What is their source that the non-fiction book market is collapsing? Their entire premise seems to come down to the fact that non-fiction in 2025 took a smaller share of the top 25 best-selling, hardcover books compared to 2015. It's baffling enough to draw any conclusions from the top 25 of anything, but then to narrow down to hardcover disregards any confounding effects of preferences in format. On top of that they seem to be strangely unaware of this whole phenomenon called ebooks that has been taking the market over by storm.
Besides, non-fiction isn't analogous to fiction, it's not a useful category even. The subset of people who may read biographies may be very different from those who may read popular science or those who read self-help. There is no common denominator encompassing all of these other than the fact that it is a written medium. Fiction is different this way that it is a creative expression often read for the sake of reading and the point is not so much to reach the end. What would be more useful to see is the trend of specific categories of non-fiction over time and which ones are growing and which ones are not.
Perhaps in some ironic way, this article demonstrates why interest in non-fiction may be declining. When you take a singular, weak data point and stretch it over 5 pages saying the same thing, to create a complete non-issue over something that concludes nothing of significance by the end, you have to wonder if one would want to read more of such spiel.
Stretching nothing, but encompassing a fairly standard payload. “The crisis of men is they don’t trust us, the authorities.” No need to pin down why. We’ve poisoned the well so the article is done.
Pleasantly surprised to see dpreview still running, I thought they had shut down. It was a fantastic site back in the day. Not sure how it fares these days.
Do you have a source that says it was an analytical error? Everything I've read over the years suggested they knew there were no WMDs, yet went with the narrative. Here's one post that cites a CIA report that shows the administration knew there were no WMDs.
Not directly, but indirectly by declining any punitive actions. Ideally the banks earnings should've been used up towards the bail out punishing shareholders in the spirit of the free market. But if I remember at that time, execs paid themselves large bonuses immediately following the bail out.
Most of the big ones. The government in fact was issued equity in these banks that they later sold to recover the funds. So it was very much necessary to preserve shareholder value.
This arrangement probably wouldn't have upset people so much were the people responsible for the crisis held accountable. Worse still, they paid themselves huge bonuses as soon as they got bailed out from the bailout money itself! All this made people question the real intention behind the bailout. Corruption is often effected indirectly, so as to give the perpetrator plausible deniability.
No, they’re not examples of corruption. Did Bush or Biden seek to profit from their actions financially? Not that I know of, unless you have proof showing what and how.
Corruption is not limited to financial profit. There are many ways to engage in acts of self interest like grant personal agenda, favours to friends/donors, quid-pro-quo etc.
That’s not an answer to the question. How did any of these presidents profit, financially or not, from their actions regarding Iraq or the 2008 financial crisis? What was the quid pro quo they received?
Well, the question primarily seemed to contest the scope of corruption, so I responded in view to that.
The big banks were one of the top donors to Obama's 2008 campaign. The fact that none of the banks were prosecuted or even held accountable for the crisis raises big questions how much the campaign funding influenced the way the bailout was structured. It also doesn't help Obama that he was famous for going after private funding after backtracking on his pledge not to do so.
Bush's story is similar but with energy companies the most famous being Halliburton who funded his election campaign and turned out to be the biggest beneficiaries to profit from the Iraq war. It probably wouldn't have upset people as much had it not been that the Bush family had close ties to this company and where Dick Cheney also happened to be the CEO. It was a big scandal at that time you can go read back on, but as is with many of these scandals everything seems to be forgotten or forgiven with time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with Trump 20 years from now.
- Bush invaded Iraq because an oil company funded his campaign?
- Obama bailed out banks (a thing every government worldwide was doing) because banks funded his campaign?
There’s no evidence of these claims, compared to the evidence of a fucking private jet being bought for Trump in comparison. Also Trump has enriched himself, personally, more than any president in history by quite some margin, using the office of President. I just wanted to show what you’re equivocating about, here.
If you follow the way the private jet thing is done, it is structured as a gift to the government and not the president. It is perfectly legal and you won't be able to find any "proof" of corruption over it. This is how most corruption is done, in an underhanded manner, but everything by the book, with enough plausible deniability.
In many cases corruption is only known to the perpetrator, because it is a matter of intent. One can always proffer a different reason for what they are doing than what they actually intended and when those reasons later turn out to be false, you may never really know whether they acted in good faith in the first place.
So corruption largely comes down to perception end of the day. It is ultimately a matter of trust and when that trust is eroded, the perception of corruption grows. There's no smoke without fire. When we see smoke in a building, we do not go searching for proof of fire, we just gtfo because the risk is too much. We should do the same when we see red flags in people in powerful positions.
These people are also all wealthy with stable fortunes - they don't need a lot of cash because they have everything. Trump is also a rich guy, but he has a lot of debts and legal troubles and worries about leaving office, so he urgently needs cash to bankroll and bribe and attract likeminded individuals to help him.
> The one thing I find slightly grating about links to Kagi blogs is the top comments are almost always "I use Kagi and it's great!"
Couldn't agree more. I don't know how others perceive it, but I find myself becoming more and more wary of broad endorsement. Maybe it's the amount of astroturfing you see on the internet, but I can't help imagine if there is a concerted effort behind it. When someone shares something meaningful and insightful about a product, there's no better endorsement of it. But low effort platitudes are probably doing more harm than intended.
I use kagi. The results quality is pretty good, but I probably use the uprank and downrank feature all the time. Being able to report stuff as AI and get little indicators that a site is AI slop is good.
As an example, serious eats is my go to recipe site, and I've got it tuned so it returns higher in my results.
I also really appreciate I can write my own custom css, and style every box and widget on the page.
And marine most of all, I love that their AI tool will not show up unless you end your query with a "?". Meaning I'm explicitly opting in to using it.
My last reason for liking it is ideological. No ads, no manipulation because of advertising tech. Just ... the stuff I searched for.
I do not like the image search page, however. It feels clunky in a way I can't put my finger on.
There's a few other things I really like, but it's hard to type them all out. So I often go, "kagi is great, love kagi."
Could you elaborate a bit on why RA's incremental approach takes more memory? Intuitively it feels that it should take less, because you're only processing what you need? Whereas you seem to indicate that you save a full analysis snapshot to disk and load it all up when needed? Shouldn't that consume the max memory for a workspace?
Fantastic project btw, and it couldn't come at a better time. With the way prices are going I really hope people start paying attention to memory again.
It's explained in the blog post, but in short: rust-analyzer stores the data it needs in memory all the time, while Rust Glancer might consume more memory during indexing (because it's not lazy and does more indexing), but after that it only loads _necessary_ information for the duration of the query.
Several things here:
1. We don't need all the information (project can have 1000+ dependencies, while query might only care about the current open file), so the amount of information we load is smaller.
2. Most of the time IDE does not actually do any queries, so if you switch to browser/Slack, you don't pay the tax.
3. Since data is loaded to the disk, after initial indexing restarting no longer consumes that much ram, and you get reindexing for free.
4. Besides offloading, I implement quite a bit of memory optimizations (some of which are covered in docs: https://rust-glancer.github.io/docs/development/MEMORY.html ), so it's a combination of factors.
Let's say I type "SomeStructure" and haven't imported it, how does rust glancer _not_ end up poking at all the dependencies to figure out where it is, and to import it?
In some sense I feel like that example is the canonical "you need a full picture of the world" case, to the point that it's probably worth special casing _just_ that, and using local analysis for everything... but it seems hard to avoid that pain on any typo for example
Inversely... do you have a ballpark for what the size of the on-disk structures end up being? Not that it matters _that_ much but Rust projects already have a tendancy to be disk hogs during development
On the first question -- auto imports is an example of a "heavy" functionality since we indeed need to scan more than is imported in the project, which is why I'm still working on this to optimize properly (it's decently fast, but I want it to be faster before I'll enable it, since it's also something we want to see in completions, and completions must be _very_ fast). Still, we don't need "everything": we only need _reachable_ items in _direct_ dependencies; typically project has much less direct dependencies than transitive ones (e.g. 20 direct dependencies can fan out to 1000 transitive deps), and each dependency usually has less exported items than total amount of items. Finally, for that you only need semantic data (e.g. items) rather than bodies. So while it's a big task (though finding references is still significantly bigger and tougher, because that's where it gets to "it can be anywhere in reverse dependencies bodies), it's not "we need the whole world".
As for the size -- the Rust Glancer artifacts for Rust Glancer itself currently take 225mb. And that's proportial to the project size only, e.g. it doesn't grow over time on its own.
// Crate indirect_dep:
pub struct Foo;
// Crate direct_dep:
extern crate indirect_dep;
pub use indirect_dep::*;
// Crate my_crate:
use direct_dep::$0;
($0 denotes the cursor). You cannot know what to complete without analyzing `indirect_dep`. Add macros to the mix and you're going to get a nightmare (yes, name resolution in Rust is a nightmare).
In fact, you sometimes need to do type inference inside bodies to infer other bodies, because auto traits propagate across opaques. You might say this does not matter because it only matters for diagnostics... But it does not. It can matter for method resolution.
In general, I'm fairly sure that it is just impossible to build a 100% correct analyzer for Rust code without a query system like rustc's (it can be stored on disk, that's a different story). You can go pretty far without - and this will be enough for some people for an IDE! - but not all the way.
The runtime also includes reflection, so preserving compatibility of the type system while adding generics was definitely a challenge, so adding generics to Go was definitely a great achievement.
I dunno how it is in America, but in my country if the largest individual donor was granted carte blanche to run his own department within the administration, with his own people, answerable only to the head of the government, it would cause a helluva lot of outrage.
"Carte blanche but don't touch all of these things"
Yeah. There's a reason he had a falling out with Donald.
There's a ton of agencies with a lot of power. DOGE ideally would have used said power for good, but got blocked again by again by an infinite mountain of corruption. People should not work in favor of said mountain.
And people really don't recognize the value of DOGE's self-sacrifice by design, having a limited time to act out its mission. Nothing comes even close to the honesty in the operation in such a swamp.
reply