So why does Rust require the programmer to describe intent to an exacting detail, rather than figuring it out on its own? If computers are so very fast at it?
Also, Rust does absolutely nothing about deadlocks. Its multithreading features were designed by people looking for an appearance of parity with e.g. POSIX threads, while neglecting practical applicability. The same problem exists in various other new languages, such as Java and D; omitting POSIX, they can't reach parity despite replicating the threading portion equivalently.
>Why do you assert that criminals *will* have the backdoor key?
Because the backdoor key will be tremendously valuable, someone with legit access will be corrupted into handing it, or access to it, over. Similarly, a software program that provides access to the backdoor will be copied and its accountability protections stripped because it's tremendously valuable to the NSA. And so forth.
The genie ain't staying in the bottle for two fucking days.
And if sufficiently open out-of-order implementations (resistant to Spectre class exploits) don't show up, we'll emulate it in a JIT runtime that'll eventually pony up better performance than Intel chips with the TLB flush-a-rama patches. Tanenbaum's old argument about users and developers gladly suffering greater than 5% penalties to use languages like Perl and Java, and this making microkernel performance hits palatable, was recently made all too true with the fix for Meltdown turning monolithic kernels into the worst possible microkernel in terms of the TLB-retaining optimization of syscall and interrupt performance. So, if a JIT takes at most a 10% cut and introduces some weird profile-guided steady-state latency, it'll still win over a 20% worst case real world hit from the Meltdown fix (aka KPTI).
That said, I don't know anything about RISC-V; and young ISAs usually have problems with regard to providing various things for OS kernels (like a way to have a per-thread "vsyscall area" pointer without resorting to #UD traps), and not being ambitious enough for desktop and server roles (e.g. with ASID tagged translation, string copy instructions, non-translated load and store, etc), so I'm not holding my breath on that one. A real-world battle-proven ISA like SPARC or MIPS would be preferred.
I stand corrected. How many women can't get an abortion because of being unable to pay 70€? (or go into a debt spiral for that.) As I understand, Sweden is practically drowning in women's activist organizations that'd plausibly go out of their way to fund abortions for women who can't afford the (tiny) cost.
And I see you're a fine example of what happens when mistakes are carried to term: a sanctimonious blindness to sarcasm. Or maybe you picked that up after birth? Who knows.
Swedes get burned by marketing. Who would have thought an unverifiable, exceptional claim of 99% efficacy for what's basically a fancy rhythm method, also known as "safe days", wouldn't pan out like they said?
>So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?
That would be neo-nazism, which is very distinct in nearly all its aspects from the nazism of Hitler's Germany. For example, no nazi had a tribal uniform consisting of a shaven head, a pilot jacket, jackboots, and camo pants. None of them chanted "blood and soil". None of them wore swastikas -- that's a reference to Hitler's Germany, a sad romanticization of Hitler who (as we all know) lost the war and committed suicide.
Each of its aspects (white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy -- I could go on for quite a while longer!) is subject to scathing critique, which people such as yourself will fastidiously disregard because it applies to you in all but symbology. Worse, your obsessive focus on neo-nazi symbols conceals fascism as it appears in e.g. various nations' secret police, private security companies, and the internal security departments of any corporation large enough to have one. One would be readily excused for alleging that you're doing the fascists' work, distracting the rest of us from undermining the fascist strongholds.
Opposition to fascism means opposition to "those chaps", and also to you. Because you, in a nutshell, suck.
I'd be willing to speculate that the underlying sad story is one where magical black boxes, in all their imperfection, can still do better than e.g. run of the mill application software written by the majority of programmers who got their degrees in the last decade or so. Not in things like bookkeeping of course, what with tax codes and all, couldn't learn that by example if one tried -- but for genuinely nebulous things like individual preferences in conference room scheduling, or other frankly shithead jobs.
However, if this were to happen, we'd run out of juniors; or everyone entering the line of work would have to do said low-status jobs into a shoebox just to get to the level that black boxes can't reach.
The Guardian was last good ca. '07. Since then they've faithfully tiptoed around matters like income inequality (also known as the distribution of wealth), socioeconomic mobility, the new serf class, economic stagnation due to the infallible derivatives market, and the knee-jerk cancer that controls discussion to prevent debate on these topics and others.
In a nutshell, the Guardian has been a "hip left" alternative to the BBC for over a decade now.
Utilizer of high mathematics. Amateur in everything else.
I mean, the guy ought to at least pass comment on various theories on why AI, in the sense of being able to write computer programs where plug-and-chug isn't, isn't going to happen. For example, the current iteration of Penrose's argument against Strong AI.
Wish he'd stick to astrophysics though. Seems he's still got some left in him, hate to see him waste it sounding like some dilettante.
The way the scam works is that whenever the Automated System says you weren't lined up correctly for your 10-minute mugshot, or your hands weren't on the keyboard for a large enough percent of the time, or something along those lines, the company docks your pay for that period. (Possibly also the one afterward.) Obviously the company doesn't reject the work done during that time, oh no -- that's for free.
And good luck having that decision reviewed: your gig will be up as soon as you say "lawsuit". Any internal mechanism for the same goal will massively favour the employer.
It's an IT sweatshop tool, that's what it is. No surprise that the proponent is subcontinental.
That's a mathematical argument. Those always take the form of a proof; otherwise they're a priori bunk.
The next step is review, and seeing if papers that cite this one appear. If review finds the proof broken, or the proof is such that it leads nowhere (i.e. there's no citations), then we can say that the argument is bunk. Until then nothing has been "proven".
Oh do check out an actual 8-bit system. You'll find ROM entry vectors everywhere: unless you figure the syscalls are somehow long enough to fit in three bytes...
>Microsoft's consoles are nothing like those in the 8 or 16-bit days,
Yet you insist on reading me like I had said so!
To clarify just for you, I'm pointing out that inlining (among others) is a petty optimization such as those that were relevant twenty years ago, which Microsoft holds on to because of reasons undiscussed and effects unmeasured. This makes programs for their consoles _fucking awful_.
Slashdot Mirror
So why does Rust require the programmer to describe intent to an exacting detail, rather than figuring it out on its own? If computers are so very fast at it?
Also, Rust does absolutely nothing about deadlocks. Its multithreading features were designed by people looking for an appearance of parity with e.g. POSIX threads, while neglecting practical applicability. The same problem exists in various other new languages, such as Java and D; omitting POSIX, they can't reach parity despite replicating the threading portion equivalently.
The problem with FreeBSD is that it's got worse cancer than systemd and Wayland combined.
>Why do you assert that criminals *will* have the backdoor key?
Because the backdoor key will be tremendously valuable, someone with legit access will be corrupted into handing it, or access to it, over. Similarly, a software program that provides access to the backdoor will be copied and its accountability protections stripped because it's tremendously valuable to the NSA. And so forth.
The genie ain't staying in the bottle for two fucking days.
And if sufficiently open out-of-order implementations (resistant to Spectre class exploits) don't show up, we'll emulate it in a JIT runtime that'll eventually pony up better performance than Intel chips with the TLB flush-a-rama patches. Tanenbaum's old argument about users and developers gladly suffering greater than 5% penalties to use languages like Perl and Java, and this making microkernel performance hits palatable, was recently made all too true with the fix for Meltdown turning monolithic kernels into the worst possible microkernel in terms of the TLB-retaining optimization of syscall and interrupt performance. So, if a JIT takes at most a 10% cut and introduces some weird profile-guided steady-state latency, it'll still win over a 20% worst case real world hit from the Meltdown fix (aka KPTI).
That said, I don't know anything about RISC-V; and young ISAs usually have problems with regard to providing various things for OS kernels (like a way to have a per-thread "vsyscall area" pointer without resorting to #UD traps), and not being ambitious enough for desktop and server roles (e.g. with ASID tagged translation, string copy instructions, non-translated load and store, etc), so I'm not holding my breath on that one. A real-world battle-proven ISA like SPARC or MIPS would be preferred.
I stand corrected. How many women can't get an abortion because of being unable to pay 70€? (or go into a debt spiral for that.) As I understand, Sweden is practically drowning in women's activist organizations that'd plausibly go out of their way to fund abortions for women who can't afford the (tiny) cost.
And I see you're a fine example of what happens when mistakes are carried to term: a sanctimonious blindness to sarcasm. Or maybe you picked that up after birth? Who knows.
Swedes get burned by marketing. Who would have thought an unverifiable, exceptional claim of 99% efficacy for what's basically a fancy rhythm method, also known as "safe days", wouldn't pan out like they said?
Lucky that abortions are free in Sweden.
Because that's how murdering works! Also known as "dead men don't tell no tales".
>So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?
That would be neo-nazism, which is very distinct in nearly all its aspects from the nazism of Hitler's Germany. For example, no nazi had a tribal uniform consisting of a shaven head, a pilot jacket, jackboots, and camo pants. None of them chanted "blood and soil". None of them wore swastikas -- that's a reference to Hitler's Germany, a sad romanticization of Hitler who (as we all know) lost the war and committed suicide.
Each of its aspects (white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy -- I could go on for quite a while longer!) is subject to scathing critique, which people such as yourself will fastidiously disregard because it applies to you in all but symbology. Worse, your obsessive focus on neo-nazi symbols conceals fascism as it appears in e.g. various nations' secret police, private security companies, and the internal security departments of any corporation large enough to have one. One would be readily excused for alleging that you're doing the fascists' work, distracting the rest of us from undermining the fascist strongholds.
Opposition to fascism means opposition to "those chaps", and also to you. Because you, in a nutshell, suck.
So in effect, anyone you brutally murder was a nazi coward. That's certainly an appealing model for society isn't it.
Twitter also has a stalking policy. And I don't think it's got an exception for people claiming to just be chasing dem nazies.
I'd be willing to speculate that the underlying sad story is one where magical black boxes, in all their imperfection, can still do better than e.g. run of the mill application software written by the majority of programmers who got their degrees in the last decade or so. Not in things like bookkeeping of course, what with tax codes and all, couldn't learn that by example if one tried -- but for genuinely nebulous things like individual preferences in conference room scheduling, or other frankly shithead jobs.
However, if this were to happen, we'd run out of juniors; or everyone entering the line of work would have to do said low-status jobs into a shoebox just to get to the level that black boxes can't reach.
The Guardian was last good ca. '07. Since then they've faithfully tiptoed around matters like income inequality (also known as the distribution of wealth), socioeconomic mobility, the new serf class, economic stagnation due to the infallible derivatives market, and the knee-jerk cancer that controls discussion to prevent debate on these topics and others.
In a nutshell, the Guardian has been a "hip left" alternative to the BBC for over a decade now.
It's an iteration of "immature women playing dollhouse into their adulthood". Reasonable people disregard it immediately.
"I'm glad I was caught; I was mentally deranged. Now I am cured.
I ask only to be shot while my mind is still clean."
Isn't that what you rather mean?
It's all Chode up ins! Now gimme my 1½ inches of reinforced carbon-carbon and a railgun and we'll duke it out like real space lozenges.
Utilizer of high mathematics. Amateur in everything else.
I mean, the guy ought to at least pass comment on various theories on why AI, in the sense of being able to write computer programs where plug-and-chug isn't, isn't going to happen. For example, the current iteration of Penrose's argument against Strong AI.
Wish he'd stick to astrophysics though. Seems he's still got some left in him, hate to see him waste it sounding like some dilettante.
The way the scam works is that whenever the Automated System says you weren't lined up correctly for your 10-minute mugshot, or your hands weren't on the keyboard for a large enough percent of the time, or something along those lines, the company docks your pay for that period. (Possibly also the one afterward.) Obviously the company doesn't reject the work done during that time, oh no -- that's for free.
And good luck having that decision reviewed: your gig will be up as soon as you say "lawsuit". Any internal mechanism for the same goal will massively favour the employer.
It's an IT sweatshop tool, that's what it is. No surprise that the proponent is subcontinental.
>Textbook whataboutism.
Textbook textbookism.
>proven inapplicable to reality,
Well, maybe not so much inapplicable to reality as divergent from it. Empirically anyway... bane of applied mathematicians everywhere.
That's a mathematical argument. Those always take the form of a proof; otherwise they're a priori bunk.
The next step is review, and seeing if papers that cite this one appear. If review finds the proof broken, or the proof is such that it leads nowhere (i.e. there's no citations), then we can say that the argument is bunk. Until then nothing has been "proven".
Might as well point a dowsing rod at people, or have a panel of self-described experts look for "tells" not unlike a gaggle of highschoolers.
Oh do check out an actual 8-bit system. You'll find ROM entry vectors everywhere: unless you figure the syscalls are somehow long enough to fit in three bytes...
>Microsoft's consoles are nothing like those in the 8 or 16-bit days,
Yet you insist on reading me like I had said so!
To clarify just for you, I'm pointing out that inlining (among others) is a petty optimization such as those that were relevant twenty years ago, which Microsoft holds on to because of reasons undiscussed and effects unmeasured. This makes programs for their consoles _fucking awful_.