No, what AC was pointing out was that a mere 100 years ago, people made sweeping statements like "no one in our lifetime will ever fly". We were flying in commercial jet airliners less than 30 years later, and landing on the moon another 20 after that. The pace of advancement in the last 100 years has been enormous, and shows no real signs of slowing down. The idea that there's 0 chance that any of us will see an interplanetary or interstellar mission is crazy.
Note - I never said "I think it's reasonable to not pay a landlord". Instead, merely pointed out that phrasing it as "look at that bastard taking food out of the landlord's mouth" is pretty ridiculous when you've got someone too poor to pay for shelter on the other end of the equation.
Right, I feel really sorry for the landlord who has enough money to buy two houses, taking food out of his mouth is *terrible* compared to taking food out of the mouth of the person who can't even afford the basics of staying in some shelter somewhere.
You do realise that SSD reliability increases linearly with capacity, right? Barring manufacturing/design defects (which can affect all products equally), this thing will be far more reliable than any HDD has ever been. A typical life span for TLC SSDs (the very worst kind in terms of reliability) is 2.25kB of write per B of storage. That means that the 60TB model will survive about 135PB of writes before it starts to fail, and the 100TB one will do about 225PB of writing.
So yeh, the 60TB model will sustain writing continuously at 550MB/s for 8 years before it starts to suffer. The 100TB one will sustain it for 13 years.
At more sensible average write rates for a consumer (about 10GB per day), the 60TB one will last about 37,000 years, or the 100TB one will do 62,000 years.
I have no idea why people are still worried about SSDs as being inherently less reliable than HDDs - they're not. They are in fact, much much much much more reliable.
You're kidding yourself. If you think people are going to go "you know what, I want to watch iPlayer illegally so badly that I'm going to go out and buy £100 network card for my device, that's of dubious reliability, then tether myself to right next to my router, or lay ethernet cables all around my house, rather than just paying the £145 license fee, or taking a risk that they might detect me." then you're truly on the next level of insanity.
Right, and as this article covers, that's not true. In practice, passwords that don't have to be changed regularly are much stronger, because users are willing to chose a secure password and remember it long term, rather than when they have to change it regularly, they inevitably choose pass0001, and then when they have to change it, chose pass0002, and then pass0003 etc.
A great programmer knows where the wheel stores are, what the pros and cons of each are, *and* how to implement a new wheel when it turns out that none of the stores sell the right kind of wheel.
Right, and anyone who points out those concerns, and implements a naïve implementation that won't necessarily work correctly in every compiler, while pointing out where the failings are is likely to pass the interview. Someone who stands there and goes "uhhh... pointers... wtf are those?" (As 95% of people do), will not.
You would need to implement memmove because, believe it or not, there are people out there who implement the libraries that memmove is implemented in. There are also people out there who implement libraries that need to know how to at *very* least do basic pointer operations, and how to work with raw memory.
As I said - it's very hard to find genuinely good C programmers - most ignore how very very simple functions are implemented.
For reference, a naïve (acceptable in an interview) implementation of memmove can be achieved in 4 lines of code. This isn't rocket science I'm asking about.
No, as a pretty experienced C programmer too, it's *really* hard to find people who are even vaguely competent C programmers. You only need to set most people a completely trivial problem with vague exposure to pointers/memory management and they'll trip themselves up. "Implement memmov" usually is enough to catch out 95% of people.
No, that's you. The point he's making is that it's not unnecessary to miss out these initialisations in *any* compiler, even (and I'm not sure these actually exist), ones that initialise every variable to 0. You're writing C, not "C for this specific compiler", and that means that no matter the compiler implementation, the value stored in an uninitialised variable is undefined, and as soon as you read an uninitialised value, your whole program has an undefined behaviour.
...And is that a problem? Does the thickness of the monitor really impact how legibly they can print your drivers' license?
Yes, it is. It indicates that their systems are so old as to require special purpose hardware. The only reason that places use this kind of monitor and computer any more is because they don't have enough money to replace everything outright. In the long run, this causes higher costs, not lower, because they end up needing to seek out compatible hardware to keep things running, rather than being able to wholesale upgrade. If you go and look at companies, you'll find that almost every company has a 3 year rolling refresh of hardware, not because they think it's fun to upgrade hardware, but because it's cheaper to keep rolling it along than it is to end up with the costs of maintaining outdated systems, and then a giant all-around upgrade.
As one example, in the mid-2000s, I worked at a company whose main computer was built in 1988, with only minor upgrades (disk capacity, and a modem that was occasionally plugged in so it could be maintained remotely) since its construction. It had survived the obsolescence of its product line, the rise of DOS and Windows, and had only a minor stumble for Y2K. For a system whose primary purpose was tracking orders moving through departments, and tracking employees' time cards, it did the job perfectly well. That particular company was in the top 10% of the industry by order volume and profits, so it seems to have done just fine by most standards of "reasonable".
Sure, one single system in the back of one company did not get upgraded. I'd be willing to bet that the reason it didn't get upgraded was simple - it had got so old that it was at this point a major pain, and a major cost to upgrade. Furthermore, how many of the systems sat on the desks of average employees were that old? Care to take a guess at the reason?
When I look at the DMV, and I look at the DVLA in the UK (where I'm from originally), I see this...
The act of applying for a provisional driving license takes about 3 hours for the customer, and about 20 minutes of the time of various employees in a DMV building. It takes a bunch of literal paper pushing, and probably a bunch more employee time in the back office. In the UK, this is 5 minutes of the customer's time to fill on a form on the internet, and no time spent by employees at all (bar the amortised cost of the guys running the IT system and database).
The act of booking a test - again, a bunch of time for the customer, a bunch of time for the DMV.
The act of carrying out a theory test - more time for the customer hanging about in queues at the DMV building, a paper test, which is handed out by employees, and marked buy an employees. More time wasted! In the UK, the theory test is taken on a computer system, and marked automatically. No need for anyone there other than one single receptionist. All booked online, no queueing.
The act of...
The list continues. Every single interaction with the DMV involves 3 hours of the customers time, 20-30 minutes of the time of various employees filling out and stamping forms, and all of this has to happen in a pretty large building which has to be maintained. Those buildings have to be regularly spread out all over the place, because the amount of time taken is huge.
Meanwhile, the DVLA manages to process all this, with far far fewer employees, because they actually had some investment in setting up database systems and web pages so that most of the job can be automated. Basically, the whole DMV is hugely inefficient because no one has ever invested in the system. All because the republicans busy trying to find cost savings that will look good on paper in the next 4 years.
I'm not promoting any particular political party here. Rather, my point is to illustrate that every partisa
Political flamebait works both ways. The other side of the coin is that Democrats set up overly complicated systems that can't work without an ever-increasing price tag, then complain (loudly) that they just aren't getting the support they need.
The problem is that that assertion doesn't line up with reality. Go down to your DMV some time, and observe the kinds of systems that they're using. They're using databases built in the 80s and 90s on top of DOS, running on ancient computers with CRT monitors (at least around here).
What reasonable business do you know of that hasn't upgraded their systems since that time to allow for more efficiency savings, faster processing, reduced staff costs etc?
There's a lack of investment in this kind of system, plain and simple, being disguised as "government efficiency" by the republicans.
It's on the limit, but it actually should be okay. Why? Because fragment shading (the act of determining the colour of a pixel on the screen) is not the only operation that a GPU does. Lots of time is also spent in compute shaders, vertex shaders and tesselation shaders. Directing all this extra horsepower to the need to deal with 4 times more fragments should be fine.
That's not a "simple solution". That's something that a group of geeks know how to do, not generic, every person who has a phone gets private communication. Further to that, the fact that you're using ssh and talking over it makes it end-to-end encryption that's banned by this law.
Except that research has demonstrated that childhood sugar rushes are a myth, and that acting out is actually the effect of the placebo effect on the parent. Parents imagine the child acting out more because the placebo effect leads them to expect it.
Nah, British police aren't anywhere close to that trigger happy. The only ones who are allowed to carry firearms are specifically trained firearms officers who deal only with people with weapons. Maybe if he'd been in the US he would have had that issue.
When the vote went to 48.1% to 51.9%, with large areas of the country voting strongly to remain, yes, I expect the government to use a bit more nuance than simply "right, that's it, out we go". Believe it or not, a 2.8% majority in a less than 70% turnout vote does not really represent a mandate from the people to just get on with it.
The other thing that cuts both ways is that a lot of work places will fire you as soon as you give notice. It's therefore better for the employee to know what they're getting into and simply not give notice.
No, he's not saying he's impressed, he's saying that it doesn't matter how it happened, the nVidia card can run the games he cares about faster, and at lower power than the AMD card, so the nVidia card is the one he's going to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, what AC was pointing out was that a mere 100 years ago, people made sweeping statements like "no one in our lifetime will ever fly". We were flying in commercial jet airliners less than 30 years later, and landing on the moon another 20 after that. The pace of advancement in the last 100 years has been enormous, and shows no real signs of slowing down. The idea that there's 0 chance that any of us will see an interplanetary or interstellar mission is crazy.
Note - I never said "I think it's reasonable to not pay a landlord". Instead, merely pointed out that phrasing it as "look at that bastard taking food out of the landlord's mouth" is pretty ridiculous when you've got someone too poor to pay for shelter on the other end of the equation.
Right, I feel really sorry for the landlord who has enough money to buy two houses, taking food out of his mouth is *terrible* compared to taking food out of the mouth of the person who can't even afford the basics of staying in some shelter somewhere.
If you even read the summary, you'll see that it's VW, Alfa, Citroen, Fiat, Ford, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opel, and Peugeot.
You do realise that SSD reliability increases linearly with capacity, right? Barring manufacturing/design defects (which can affect all products equally), this thing will be far more reliable than any HDD has ever been. A typical life span for TLC SSDs (the very worst kind in terms of reliability) is 2.25kB of write per B of storage. That means that the 60TB model will survive about 135PB of writes before it starts to fail, and the 100TB one will do about 225PB of writing.
So yeh, the 60TB model will sustain writing continuously at 550MB/s for 8 years before it starts to suffer. The 100TB one will sustain it for 13 years.
At more sensible average write rates for a consumer (about 10GB per day), the 60TB one will last about 37,000 years, or the 100TB one will do 62,000 years.
I have no idea why people are still worried about SSDs as being inherently less reliable than HDDs - they're not. They are in fact, much much much much more reliable.
You're kidding yourself. If you think people are going to go "you know what, I want to watch iPlayer illegally so badly that I'm going to go out and buy £100 network card for my device, that's of dubious reliability, then tether myself to right next to my router, or lay ethernet cables all around my house, rather than just paying the £145 license fee, or taking a risk that they might detect me." then you're truly on the next level of insanity.
Right, and as this article covers, that's not true. In practice, passwords that don't have to be changed regularly are much stronger, because users are willing to chose a secure password and remember it long term, rather than when they have to change it regularly, they inevitably choose pass0001, and then when they have to change it, chose pass0002, and then pass0003 etc.
A great programmer knows where the wheel stores are, what the pros and cons of each are, *and* how to implement a new wheel when it turns out that none of the stores sell the right kind of wheel.
Right, and anyone who points out those concerns, and implements a naïve implementation that won't necessarily work correctly in every compiler, while pointing out where the failings are is likely to pass the interview. Someone who stands there and goes "uhhh... pointers... wtf are those?" (As 95% of people do), will not.
You would need to implement memmove because, believe it or not, there are people out there who implement the libraries that memmove is implemented in. There are also people out there who implement libraries that need to know how to at *very* least do basic pointer operations, and how to work with raw memory.
As I said - it's very hard to find genuinely good C programmers - most ignore how very very simple functions are implemented.
For reference, a naïve (acceptable in an interview) implementation of memmove can be achieved in 4 lines of code. This isn't rocket science I'm asking about.
memmov is a function with this signature:
void memmov(void *dst, const void *src, size_t count);
Which copies count bytes from src to dst, and correctly deals with the case where src and dst overlap each other.
No, as a pretty experienced C programmer too, it's *really* hard to find people who are even vaguely competent C programmers. You only need to set most people a completely trivial problem with vague exposure to pointers/memory management and they'll trip themselves up. "Implement memmov" usually is enough to catch out 95% of people.
No, that's you. The point he's making is that it's not unnecessary to miss out these initialisations in *any* compiler, even (and I'm not sure these actually exist), ones that initialise every variable to 0. You're writing C, not "C for this specific compiler", and that means that no matter the compiler implementation, the value stored in an uninitialised variable is undefined, and as soon as you read an uninitialised value, your whole program has an undefined behaviour.
...And is that a problem? Does the thickness of the monitor really impact how legibly they can print your drivers' license?
Yes, it is. It indicates that their systems are so old as to require special purpose hardware. The only reason that places use this kind of monitor and computer any more is because they don't have enough money to replace everything outright. In the long run, this causes higher costs, not lower, because they end up needing to seek out compatible hardware to keep things running, rather than being able to wholesale upgrade. If you go and look at companies, you'll find that almost every company has a 3 year rolling refresh of hardware, not because they think it's fun to upgrade hardware, but because it's cheaper to keep rolling it along than it is to end up with the costs of maintaining outdated systems, and then a giant all-around upgrade.
As one example, in the mid-2000s, I worked at a company whose main computer was built in 1988, with only minor upgrades (disk capacity, and a modem that was occasionally plugged in so it could be maintained remotely) since its construction. It had survived the obsolescence of its product line, the rise of DOS and Windows, and had only a minor stumble for Y2K. For a system whose primary purpose was tracking orders moving through departments, and tracking employees' time cards, it did the job perfectly well. That particular company was in the top 10% of the industry by order volume and profits, so it seems to have done just fine by most standards of "reasonable".
Sure, one single system in the back of one company did not get upgraded. I'd be willing to bet that the reason it didn't get upgraded was simple - it had got so old that it was at this point a major pain, and a major cost to upgrade. Furthermore, how many of the systems sat on the desks of average employees were that old? Care to take a guess at the reason?
When I look at the DMV, and I look at the DVLA in the UK (where I'm from originally), I see this... ...
The act of applying for a provisional driving license takes about 3 hours for the customer, and about 20 minutes of the time of various employees in a DMV building. It takes a bunch of literal paper pushing, and probably a bunch more employee time in the back office. In the UK, this is 5 minutes of the customer's time to fill on a form on the internet, and no time spent by employees at all (bar the amortised cost of the guys running the IT system and database).
The act of booking a test - again, a bunch of time for the customer, a bunch of time for the DMV.
The act of carrying out a theory test - more time for the customer hanging about in queues at the DMV building, a paper test, which is handed out by employees, and marked buy an employees. More time wasted! In the UK, the theory test is taken on a computer system, and marked automatically. No need for anyone there other than one single receptionist. All booked online, no queueing.
The act of
The list continues. Every single interaction with the DMV involves 3 hours of the customers time, 20-30 minutes of the time of various employees filling out and stamping forms, and all of this has to happen in a pretty large building which has to be maintained. Those buildings have to be regularly spread out all over the place, because the amount of time taken is huge.
Meanwhile, the DVLA manages to process all this, with far far fewer employees, because they actually had some investment in setting up database systems and web pages so that most of the job can be automated. Basically, the whole DMV is hugely inefficient because no one has ever invested in the system. All because the republicans busy trying to find cost savings that will look good on paper in the next 4 years.
I'm not promoting any particular political party here. Rather, my point is to illustrate that every partisa
Political flamebait works both ways. The other side of the coin is that Democrats set up overly complicated systems that can't work without an ever-increasing price tag, then complain (loudly) that they just aren't getting the support they need.
The problem is that that assertion doesn't line up with reality. Go down to your DMV some time, and observe the kinds of systems that they're using. They're using databases built in the 80s and 90s on top of DOS, running on ancient computers with CRT monitors (at least around here).
What reasonable business do you know of that hasn't upgraded their systems since that time to allow for more efficiency savings, faster processing, reduced staff costs etc?
There's a lack of investment in this kind of system, plain and simple, being disguised as "government efficiency" by the republicans.
Then those people can go and vote at the polls like everyone else, rather than having an unfair advantage through lobbying.
It's on the limit, but it actually should be okay. Why? Because fragment shading (the act of determining the colour of a pixel on the screen) is not the only operation that a GPU does. Lots of time is also spent in compute shaders, vertex shaders and tesselation shaders. Directing all this extra horsepower to the need to deal with 4 times more fragments should be fine.
That's not a "simple solution". That's something that a group of geeks know how to do, not generic, every person who has a phone gets private communication. Further to that, the fact that you're using ssh and talking over it makes it end-to-end encryption that's banned by this law.
People are tired of the elite ruling, making decisions based on cronyism and who lines their pockets. Trump isn't afraid to call them out.
Right... because Trump isn't a multi-billionare elite looking to do nothing but line his own pockets...
I guess if you're going to go for the crazy vote you might as well go all in on crazy.
Except that research has demonstrated that childhood sugar rushes are a myth, and that acting out is actually the effect of the placebo effect on the parent. Parents imagine the child acting out more because the placebo effect leads them to expect it.
Nah, British police aren't anywhere close to that trigger happy. The only ones who are allowed to carry firearms are specifically trained firearms officers who deal only with people with weapons. Maybe if he'd been in the US he would have had that issue.
When the vote went to 48.1% to 51.9%, with large areas of the country voting strongly to remain, yes, I expect the government to use a bit more nuance than simply "right, that's it, out we go". Believe it or not, a 2.8% majority in a less than 70% turnout vote does not really represent a mandate from the people to just get on with it.
The other thing that cuts both ways is that a lot of work places will fire you as soon as you give notice. It's therefore better for the employee to know what they're getting into and simply not give notice.
No, he's not saying he's impressed, he's saying that it doesn't matter how it happened, the nVidia card can run the games he cares about faster, and at lower power than the AMD card, so the nVidia card is the one he's going to buy.