https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Hubble radius, Hubble sphere, Hubble volume, or Hubble horizon is a conceptual horizon defining the boundary between particles that are moving slower and faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at one given time."
The Observable Universe is only about 13.8bil years old and about 46bil light years in radius. Everything visible beyond the Hubble Horizon was within our lightcone in the past but is no longer. This is where Dark Energy comes in. No idea what it is, but something is making space expand and it takes energy to expand space.
Dark Matter is not a theory, it's a set of observations. Nothing has explained these observations without breaking well tested science. Therefore it is something new or something old but not fully understood. The later is highly unlikely because answering the Dark Matter question with existing known physics is pretty much well outside the margin of error of known physics. No one has answered it yet and it's been a century since we've detected it.
Few facts that we know about whatever the heck Dark Matter is
1) It's blobby, meaning it can't move fast. Ruling out massless or low mass particles.
2) It's perfectly transparent as far as we can measure. We can look through billion solar mass blobs without any light dimming or scattering
3) Massive blobs pass through other matter with no measurable emissions or unexpected interactions
4) It tends to be mostly in halos around the outer edges of galaxies
5) When two galaxies collide, the gravitational lensing it causes can be seen moving through and beyond
6) Some galaxies don't have any observed Dark Matter phenomena
7) Some Dark Matter does not have an observable host galaxy. In other words, many billion solar mass gravitational lensing with no observable mass in the middle of a vast void.
They estimate that 40% of the work force is not actually needed as of right now. It would require some restructure and a change to the belief that everyone needs a job, but we could maintain our production, while reducing the number of people working without increasing the number of hours the working population has to work while making them happier at work. The data, according to some, is showing that there's some combination of people adding less value than the administrative overhead they create by just existing and others who can technically do a job, but not well enough to be of positive value.
This issue does exist, how much is up for debate, but it will get worse and worse over time. What's the end game for when 99% of people are negative value to no fault of their own?
Dark matter and dark energy are observational facts. What causes these observations is up for debate. Whatever theory attempts to explain them must explain all related observations. Some examples for dark matter is galactic rotations and gravitational lensing. For dark energy, it's objects moving away from us in a linear fashion related to the distance from us, including objects moving away from us faster than light.
This solar magnetic field could potentially interact with sufficiently strong galactic magnetic fields to produce some of the effects attributed to dark matter.
Either it needs to explain all of the Dark Matter observations or none of them. Including gravitational lenseing.
Isn't that like saying a person who won the lottery had 100% odds of winning the lottery? By that usage of the term, the odds of anything in hindsight is 100%. Congratulations, you just made the word meaningless.
More is better when it comes to bugs that are mostly obvious to the typical person, but doesn't benefit complex code that whooshes over the head of 99.9% of people. My co-workers tell me I have an attention to detail. Some code will get 3-5 people looking at it and testing it over a period of a month or two, then the'll ask me to take a look. Many times I will find several bugs in 10-15 minutes by just reading the code, then I'll have questions about the code and ask them to run some tests that will further find some more bugs.
I do not trust normal humans to anything technical right. I would prefer languages that work better with static analysis, more free tools to provide quality static analysis, and more fuzz testing.
You seem to be stuck in some vacuum of an idea. "Just compare against v.begin()". Dear lord, the scaling! In my experience, most complex data structures enumerate in a way that is natural for a collection, which is not the most efficiency way for a data structure that is indexed. I've seen some thread safe datastructures lock itself for the duration of the iterator to preserve the contents for the operation. What if I don't care about that? What if I just want to get the list of keys, then loop over the datastructure and try to get the key. If the key is now missing, I really don't care.
I tend to see two types of programmers. Those who only program at the abstract level and those who program at the micro-level. Both ways are wrong. You need to program at both levels at the same time. Programming strictly at the abstract level is why you see code with unstable performance. Programming strictly at the micro level is why you see fast code that is unmaintainable. They're not exclusive approaches like nearly everyone treats them. You can have the best of both worlds.
"So, in short, using iterators is usually preferable because the data type can then be changed without rewriting code" This I agree with. Too bad your example of a kludgely work around is so horrible. Iterators are a tool to generally be used, not a tool that should be shoe-horned into every situation that needs to iterate over something.
In a concurrent situation v.begin() might not match any of the values.
Actually following the rules? I don't see how anyone bypassed 2FA or guessed the right code. Either there's a design flaw that no one is talking about or 2FA was not used in this case.
Few issues here
1) Huge repos are many times a symptom. The Linux source code is only a few tens of MiB and it's a kernel with a ton of drivers.
2) Git is getting constant performance optimizations as people bump into these performance issues
3) It's more difficult for a large repo to get dropped into git because git is getting incremental performance improvements and it's impractical to make all of the necessary changes in short order.
Git has has some major improvements over the past 3-5 years for a select few common operations that perform poorly with lots of objects. You may want to revisit, and if you have performance issues, document and submit them. I wouldn't doubt that the rollout of further performance improvements have been slowed down for the mountain of work to support SHA3.
Your internet connection is only 1% of your internet bill and bandwidth is a fraction of that. 99% of your bill has to do with support, marketing, and administrative overhead. 90% of backbone fiber is dark, bandwidth supply has been outpacing demand for 15+ years due to technological advancements. The amount of data they can shove down fiber has increased 1000x in the past 5 years alone. Nearly the entirety of the world's peak bandwidth consumption can be put down a single fiber pair. They're already talking about 100gb to the home for nearly the same cost as what people are paying for 100Mb right now.
Madagascar has enough bandwidth to support USA's peak internet traffic.
Upper income bracket has also grown. Over a 10 year period, 80% of those who left the middle income went into upper income. There's a fundamental issue that in the long run only a few will create and we'll asymptotically approach 100% unemployment. Even with now with "3%" unemployment, an increasing number of economists are claiming a substantial fraction of jobs are bullshit jobs with no or negative value for the purpose of having a job. Creating jobs for the sake of jobs is a horrible reason. Basic income.
If it's a fraudulent change, I don't need to take anyone to court. I talk to my bank and they put the money back in my account in good faith and handle the rest for me. I've had it happen a few times where I cancelled my subscription several days before the next renewal, got charged anyway, then was told it would take several weeks to get my money back. I just went to my bank, immediately got "my" money back, and never heard anything after. On one of the times, the bank told me to let them know if I ever have repeat issues, because they will pursue federal charges for repeat offenders.
I only said "high percentile aptitudes". Ignoring skills like brick laying, there tends to be power curves more than bell curves. At the extreme end of creative problem solving or abstract reasoning, you tend to get the "80% are below average" issue. To be in the top "5%" of your peers places you in the top 0.01% of the population. Fake numbers to show the idea.
That's why you hear from all universities that 80% of those who try programming fail, 50% of those who succeed should not, and of the 50% who should, 80% are below average. The kicker is that those 80% who failed are an already biased group of well above norm ability.
I only use programming as an example because it is almost purely limited by one's ability to reason, nearly perfectly uncorrelated with knowledge or experience. There are other professions in the same boat, other than brick laying.
Just using a single counter example, around 1% of the population are visual thinkers(not to be confused with visual learners), yet they make up ~40% of geniuses, and nearly all of them are classified has having one or more learning disabilities and one of prominent characteristics of visual thinkers is they do very poorly on standardized tests, typically showing up very close to the median but also many times well below, giving them the classification as having a learning disability.
Reading about this got me interested in standardized testing. I did some googling on that topic. One of the issues with standardized testing is it really only applies to people who are with in about 2 standard deviations. Beyond that, their accuracy goes to crap at their ability to predict a person's ability to proficient at something. Generally higher is better, but towards the upper percentiles, sometimes it's negatively correlated for classes of the ultra-proficient. The ultra-proficient also tend to have test anxiety, which does not help.
That is to say, median performance on a test is highly correlated with median performance at proficiency.
For a general person, standardized tests are useful, but they do not reflect well detecting high percentile aptitudes. Scoring well on a standardized test typically means you're good at taking tests. Actual top percentile students, not the students in the top percentile of scores, do not do very well on standardized tests. They tend to score closer to the median and some times in the bottom percentiles.
There's also the issue that you can almost only test for knowledge, not understanding.
I don't need support, it's a logic problem. I don't feel a need to disprove 2+2=5. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling.
/sigh Last attempt, in case you're not trolling. Riddle me this. How do you change IPv4 without changing IPv4? This is what you're advocating. The IPv4 extensions are not transparent, they require updating many devices and have translation devices in front of other devices that cannot be updated. If you're going to go through all of the hassle to update most devices, why not just throw it out and start over rather than making a cluster fk of a protocol?
If you think IPv6 is bad, an extended version of IPv4 will be 100x worse. The only benefit is the transition might kind of be better, but the end result will be a festering pile of crap. IPv6 is the bite the bullet, do it right, way. It may not be perfect, but perfect is impossible for the scale of IP.
I feel so dirty for continuing this argument. Like I'm arguing with a flat earther.
IPv6 is actually faster. IPv6 has a fixed sided header and much smaller routing tables. And not just smaller because it's in less use, but drastically smaller because the virtually unlimited address space has virtually zero fragmentation. Fixed headers alone makes IPv6 much easier for ASIC implementation in routers, plus no CRC.
The way IPv6 is setup, it makes routing easier to manage and easier to implement in the hardware. IPv4 fragmentation has been horrible. I read some IPv6 blogs many years back where the regional network admin said IPv4 fragmentation forced them to have more hops. Their IPv6 routes were able to shave 5-10ms in hops because they have plenty of IPs to waste.
Fragmentation is becoming a serious issue. ASICs have limited memory for their TCAMs. I think they have O(n^2) transistor scaling. While you could throw more transistors at it, it also increases the latency because.. Physics.. Some networks are having to play games with routing in order to limit the number of IPv4 entries in a given router in order to not overflow the TCAM. Overflowing the TCAM can result in many symptoms depending on the implementation. Might drop an arbitrary entry causing BGP rebuild DOS, might just not route the packet, might fail over to software and run 100-1000x slower.
In practice, IPv4 and IPv6 are typically similar in performance, but Ipv4 can be quite a bit slower or have unexpected failures due to routing complexities in rare cases that are becoming more common.
IPv4 is non-extendable in any useful way. That RFC is about as much of a joke as https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf... Computers must look like magic to you. If someone can't get something done, they must not be waving their magic wand hard enough.
Beyond brainstorming, anyone who takes extending IPv4 seriously should not be in change of anything related to networking. It's not an ivory tower issue. It's the limitations of logic in our Universe.
Most are not "just sitting" on large unused blocks. They may have a lot of total unused IPs, but most of their blocks are in use. This idea has been addressed soooo many times before. Even if everyone spent the several years re-numbering their devices to consolidate IPs and messing with routing, they could give back 1-3 months of IPs. Spending a dollar to save a penny.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Hubble radius, Hubble sphere, Hubble volume, or Hubble horizon is a conceptual horizon defining the boundary between particles that are moving slower and faster than the speed of light relative to an observer at one given time."
The Observable Universe is only about 13.8bil years old and about 46bil light years in radius. Everything visible beyond the Hubble Horizon was within our lightcone in the past but is no longer. This is where Dark Energy comes in. No idea what it is, but something is making space expand and it takes energy to expand space.
Dark Matter is not a theory, it's a set of observations. Nothing has explained these observations without breaking well tested science. Therefore it is something new or something old but not fully understood. The later is highly unlikely because answering the Dark Matter question with existing known physics is pretty much well outside the margin of error of known physics. No one has answered it yet and it's been a century since we've detected it.
Few facts that we know about whatever the heck Dark Matter is
1) It's blobby, meaning it can't move fast. Ruling out massless or low mass particles.
2) It's perfectly transparent as far as we can measure. We can look through billion solar mass blobs without any light dimming or scattering
3) Massive blobs pass through other matter with no measurable emissions or unexpected interactions
4) It tends to be mostly in halos around the outer edges of galaxies
5) When two galaxies collide, the gravitational lensing it causes can be seen moving through and beyond
6) Some galaxies don't have any observed Dark Matter phenomena
7) Some Dark Matter does not have an observable host galaxy. In other words, many billion solar mass gravitational lensing with no observable mass in the middle of a vast void.
They estimate that 40% of the work force is not actually needed as of right now. It would require some restructure and a change to the belief that everyone needs a job, but we could maintain our production, while reducing the number of people working without increasing the number of hours the working population has to work while making them happier at work. The data, according to some, is showing that there's some combination of people adding less value than the administrative overhead they create by just existing and others who can technically do a job, but not well enough to be of positive value.
This issue does exist, how much is up for debate, but it will get worse and worse over time. What's the end game for when 99% of people are negative value to no fault of their own?
While we're on the subject of talking about real science, not the fake crap 99.999% agree with. How flat do you think the Earth really is?
Dark matter and dark energy are observational facts. What causes these observations is up for debate. Whatever theory attempts to explain them must explain all related observations. Some examples for dark matter is galactic rotations and gravitational lensing. For dark energy, it's objects moving away from us in a linear fashion related to the distance from us, including objects moving away from us faster than light.
This solar magnetic field could potentially interact with sufficiently strong galactic magnetic fields to produce some of the effects attributed to dark matter.
Either it needs to explain all of the Dark Matter observations or none of them. Including gravitational lenseing.
Isn't that like saying a person who won the lottery had 100% odds of winning the lottery? By that usage of the term, the odds of anything in hindsight is 100%. Congratulations, you just made the word meaningless.
Correct. Only a magnitude off. Relative to 100GiB repos, it's meh.
I do not trust normal humans to do anything technical correctly
More is better when it comes to bugs that are mostly obvious to the typical person, but doesn't benefit complex code that whooshes over the head of 99.9% of people. My co-workers tell me I have an attention to detail. Some code will get 3-5 people looking at it and testing it over a period of a month or two, then the'll ask me to take a look. Many times I will find several bugs in 10-15 minutes by just reading the code, then I'll have questions about the code and ask them to run some tests that will further find some more bugs.
I do not trust normal humans to anything technical right. I would prefer languages that work better with static analysis, more free tools to provide quality static analysis, and more fuzz testing.
You seem to be stuck in some vacuum of an idea. "Just compare against v.begin()". Dear lord, the scaling! In my experience, most complex data structures enumerate in a way that is natural for a collection, which is not the most efficiency way for a data structure that is indexed. I've seen some thread safe datastructures lock itself for the duration of the iterator to preserve the contents for the operation. What if I don't care about that? What if I just want to get the list of keys, then loop over the datastructure and try to get the key. If the key is now missing, I really don't care.
I tend to see two types of programmers. Those who only program at the abstract level and those who program at the micro-level. Both ways are wrong. You need to program at both levels at the same time. Programming strictly at the abstract level is why you see code with unstable performance. Programming strictly at the micro level is why you see fast code that is unmaintainable. They're not exclusive approaches like nearly everyone treats them. You can have the best of both worlds.
"So, in short, using iterators is usually preferable because the data type can then be changed without rewriting code" This I agree with. Too bad your example of a kludgely work around is so horrible. Iterators are a tool to generally be used, not a tool that should be shoe-horned into every situation that needs to iterate over something.
In a concurrent situation v.begin() might not match any of the values.
Actually following the rules? I don't see how anyone bypassed 2FA or guessed the right code. Either there's a design flaw that no one is talking about or 2FA was not used in this case.
Few issues here
1) Huge repos are many times a symptom. The Linux source code is only a few tens of MiB and it's a kernel with a ton of drivers.
2) Git is getting constant performance optimizations as people bump into these performance issues
3) It's more difficult for a large repo to get dropped into git because git is getting incremental performance improvements and it's impractical to make all of the necessary changes in short order.
Git has has some major improvements over the past 3-5 years for a select few common operations that perform poorly with lots of objects. You may want to revisit, and if you have performance issues, document and submit them. I wouldn't doubt that the rollout of further performance improvements have been slowed down for the mountain of work to support SHA3.
Not using Two factor? Even with a weak password, 2FA helps immensely.
Your internet connection is only 1% of your internet bill and bandwidth is a fraction of that. 99% of your bill has to do with support, marketing, and administrative overhead. 90% of backbone fiber is dark, bandwidth supply has been outpacing demand for 15+ years due to technological advancements. The amount of data they can shove down fiber has increased 1000x in the past 5 years alone. Nearly the entirety of the world's peak bandwidth consumption can be put down a single fiber pair. They're already talking about 100gb to the home for nearly the same cost as what people are paying for 100Mb right now.
Madagascar has enough bandwidth to support USA's peak internet traffic.
Upper income bracket has also grown. Over a 10 year period, 80% of those who left the middle income went into upper income. There's a fundamental issue that in the long run only a few will create and we'll asymptotically approach 100% unemployment. Even with now with "3%" unemployment, an increasing number of economists are claiming a substantial fraction of jobs are bullshit jobs with no or negative value for the purpose of having a job. Creating jobs for the sake of jobs is a horrible reason. Basic income.
You both have a point. Unskilled "people persons" get promoted while the skilled people are forced to clean up in their wake. Strait up Dilbert shit.
If it's a fraudulent change, I don't need to take anyone to court. I talk to my bank and they put the money back in my account in good faith and handle the rest for me. I've had it happen a few times where I cancelled my subscription several days before the next renewal, got charged anyway, then was told it would take several weeks to get my money back. I just went to my bank, immediately got "my" money back, and never heard anything after. On one of the times, the bank told me to let them know if I ever have repeat issues, because they will pursue federal charges for repeat offenders.
Copying is a fundamental requirement to all implementations of communicating, even the brain has to do it.
I only said "high percentile aptitudes". Ignoring skills like brick laying, there tends to be power curves more than bell curves. At the extreme end of creative problem solving or abstract reasoning, you tend to get the "80% are below average" issue. To be in the top "5%" of your peers places you in the top 0.01% of the population. Fake numbers to show the idea.
That's why you hear from all universities that 80% of those who try programming fail, 50% of those who succeed should not, and of the 50% who should, 80% are below average. The kicker is that those 80% who failed are an already biased group of well above norm ability.
I only use programming as an example because it is almost purely limited by one's ability to reason, nearly perfectly uncorrelated with knowledge or experience. There are other professions in the same boat, other than brick laying.
Just using a single counter example, around 1% of the population are visual thinkers(not to be confused with visual learners), yet they make up ~40% of geniuses, and nearly all of them are classified has having one or more learning disabilities and one of prominent characteristics of visual thinkers is they do very poorly on standardized tests, typically showing up very close to the median but also many times well below, giving them the classification as having a learning disability.
Reading about this got me interested in standardized testing. I did some googling on that topic. One of the issues with standardized testing is it really only applies to people who are with in about 2 standard deviations. Beyond that, their accuracy goes to crap at their ability to predict a person's ability to proficient at something. Generally higher is better, but towards the upper percentiles, sometimes it's negatively correlated for classes of the ultra-proficient. The ultra-proficient also tend to have test anxiety, which does not help.
That is to say, median performance on a test is highly correlated with median performance at proficiency.
For a general person, standardized tests are useful, but they do not reflect well detecting high percentile aptitudes. Scoring well on a standardized test typically means you're good at taking tests. Actual top percentile students, not the students in the top percentile of scores, do not do very well on standardized tests. They tend to score closer to the median and some times in the bottom percentiles.
There's also the issue that you can almost only test for knowledge, not understanding.
IPv4 is non-extendable in any useful way.
Says who, you? A bald assertion without support.
I don't need support, it's a logic problem. I don't feel a need to disprove 2+2=5. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling.
/sigh Last attempt, in case you're not trolling. Riddle me this. How do you change IPv4 without changing IPv4? This is what you're advocating. The IPv4 extensions are not transparent, they require updating many devices and have translation devices in front of other devices that cannot be updated. If you're going to go through all of the hassle to update most devices, why not just throw it out and start over rather than making a cluster fk of a protocol?
If you think IPv6 is bad, an extended version of IPv4 will be 100x worse. The only benefit is the transition might kind of be better, but the end result will be a festering pile of crap. IPv6 is the bite the bullet, do it right, way. It may not be perfect, but perfect is impossible for the scale of IP.
I feel so dirty for continuing this argument. Like I'm arguing with a flat earther.
IPv6 is actually faster. IPv6 has a fixed sided header and much smaller routing tables. And not just smaller because it's in less use, but drastically smaller because the virtually unlimited address space has virtually zero fragmentation. Fixed headers alone makes IPv6 much easier for ASIC implementation in routers, plus no CRC.
The way IPv6 is setup, it makes routing easier to manage and easier to implement in the hardware. IPv4 fragmentation has been horrible. I read some IPv6 blogs many years back where the regional network admin said IPv4 fragmentation forced them to have more hops. Their IPv6 routes were able to shave 5-10ms in hops because they have plenty of IPs to waste.
Fragmentation is becoming a serious issue. ASICs have limited memory for their TCAMs. I think they have O(n^2) transistor scaling. While you could throw more transistors at it, it also increases the latency because.. Physics.. Some networks are having to play games with routing in order to limit the number of IPv4 entries in a given router in order to not overflow the TCAM. Overflowing the TCAM can result in many symptoms depending on the implementation. Might drop an arbitrary entry causing BGP rebuild DOS, might just not route the packet, might fail over to software and run 100-1000x slower.
In practice, IPv4 and IPv6 are typically similar in performance, but Ipv4 can be quite a bit slower or have unexpected failures due to routing complexities in rare cases that are becoming more common.
IPv4 is non-extendable in any useful way. That RFC is about as much of a joke as https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf... Computers must look like magic to you. If someone can't get something done, they must not be waving their magic wand hard enough.
Beyond brainstorming, anyone who takes extending IPv4 seriously should not be in change of anything related to networking. It's not an ivory tower issue. It's the limitations of logic in our Universe.
Most are not "just sitting" on large unused blocks. They may have a lot of total unused IPs, but most of their blocks are in use. This idea has been addressed soooo many times before. Even if everyone spent the several years re-numbering their devices to consolidate IPs and messing with routing, they could give back 1-3 months of IPs. Spending a dollar to save a penny.