No matter how good he is -- he would have had to been fired by almost all companies out there.
Being bluntly honest about that code does or does not live up to standard is not the problem -- just keep it professional. Just eliminate the gratuitous BS that he is known for. Also if it is not up to standard, make it constructive.
I have worked for bought out companies and companies that had leadership changes that were internal and transitional -- they are completely different cases.
When one company is bought out the changes often are more jarring -- especially when one company buying out another company has a different culture. You are merging two companies -- and potentially changing leadership at the same time (leadership that does not know everyone). Leadership transitions from owner/creator to the next generation (of a mature company - which Apple is) from inside the company -- tends to be a slow change. This person is trying to make it look like it is Jeckyll and Hyde -- sounds to me more of a person that felt entitled just because, and is trying to take his revenge and get a little money at the same time. The only thing he will do is destroy his own reputation and marketability.
Tinfoil hat time, maybe they or the government (to which they are beholden to) want access to scan your hard drive and the move towards encrypting file systems is getting in the way... so this is a way to encourage ext4 unencrypted only:o
It seems like a simple contract dispute, the merger was approved on an agreement with Charter with regards to certain obligations. Charter did not meet it's obligations under the agreement, it failed to rectify them after being given time... so the agreement is null and void. I don't see it as much of an issue for the Supreme Court.
I am sort of on the fence on this one but I do believe some of the practices of Google have to change. EU anti-trust laws are there to protect competition - which is slightly different than the US. And in the EU Google is dominant in Android AND search. If you sell an "Android Phone" you are contractually unable to sell a competing phone distribution. You are required to install all the google apps and the play store. Even without all the apps installed, and 'play store' Google still makes a considerable amount of money from the app (they don't pay Apple 3 billion dollars a year to be the default search engine for nothing). Basically, they are doing EXACTLY what Microsoft -- and got whacked by the US government for back when they were dominant in everything. When you are not dominant you can get away with that, when you are - you have to make adjustments. Google can make rather minor changes to comply with the ruling and they will still be dominant.
From the very beginning... Linux (the kernel) was conceived as a UNIX clone...
Linus:
---- my.plan ----
Free UNIX for the 386 - coming 4QR 91 or 1QR 92.
The current version of linux is 0.11 - it has most things a unix kernel
needs, and will probably be released as 1.0 as soon as it gets a little
more testing, and we can get a init/login going. Currently you get
dumped into a shell as root upon bootup.
-- End --
All the "utilities" that sit on top of the "Linux kernel" are gnu based utilities that predate Linux etc. This was not an accident.
So basically there is a proposal to dump existing terminal utilities that are cross-platform and create custom Linux utilities - then get rid of the existing functionality? That would be moronic! I already go nuts remoting into a windows platform and then an AIX and Linux platform and having different command line utilities / directory separators / etc. Adding yet another difference between my Linux and macOS/AIX terminals would absolutely drive me bonkers!
I have no problem with updating or rewriting or adding functionalities to existing utilities (for all 'nix platforms), but creating a yet another incompatible platform would be crazily annoying.
(not a sys admin, just a dev who has to deal with multiple different server platforms)
Patents themselves are a government-issued monopoly to protect the companies from having to compete with others using the results of research without remuneration. It is an invention to try to encourage companies into research and costly development - with the promise that they will have a monopoly for a period of time.
What the government issues, they can revoke if they believe that it was issued in error.
I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.
BS! You only need that type of organization if you are supporting a large company. Many small video podcasters hosters host their own shows (some dual host with youtube). All a portal is a website on a hosted machine with video. Of course, you have to go out and get your own sponsors (TWiT.tv does this - it is growing). If you are small you don't need all that. If you go through another organization or individual's marketplace then you have to abide by their rules (and some of those could be arbitrary). Youtube just makes it easy to do because you can do it with nothing. You could probably do a cutdown version even in something like Wordpress. There are some much smaller than TWiT who do the same thing so that they have content control and can get their own advertisers.
This is a private business (Youtube) and they have every right to downrank or remove content that they feel is damaging to their brand. If you feel hard done by -- create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit. They are not entitled to serve as a platform for anyone that they don't feel fits their brand (with the exception of equality laws like discrimination based on gender or race).
There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).
Having everyone a "full stack" developer does not necessarily benefit or favour the employer. All developers have strengths and weaknesses - and more experience doing one or the other... The natural extension of that is that those that have a strength in server work doing primarily UI work or vice-versa -- will be less efficient than someone whose strength lies on that side. A small employer could benefit from having a backup (even if less efficient) -- being able to step into doing the work that he is less efficient at (better than having no-one). A large employer will benefit from having a pool of senior developers that have full understanding of both sides (as to be able to settle disputes in the best interest of the customer)... But absolutely requiring everyone to be a full stack developer doing both in a large shop is not necessarily the best as far as cost.
Yes, there are full stack developers but as with any developer they may know how to code the full stack -- but they will typically be substantially stronger as a server/ messaging / or UI developer and thus much weaker on the other side. It is always better to have people that have a full understanding and the ability to step in if required (especially as you become more senior) of the full stack. If you have people that are purely silo developers - then you will often get into situations where your UI developer wants the server to take responsibility and your server thinks it is too frivolous for them and should be done in the UI.
China still holds over 1 trillion in debt. If China decides to reduce its stake - that means more debt on the market, while the US is adding another trillion debt in the last few months. So supply goes up, demand goes down - and interest rates have to go up to make the new debt more attractive than the other supply of debt that China throws into the market.
The economies are so interlinked that any real trade war could create unstable and unpredictable times.
The US owes so much debt now, that if China starts dumping accumulated debt they could force a spike in interest rates that basically throw the US into a hard recession.
It could lead to a currency war as China could hit back with devaluation equivalent to the tariffs.
The Chinese banks are not very transparent - and if the current swoon turns into a worldwide stock market crash - could be the start of another Asian crisis (we just cannot know) if it is prolonged.
Companies cannot just turn on a dime and change manufacturing (i.e. move it to other locations), so it could spike inflation and it could also disrupt major American companies supply.
Or it could just be taken in stride. The problem is that the markets were already overly exuberant, and there are many bubbles that could be popped... that anything could happen... the problem is it may not be able to be predictable.
Anyone that claims to know what will happen... is more than likely just pretending to know and guessing.
What Florida is voting for is to move from EST/EDT to AST (no daylight savings). They are not exempting themselves from Standard Time, they are voting to adopt a different standard timezone. They are voting to eliminate daylight savings time. Standard time in most of the world follows political borders not some raw calculated mean position every 60 minutes apart.
Extremely well said and concise. Bringing into how we relate to people because of their personal politics (conservative vs liberal vs progressive vs socialist) is extremely toxic. If we cannot talk or do business with people that hold differing political views - the civility of society will only continue to decline.
Your PC maker or motherboard maker should have a patch for firmware / microcode. To completely mitigate the vulnerability on Intel based computers - you will have to patch both the OS and the firmware. I believe the firmware patch is required as part of Spectre (probably 2nd variant). Without both, your computer will be still vulnerable. Unfortunately I believe there is a chance that the patch could fail silently - but there is a powerscript that will tell you the status of the vulnerability patches.
There should be at least some attempt at reparations. Any processor currently being manufactured (3 years or younger) -- you would have the option of opting to get a replacement for the CPU if it is socketed by sending it into Intel (or taking it to a service centre of Intel's choosing to replace) and then getting a fixed CPU (probably timeline at least 9 months). Manufacturers could opt to replace the board at cost with new CPUs for computers that are currently in use. If you opt to keep it you would get a reimbursement of about 25% of the tray price of the CPU - which would be funnelled through manufacturers/retailers.
I think you would find that a small minority would opt to have the CPU replaced or the board replaced -- costing much less than what might be feared. It would however give the impression that the manufacturer (Intel) stands behind their products.
It is about the protection barrier between the kernel data and user space melting down... Meltdown is as good as any other name.
If some non-techies get the wrong idea -- great -- I can have fun with that.... scaring non-techies with technobabble is always fun. Besides, maybe I can convince my non-technical manager that I need a new computer since my old one melted down before the patch was installed.
It is my understanding that Meltdown is Intel only, Spectre affects AMD/ARM/Intel (though not the same impact). I don't believe either of these exploits affect POWER or SPARC. Basically Meltdown is caused by being overly aggressive in that it does not check permissions to access -- until after it has moved it to cache, AMD checks this before. Using this and the ability to get timing information (only really needed for debugging) - a clever algorithm can basically access and piece together kernel (protected data) on the processor from user space processes. To me if one architecture has issues with something and all others don't it leads me to the conclusion that it is an architectural (CPU) design defect.
I am not familiar with the internals of it and it has been a good 30+ years since I have written x86 assembly code (and I am sure it has changed a lot, but they do keep backwards compatibility). Memory segmentation in Intel chips is a legacy that dates back to not being able to address the entire memory space because the limitation of memory being larger than addressable space due to the limitations of 16 bits. The memory had to be addressed by using a segment register and then offset from that register (a segment at that time would be limited to 64K). It was never designed as a way to protect the kernel address space. This memory addressing scheme is both costly and reduced the ability to usefully use the address space. Today 64 bit processors can address 16 exabytes, and the segmentation is a legacy left over from the early days. Use of segmented memory to protect the kernel is IMHO a hack that only serves to duct-tape over the defect and the downside is that it affects performance. I thought most other architectures (that are not affected) -- have flat and not segmented memory?
At that rate, you probably are not using the phone very much at all and probably don't even need a smart phone. You are more the exception in this society today.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how good he is -- he would have had to been fired by almost all companies out there.
Being bluntly honest about that code does or does not live up to standard is not the problem -- just keep it professional. Just eliminate the gratuitous BS that he is known for. Also if it is not up to standard, make it constructive.
I have worked for bought out companies and companies that had leadership changes that were internal and transitional -- they are completely different cases.
When one company is bought out the changes often are more jarring -- especially when one company buying out another company has a different culture. You are merging two companies -- and potentially changing leadership at the same time (leadership that does not know everyone). Leadership transitions from owner/creator to the next generation (of a mature company - which Apple is) from inside the company -- tends to be a slow change. This person is trying to make it look like it is Jeckyll and Hyde -- sounds to me more of a person that felt entitled just because, and is trying to take his revenge and get a little money at the same time. The only thing he will do is destroy his own reputation and marketability.
Tinfoil hat time, maybe they or the government (to which they are beholden to) want access to scan your hard drive and the move towards encrypting file systems is getting in the way... so this is a way to encourage ext4 unencrypted only :o
It seems like a simple contract dispute, the merger was approved on an agreement with Charter with regards to certain obligations. Charter did not meet it's obligations under the agreement, it failed to rectify them after being given time... so the agreement is null and void. I don't see it as much of an issue for the Supreme Court.
I am sort of on the fence on this one but I do believe some of the practices of Google have to change. EU anti-trust laws are there to protect competition - which is slightly different than the US. And in the EU Google is dominant in Android AND search. If you sell an "Android Phone" you are contractually unable to sell a competing phone distribution. You are required to install all the google apps and the play store. Even without all the apps installed, and 'play store' Google still makes a considerable amount of money from the app (they don't pay Apple 3 billion dollars a year to be the default search engine for nothing). Basically, they are doing EXACTLY what Microsoft -- and got whacked by the US government for back when they were dominant in everything. When you are not dominant you can get away with that, when you are - you have to make adjustments. Google can make rather minor changes to comply with the ruling and they will still be dominant.
From the very beginning... Linux (the kernel) was conceived as a UNIX clone...
.plan ----
Linus:
---- my
Free UNIX for the 386 - coming 4QR 91 or 1QR 92.
The current version of linux is 0.11 - it has most things a unix kernel
needs, and will probably be released as 1.0 as soon as it gets a little
more testing, and we can get a init/login going. Currently you get
dumped into a shell as root upon bootup.
-- End --
All the "utilities" that sit on top of the "Linux kernel" are gnu based utilities that predate Linux etc. This was not an accident.
So basically there is a proposal to dump existing terminal utilities that are cross-platform and create custom Linux utilities - then get rid of the existing functionality? That would be moronic! I already go nuts remoting into a windows platform and then an AIX and Linux platform and having different command line utilities / directory separators / etc. Adding yet another difference between my Linux and macOS/AIX terminals would absolutely drive me bonkers!
I have no problem with updating or rewriting or adding functionalities to existing utilities (for all 'nix platforms), but creating a yet another incompatible platform would be crazily annoying.
(not a sys admin, just a dev who has to deal with multiple different server platforms)
Patents themselves are a government-issued monopoly to protect the companies from having to compete with others using the results of research without remuneration. It is an invention to try to encourage companies into research and costly development - with the promise that they will have a monopoly for a period of time.
What the government issues, they can revoke if they believe that it was issued in error.
I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.
BS! You only need that type of organization if you are supporting a large company. Many small video podcasters hosters host their own shows (some dual host with youtube). All a portal is a website on a hosted machine with video. Of course, you have to go out and get your own sponsors (TWiT.tv does this - it is growing). If you are small you don't need all that. If you go through another organization or individual's marketplace then you have to abide by their rules (and some of those could be arbitrary). Youtube just makes it easy to do because you can do it with nothing. You could probably do a cutdown version even in something like Wordpress. There are some much smaller than TWiT who do the same thing so that they have content control and can get their own advertisers.
This is a private business (Youtube) and they have every right to downrank or remove content that they feel is damaging to their brand. If you feel hard done by -- create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit. They are not entitled to serve as a platform for anyone that they don't feel fits their brand (with the exception of equality laws like discrimination based on gender or race).
There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).
Having everyone a "full stack" developer does not necessarily benefit or favour the employer. All developers have strengths and weaknesses - and more experience doing one or the other... The natural extension of that is that those that have a strength in server work doing primarily UI work or vice-versa -- will be less efficient than someone whose strength lies on that side. A small employer could benefit from having a backup (even if less efficient) -- being able to step into doing the work that he is less efficient at (better than having no-one). A large employer will benefit from having a pool of senior developers that have full understanding of both sides (as to be able to settle disputes in the best interest of the customer)... But absolutely requiring everyone to be a full stack developer doing both in a large shop is not necessarily the best as far as cost.
Yes, there are full stack developers but as with any developer they may know how to code the full stack -- but they will typically be substantially stronger as a server/ messaging / or UI developer and thus much weaker on the other side. It is always better to have people that have a full understanding and the ability to step in if required (especially as you become more senior) of the full stack. If you have people that are purely silo developers - then you will often get into situations where your UI developer wants the server to take responsibility and your server thinks it is too frivolous for them and should be done in the UI.
Oh, and that does not include the debt they have to roll over on maturity... (more supply).
China still holds over 1 trillion in debt. If China decides to reduce its stake - that means more debt on the market, while the US is adding another trillion debt in the last few months. So supply goes up, demand goes down - and interest rates have to go up to make the new debt more attractive than the other supply of debt that China throws into the market.
The economies are so interlinked that any real trade war could create unstable and unpredictable times.
... that anything could happen... the problem is it may not be able to be predictable. ... is more than likely just pretending to know and guessing.
The US owes so much debt now, that if China starts dumping accumulated debt they could force a spike in interest rates that basically throw the US into a hard recession.
It could lead to a currency war as China could hit back with devaluation equivalent to the tariffs.
The Chinese banks are not very transparent - and if the current swoon turns into a worldwide stock market crash - could be the start of another Asian crisis (we just cannot know) if it is prolonged.
Companies cannot just turn on a dime and change manufacturing (i.e. move it to other locations), so it could spike inflation and it could also disrupt major American companies supply.
Or it could just be taken in stride. The problem is that the markets were already overly exuberant, and there are many bubbles that could be popped
Anyone that claims to know what will happen
What Florida is voting for is to move from EST/EDT to AST (no daylight savings). They are not exempting themselves from Standard Time, they are voting to adopt a different standard timezone. They are voting to eliminate daylight savings time. Standard time in most of the world follows political borders not some raw calculated mean position every 60 minutes apart.
Extremely well said and concise. Bringing into how we relate to people because of their personal politics (conservative vs liberal vs progressive vs socialist) is extremely toxic. If we cannot talk or do business with people that hold differing political views - the civility of society will only continue to decline.
The firmware update comes from your PC manufacturer or motherboard manufacturer.
Your PC maker or motherboard maker should have a patch for firmware / microcode. To completely mitigate the vulnerability on Intel based computers - you will have to patch both the OS and the firmware. I believe the firmware patch is required as part of Spectre (probably 2nd variant). Without both, your computer will be still vulnerable. Unfortunately I believe there is a chance that the patch could fail silently - but there is a powerscript that will tell you the status of the vulnerability patches.
There should be at least some attempt at reparations. Any processor currently being manufactured (3 years or younger) -- you would have the option of opting to get a replacement for the CPU if it is socketed by sending it into Intel (or taking it to a service centre of Intel's choosing to replace) and then getting a fixed CPU (probably timeline at least 9 months). Manufacturers could opt to replace the board at cost with new CPUs for computers that are currently in use. If you opt to keep it you would get a reimbursement of about 25% of the tray price of the CPU - which would be funnelled through manufacturers/retailers.
I think you would find that a small minority would opt to have the CPU replaced or the board replaced -- costing much less than what might be feared. It would however give the impression that the manufacturer (Intel) stands behind their products.
It is about the protection barrier between the kernel data and user space melting down... Meltdown is as good as any other name.
.... scaring non-techies with technobabble is always fun. Besides, maybe I can convince my non-technical manager that I need a new computer since my old one melted down before the patch was installed.
If some non-techies get the wrong idea -- great -- I can have fun with that
It is my understanding that Meltdown is Intel only, Spectre affects AMD/ARM/Intel (though not the same impact). I don't believe either of these exploits affect POWER or SPARC. Basically Meltdown is caused by being overly aggressive in that it does not check permissions to access -- until after it has moved it to cache, AMD checks this before. Using this and the ability to get timing information (only really needed for debugging) - a clever algorithm can basically access and piece together kernel (protected data) on the processor from user space processes. To me if one architecture has issues with something and all others don't it leads me to the conclusion that it is an architectural (CPU) design defect.
I am not familiar with the internals of it and it has been a good 30+ years since I have written x86 assembly code (and I am sure it has changed a lot, but they do keep backwards compatibility). Memory segmentation in Intel chips is a legacy that dates back to not being able to address the entire memory space because the limitation of memory being larger than addressable space due to the limitations of 16 bits. The memory had to be addressed by using a segment register and then offset from that register (a segment at that time would be limited to 64K). It was never designed as a way to protect the kernel address space. This memory addressing scheme is both costly and reduced the ability to usefully use the address space. Today 64 bit processors can address 16 exabytes, and the segmentation is a legacy left over from the early days. Use of segmented memory to protect the kernel is IMHO a hack that only serves to duct-tape over the defect and the downside is that it affects performance. I thought most other architectures (that are not affected) -- have flat and not segmented memory?
At that rate, you probably are not using the phone very much at all and probably don't even need a smart phone. You are more the exception in this society today.