming professionally.

IF women don't go into programming professionally, THEN they aren't interested."

I have 2 better questions to ask:

1) If fewer women than "the ideal" are interested in STEM, then why is that?

2) Why do we think a perfect 50/50 ratio across all fields is "the ideal," when "nature" might not deem it so? (note: this is NOT an "argument to nature")

--pedantic

I think this is a false comparison for two reasons

1) adding the microphone and volume function to the headjack is a different cable than a normal TRS 3.5mm aux cable, which is the cable we all love. I would rather get rid of the 4 wired microphone enabled 3.5mm than lose the 3.52mm altogether.

2) all of the problems you mentioned that revolve around software - Apple cables not working on android, etc - are only going to get word by introducing USB into this. The idea is to remove proprietary things from analog audio, that's the whole reason the standard survived.

It also goes without saying that there is an inherit loss of utility caused by this switch, since so many of the products I already own use 3.5mm.

I'm not attached sentimentally to any cables. I'd love for audio, volume, skip, and microphone functionality to work with all my devices and all my headphones. Would it be annoying to lose compatibility (or require a converter) for all my existing speakers and headphones? Of course. I'd still take that penalty if it meant the overall experience was better and eventually more consistent.

Frankly I'm not sure 3.5mm is going to survive in the mainstream anyway. Bluetooth might eventually replace it for mainstream use cases.

>Bluetooth might eventually replace it for mainstream use cases.

As somewho who uses Bluetooth audio I strongly disagree. I think Bluetooth audio is going to remain niche until batteries get better. Who wants to have to charge their headphones or Bluetooth (often battery powered) speakers every few days?

I may be spoiled but whether I use bluetooth or old-school RF headsets, it's always less reliable and lower quality than wired.

I don't think I'm that "non-mainstream", but nothing annoys me more than even split-second connectivity drops with Bluetooth. When I'm listening to music, reliability and consistency in hearing an entire chunk of audio trumps all else -- and 3.5mm has that.