Were are a relatively small shop, and those devs with influence convinced management to switch to what seems the entire Microsoft stack, with service layers on top of service layers, and other middle-man gizmos. It's as if they get points for every service and service layer on the MS brochure they use. Pokesoft: gotta install em all! If you add a new column to a table, you have to update something like 17 spots.
This made me vomit a little because my last job was just like that. I've stopped using the Microsoft stack at all, not because of the technology, but because of the people around it. The community sucks donkey balls.
Any study that groups all sweeteners together in the same category is probably suspect. The various sweeteners are so different chemically that it would be surprising if the body responded to them all in exactly the same way.
It's worth watching how Firefox goes as they begin to switch to Rust. If they see performance problems, or if their security bugs all go away (they won't, but you know, some of them might), then those are good data points.
Yes they have, and it's super hard to write an image processing routine for the same reason that it's hard for a compiler to prove they are correct automatically.
But whether it's secure or not wasn't the question.......you changed the subject.
It really depends on the situation. In most cases, I agree with you, adding an extra check won't matter (and usually I use some kind of queue instead of an array, which takes even more time). But in situations where arrays are very large, you often do want to cut execution time as much as possible. These kinds of situations pop up in image processing, for example.
Hard real-time is completely different than performance. Hard real-time means you know how long it will take, not that it will go fast. For every function call you can say, "this function will take no longer than X seconds"
Most programming languages do actually do bounds checking, and will generate a run time error if you attempt to write more data to an array/block/other fixed size container than will fit.
Most programming languages are slower as a result of this bounds checking at runtime.
Arrays are programmed with bounds-checking, usually through dope vectors generated by the compiler. It is a requirement of the language to generate an exception if you try to go beyond the bounds of the array.
Doesn't a bounds-check on every array access slow things down?
The first four bugs there wouldn't have been prevented by rewriting in Rust. They're logic errors (which happen in every language). That is the biggest downside or Rust: people think they will be secure by using it, leading to turning off their security brain.
It's not. The article is talking about strong AI here, which hasn't made any real progress since the 70s. It's important to distinguish strong AI from weak AI.
btw your post somewhat contradicts your sig, since the post is entirely made up of great, general views.
Slashdot Mirror
try finding a non-light product in a US supermarket, for example
Uh......there is lots of non-light stuff in the US supermarkets. When was the last time you entered one?
Were are a relatively small shop, and those devs with influence convinced management to switch to what seems the entire Microsoft stack, with service layers on top of service layers, and other middle-man gizmos. It's as if they get points for every service and service layer on the MS brochure they use. Pokesoft: gotta install em all! If you add a new column to a table, you have to update something like 17 spots.
This made me vomit a little because my last job was just like that. I've stopped using the Microsoft stack at all, not because of the technology, but because of the people around it. The community sucks donkey balls.
Trend Micro did that. cite
That post was hilarious but I have no idea what you said. I LOLed.
Any study that groups all sweeteners together in the same category is probably suspect. The various sweeteners are so different chemically that it would be surprising if the body responded to them all in exactly the same way.
It's worth watching how Firefox goes as they begin to switch to Rust. If they see performance problems, or if their security bugs all go away (they won't, but you know, some of them might), then those are good data points.
But the 'right way' to iterate over an array, one that is perfectly type safe, is
This completely misunderstands how compression algorithms work. You often don't know how large an array you need until you are done compressing.
Is there a good ADA tutorial somewhere that you can recommend?
Yes they have, and it's super hard to write an image processing routine for the same reason that it's hard for a compiler to prove they are correct automatically.
But whether it's secure or not wasn't the question.......you changed the subject.
It really depends on the situation. In most cases, I agree with you, adding an extra check won't matter (and usually I use some kind of queue instead of an array, which takes even more time). But in situations where arrays are very large, you often do want to cut execution time as much as possible. These kinds of situations pop up in image processing, for example.
Hard real-time is completely different than performance. Hard real-time means you know how long it will take, not that it will go fast. For every function call you can say, "this function will take no longer than X seconds"
If you use Rust you don't need a security brain.
Yeah......you're like a parody of Rust fans. Let me know what code you write without thinking of security, and I'll hack it.
How many of them wouldn't have even been possible in a language that prevented you from doing inherently unsafe operations?
Why don't you look through the list and figure it out? That would have made your post good instead of ignorant.
Most programming languages do actually do bounds checking, and will generate a run time error if you attempt to write more data to an array/block/other fixed size container than will fit.
Most programming languages are slower as a result of this bounds checking at runtime.
Arrays are programmed with bounds-checking, usually through dope vectors generated by the compiler. It is a requirement of the language to generate an exception if you try to go beyond the bounds of the array.
Doesn't a bounds-check on every array access slow things down?
The first four bugs there wouldn't have been prevented by rewriting in Rust. They're logic errors (which happen in every language). That is the biggest downside or Rust: people think they will be secure by using it, leading to turning off their security brain.
How does Ada prevent buffer overflows?
How does Ada prevent memory leaks?
(Maybe I should also ask how Ada prevents rockets from exploding, but Rust won't do that either)
"AI" isn't "artificial intelligence" at all. It was, and is, a sloppy term for advanced theories and programming techniques to solve problems.
The term you are looking for here is "Weak AI." That is distinct from Strong AI.
What exactly IS "AI?" You have to strictly define it before you can "regulate it."
If this is actually a topic you care about, you should search for "strong AI." You will find some potentially workable definitions.
AI may be advancing with giant strides,
It's not. The article is talking about strong AI here, which hasn't made any real progress since the 70s. It's important to distinguish strong AI from weak AI.
btw your post somewhat contradicts your sig, since the post is entirely made up of great, general views.
Bush looks like Churchill who 'invaded' the Dardanelles.
How do you avoid them?
if it's merely a simple regex then they can use something like Unicode::Regex::Set to get the unicode character sets they want.
No unicode on Slashdot. All I ask for is a Thorn!
Nah. All he has to do is avoid starting a war and he'll already be better than our last two presidents.
Let's be honest: it would be hard for Trump to be worse than Bush.
Heh, you're dumb as a brick. You think I'm liberal.