Discover (verb) find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search.
The majority of surprising discoveries fall into two categories: . A contradiction of previously held notions, . Unanticipated finding
It's largely the lottery phenomenon: "There's 10^6 dollars behind one of these doors" "Number 2" *cheers* But you knew the prize was there, you knew it was behind 1/3 doors, so why does *anyone* have a reaction to the correct selection?
Powered heavier-than-air flight was a "discovery" when we simply stopped doing it the wrong way.
Black holes would test the validity of many models, but nobody knew for sure if they really existed. Across those camps were different camps that varied on whether a black hole would be detectable. We were "surprised" at the ways we were able to discover black holes, not for the result but for the pass-on implications of the methods used and the models tested.
Exoplanets: The presence of accumulated rock or gas around a distant star... Literally: "Look, more rock/gas!"
Generally, we "discover" them by looking at where we think they will be, often clued in by previous data: "There's something behind this single door, or there isn't".
The gas, dust and rock themselves are completely tedious, but the implications of them being present in the necessary combination in the right orbit around a good star close enough to ourselves has the *potential* to provide opportunities for further investigation, and it's against the odds by more than 1/3.
In this way, they are "discoveries" the way any piece of land that someone intentionally traveled to was a "discovery" - Africa, India, America... There were people already living there, but it was still a discovery to those who confirmed that the place they'd been told was there... was there.
So if you are testing some random property of bricks that involves your throwing them, and you record the right values of data, you could easily "discover" that bricks do in-fact experience some degree of lift as they fall, but that their other properties are more than enough to defeat it, and so they don't fly very well.
But it's not going to make the press unless you have some previously unknown or novel extra revelation, insight or finding that comes with that piece of "news".
I'm not convinced that the majority of what I see on laptops either when I was on the shuttle's or when I'm on caltrain or bart, was actually work related. When I worked at blizzard, I probably spent less time with hearthstone on one screen than I see it in commute-tops:)
Last count, Google has over 50,000 employees in the bay area with its campus expanding all the way from Mountain View down into San Jose now. Facebook has under 15,000. Redwood City, 2014 Population: 90,000, just saw the opening of giant 6+ story apartment complexes that increase its population nearly 20% over a few months.
Cisco has over 60,000 employees in its massive 3-city campus at the north end of San Jose.
But the RV campus was previously lining El Camino Real in Palo Alto outside Stanford, it just wound up in East Palo Alto because they got kicked off the Stanford property.
Google, Facebook, and Apple all need their asses kicking for this stupidity of putting tens of thousands of employees into single buildings because it makes for "better creativity". Really? 2 hour commute each way makes people more creative? It makes them earn a ton of money of which they see none because of rent and living costs beyond ridiculous.
2 bed apt within 40 minutes of google is likely to set you back ~$3000/month.
With my Verizon contract ending days before the new 'droid phones came out and with a 30-day return policy, I accepted the Windows phone to give me something to blog-rant (brant?) about until the droid phones arrived. The experience was amazing until Ballmer killed the device by announcing the merge-to-windows-8.
Metro wasn't a cosmetic touch up of Windows, it was a do-over. It was a UI entirely built around the phone/tablet from the very ground up, and it was as delicious, delightful, intuitive an experience as you could have wanted.
It comes down to this: Desktop OSes, iOS and Chrome have displays based on "panels", "windows"... display elements. Metro was philosophically entirely button based. It sounds trivial/trite, but fundamentally anything the user could see had an interaction property.
Until they started merging it into the Windows UI for "all device support".
That's when people started letting their desktop developers influence their mobile design and you started seeing apps simply ported so that they were "operable" under Metro, or didn't bother.
In every other touch UI, you have to learn/guess what gestures/touches you can make for any given presentation, like playing a flight sim without a keyboard guide, or playing a text adventure and having to guess the author used 'anthracite' instead of 'coal', vs playing a point-and-click game.
In Metro, everything on screen was touchable, everything you could do was on-screen aside a couple of global gestures/physical buttons.
This lead to consistency, this lead to a short learning curve for almost any app.
I'm really, really glad to have had the experience.
I don't/miss/ my Windows 7 phone because ultimately they killed it, and the last few months weren't much fun.
But I do miss the best of Metro and every time I use a droid or ios phone... I want to kick Ballmer in the Ballmers.
Not only is the second secondly not a secondly, there was supposed to be a thirdly in-between 2 and 4: The "character" as perceived by a "player" explicitly uses materiels created by Blizzard for the purpose of representing the "character" identified by that name - the model appearance, etc. LightsHope does not attempt to "recreate" the character, but actually exploits Blizzard's original material to make the character visible.
LightsHope isn't a MUD that you can log into and play text-only; it's not a wow-clone that provides its own community-contributed models and assets and nor is it a wow-emulator in the sense that you can access it with a 1st or 3rd party client program to play the game. It *explicitly* requires the Blizzard game client for its code AND materiel assets. If you do not have the Blizzard-created assets that comprise the layout of stormwind zone and cultural objects (buildings, etc), then you would not be able to play there in lightshope.
I didn't say the npc names are copyright. I said "simple things like NPCs that have the same name as WoW": They are set in the same locations, they have the same lore and back story. No provision whatsoever is made to avoid infringing on any copyright that Blizzard might have; indeed, the exact opposite is true.
Consider a character called "Wynne Larson" in the city of Stormwind. Firstly, the entire fantasy setting is one created by Blizzard, not coincidentally, not accidentally, but deliberately, specifically leveraging Blizzard's text and binary materiels - that is art, textures, meshes, navmeshes, colliders, props, npcs, animations, rigging, shaders, sound effects, music, triggers, interactables, achievements and all the ip such as lore etc, without permission.
Secondly, the NPC in every way attempts to recreate the original character designed and created by Blizzard: The name explicitly references a character of that name in the Warcraft IP including accessing the visual model used by Blizzard in World of Warcraft. Not coincidentally or accidentally but explicitly and deliberately. The LightsHope dataset specifically instructs the WoW client to render the exact same model, in the same setting with the same behaviors, same items, same dialog, etc, as that in World of Warcraft.
Secondly, the fact that the "server" comprises some number of independent works of code has no bearing: it is part of the whole "game system". I could give you countless parallels or analogies, but I'm going with a tounge-in-cheek fun one, ok? If you pay for next-day UPS delivery it does not buy you permission to board the driver's vehicle and find the package for yourself.
It comes down to some very fine detail, which is basically that Lights Hope is entirely dependent on the use of the WoW client and its data. There are no character models in LH that weren't create in whole by Blizzard Entertainment. Those portions of content that were input by LH authors attempt entirely to duplicate material originally created by Blizzard Entertainment, and specifically does so using tangible assets created by Blizzard.
This inability to see the drawing of a parallel between data/ideas and concrete items shows now effort or ability to comprehend the copyright issue. The coward can safely be ignored.
The Warcraft lore/IP is not public domain and this project was based on a server emulator (MaNGOS) using Blizzard's client. So - the art, the zones, items, npc models, character models, etc, are all Blizzard's. Some of the content, such as NPC dialog, etc, had to be recreated, but since the goal was to recreate the material content of a still-in-development, still-in-operation product - and courts do not accept 'its not what it was' as a legal argument for discontinuity/abandonment - then simple things like NPCs that have the same name as in WoW... is clearly an infringement of copyright.
LightsHope is a derivative of MaNGOS, a server emulator. This isn't a fan-recreation, you need Blizzard's client software and data to be able to play.
All the actual original creative and engineering work, creating and designing the zones, building the systems to support it, server, client and client/server, was done by Blizzard.
This is *very much* a direct violation of Blizzard's IP, copyright, trademark and etc rights.
As for Blizzard, they continue to actively develop the product, they've engaged the community in discussions about legacy and vanilla servers.
Contrary to the way "my chalice of leaving mom's basement" posts like this represent things, Blizzard are actually receptive to mimicry and fan works. Take a look at "Dungeons 3" sometime, and bear in mind that's #3.
There is a point at which Blizzard have to take action if they want to protect their ability to continue operating their business and having the ability to develop Blizzard quality games... like WoW.
Dear Sir/Madam, I forced the lock on your back door this morning to find this house abandoned. I had to force the lock because you did not offer access to the tv or coffee machine and this exclusion creep was forcing me to use the space in a way I never intended to.
If you offer public access to your rooms, we can talk.
There are three main types of computing environment:
- Monolithic single process, - Complex single process, - Mixed processes
MSP: written in a low-level language (asm, c, c++), typically a very finely tuned process that may use CPU threads for parallelism in a very carefully managed way, probably implementing its own scheduling etc. Non-deterministic operations like OS/Kernel interactions are generally very, very carefully supervised, custom memory management all over the place, etc, this is the core focus of the system and every effort is made to strip the OS down to preserve cache and determinism,
CSP: possibly written in a less high-level language or one that uses a VM, or incorporates lots of disparate libraries, less to no focus on determinism, often heavy interaction with the os (file access, etc), non-organized thread organization (typically task-specific threads), cache/memory efficiency may be optimized for algorithms or routines but the overhead multitasking isn't a major factor,
Mixed: The system is expected to run a large number of processes/services and the process has no expectation of determinism, everything from assembly to python-implemented-in-bash.
The design of Windows means that it's hard to build an MSP on Windows but it's feasible now with some of the server versions. These are usually extreme cases like High Frequency Trading but also all kinds of realtime systems.
CSPs are your "performant" industrial server process, from game servers to web servers. They probably take huge amounts of RAM for granted, but you'd probably get fired if you logged in on one and started using CPU.
Mixed: everything from your mundane intranet server, mail machine, firewall, to desktop computer. There's a ton of stuff running and unless someone logs in and uses 100% cpu for a couple hours people probably wouldn't notice even high amounts of contention.
For all of these solutions we follow one model: Everything competes for time on the same CPU: Scheduler, Kernel, OS and Processes.
We've moved some tasks out to co-processors which have been reabsorbed into the CPU: MMU, FPU...
Now we have complex chips with multiple cores and... thread assignment is done in code, in competition with the code-threads that should be running?
In the MSP case: The OS is essentially a forced hit you have to take on your processor availability: you know that every so often it's going to pop in and steal some cycles determining that... you should carry on doing what you were doing, sorry for messing up your cache line.
In the other cases, especially when there are a lot of processes, you get a gradual degradation caused by the system taking longer to make decisions about what is fair, while it is, itself, obstructing work from being done.
We need the ability to have a Kernel-Core or a Scheduler-Core with custom instructions that can do things like tell memory to go zero a page for us rather than writing zeros to memory... That can get special state information about the CPU cores to make smart decisions about what to run, instructions only available on those cores.
Putting the kernel on its own core gives us a security barrier, and again allows us to dedicate instructions.
We're over due for this architecture. We're already trying to do this with containers and hypervisors, but CPU vendors are just like "*shrug* we'll sell you more of the same"...
The requirements of the kernel and scheduler are largely different than the requirements of the main processing cores/threads of a CPU.
Giving the scheduler its own die/core/silicon would allow it to have cpu-reflection primitives so it can make more informed decisions, and the benefits of not having an interrupt come along and stomp your cache/bus states would help high-perf apps a lot.
Think about a big-data or finance linux server architecture for a moment. You have these finely-crafted, high-perf processes burning cpu threads to try and process expensive data loads and, when you paw thru the code, you find lots of repetition of scheduling and system reflection for self tuning, because the operating system does such a terrible job of scheduling once you stop pretending it's a 386 system.
You need a lot more insight into CPU state to be able to determine whether super-massively tuned, false-cache-avoiding, cache-warming super-app or "tail -f" would be worst affected by swapping it with a bash process or syslogd or...
Providing some dedicated kernel silicon would (eventually) be massively advantageous. Initially for virtualization and containerization, but ultimately (if you think it through) having the bulk of the kernel or it's facilities on separate silicon would have huge benefits.
Remember the term "surfing"? That's not what you're trying to do when you use a web-browser on your TV. This is for things like connecting your plex account to the plex app you just installed, or being able to hand off sites from your kindle to the big screen to show the family without a lot of fussing about and transferring stuff.
This isn't a new browser, it's the kindle/alexa ecosystem browser becoming available on a kindle/alexa ecosystem device, so the "PRAAHVAHCY!" response to this smacks of knee-to-the-nuts-in-the-mirror-jerk reaction.
For those of us who live the Kindle/Alexa lifestyle, this means Alexa being able to bring up pages on my TV instead of having to go fetch my kindle; it means that when I get pissed off trying to navigate thru Domino's pizza-ordering voice-state-machine farce, I have it bring up the web interface.
If this is "one more reason" you won't be buying a Kindle or Alexa, tell me about those aliens...
After the clusterfucks of Vista and 8, I had no hopes for 10. But then I have *switched* to using the full-screen start menu. It's my context-switch page. And yes, I do actually draw immense benefit from the live tiles because I've chosen apps with live tiles that actually suit me and help me keep my phone out of mind.
In a nutshell: A few seconds looking at my start screen replaces all kinds of other activities.
There are opportunities missed - like the ability to pin live tiles to the desktop, or the ability to pin a preview of an app as a live tile to the desktop or start screen/menu.
In particular, it's the long-running processes that would benefit here. Whether its a developer compiling a large project, someone converting a video or waiting on an upload. Progress dialogs would be a fantastic thing to be able to minimize an app to, especially when they are modal, and why not make that a tile?
But we're in agreement on the store. There's useful stuff in there, and as someone who trial-ran the Windows 7 Phone and watched it die because of the Windows 8 announcement and the immediate death of W7P app development, it's been forever clear that the Windows Store would never achieve the levels of usefulness of even PIP let alone something like the debian repos or brew.
San Fran isn't the most expensive part of the bay area, and $3000 rent is a pretty good deal. We pay $4k for a 3 bed in an Irvine Company complex at the San Jose end of the bay, 1600sqft: we're living comfortably. San Mateo, 30 minutes south of San Fran, you'd be looking at $3k for low quality. Redwood City, expect $3.6k+ for an apartment complex where the 2year old kid *walking* across the floor in the apartment above you will make the glasses in your kitchen shake...
Menlo Park, Mountain View, Sunnyvale - homes to Facebook and Google? Forget it.
People who can afford to live there are either earning ridiculous 6-7 figure salaries or they are grandfathered. Guy cut my hair in San Carlos bought his house for $75k and sold it last year for $1.5mil...
The rest of them have to commute. At Facebook, there was a group of ladies who carpooled in from near Gilroy, up to 2 hours each way.
I'm missing that because its your imagination. And regardless of rank of the people who felt this strongly about the material, the simple facts remain: no stories were suppressed, whomever leaked this would have been all over that, there was just a discussion. "Facebook" didn't try anything, contrary to, what the article implies. Facebook asked itself whether it should act based on how some of what Trump says measures up to what non-followers gauge as hate speak. And they recognized they shouldn't.
"Employees" and "pushed for". According to Google, Facebook had over 12,500 employees in 2015. So some employees felt strongly enough about Trump's posts to raise a discussion, and the company said "No". Zero conspiracy. Nobody stole the secret codes to the hidden filter chamber.
Basically, this articles takes Facebook taking things seriously, doing what I think most of us would hope it would do, and tries to paint it as beastial. I would *hope* that Facebook/doesn't/ hire based on political perspective, so I would hope it has employees of all ends of the political perspective and seeks to maintain a neutral stance. That doesn't mean that it's employees shouldn't be able to raise their concerns internally either way.
The article misses a key word for both takedowns: briefly. It portrays Facebook as being unreachable by the posters, and yet tucked away at the end of the article, Facebook has reversed the decision and apologised *before* the takedown made press.
In that light, the article and your presumption of intent really don't hold up to scrutiny.
Slashdot Mirror
Discover (verb) find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search.
The majority of surprising discoveries fall into two categories:
. A contradiction of previously held notions,
. Unanticipated finding
It's largely the lottery phenomenon: "There's 10^6 dollars behind one of these doors" "Number 2" *cheers* But you knew the prize was there, you knew it was behind 1/3 doors, so why does *anyone* have a reaction to the correct selection?
Powered heavier-than-air flight was a "discovery" when we simply stopped doing it the wrong way.
Black holes would test the validity of many models, but nobody knew for sure if they really existed. Across those camps were different camps that varied on whether a black hole would be detectable. We were "surprised" at the ways we were able to discover black holes, not for the result but for the pass-on implications of the methods used and the models tested.
Exoplanets: The presence of accumulated rock or gas around a distant star... Literally: "Look, more rock/gas!"
Generally, we "discover" them by looking at where we think they will be, often clued in by previous data: "There's something behind this single door, or there isn't".
The gas, dust and rock themselves are completely tedious, but the implications of them being present in the necessary combination in the right orbit around a good star close enough to ourselves has the *potential* to provide opportunities for further investigation, and it's against the odds by more than 1/3.
In this way, they are "discoveries" the way any piece of land that someone intentionally traveled to was a "discovery" - Africa, India, America... There were people already living there, but it was still a discovery to those who confirmed that the place they'd been told was there ... was there.
So if you are testing some random property of bricks that involves your throwing them, and you record the right values of data, you could easily "discover" that bricks do in-fact experience some degree of lift as they fall, but that their other properties are more than enough to defeat it, and so they don't fly very well.
But it's not going to make the press unless you have some previously unknown or novel extra revelation, insight or finding that comes with that piece of "news".
I'm not convinced that the majority of what I see on laptops either when I was on the shuttle's or when I'm on caltrain or bart, was actually work related. When I worked at blizzard, I probably spent less time with hearthstone on one screen than I see it in commute-tops :)
Last count, Google has over 50,000 employees in the bay area with its campus expanding all the way from Mountain View down into San Jose now. Facebook has under 15,000. Redwood City, 2014 Population: 90,000, just saw the opening of giant 6+ story apartment complexes that increase its population nearly 20% over a few months.
Cisco has over 60,000 employees in its massive 3-city campus at the north end of San Jose.
But the RV campus was previously lining El Camino Real in Palo Alto outside Stanford, it just wound up in East Palo Alto because they got kicked off the Stanford property.
Google, Facebook, and Apple all need their asses kicking for this stupidity of putting tens of thousands of employees into single buildings because it makes for "better creativity". Really? 2 hour commute each way makes people more creative? It makes them earn a ton of money of which they see none because of rent and living costs beyond ridiculous.
2 bed apt within 40 minutes of google is likely to set you back ~$3000/month.
With my Verizon contract ending days before the new 'droid phones came out and with a 30-day return policy, I accepted the Windows phone to give me something to blog-rant (brant?) about until the droid phones arrived. The experience was amazing until Ballmer killed the device by announcing the merge-to-windows-8.
Metro wasn't a cosmetic touch up of Windows, it was a do-over. It was a UI entirely built around the phone/tablet from the very ground up, and it was as delicious, delightful, intuitive an experience as you could have wanted.
It comes down to this: Desktop OSes, iOS and Chrome have displays based on "panels", "windows" ... display elements. Metro was philosophically entirely button based. It sounds trivial/trite, but fundamentally anything the user could see had an interaction property.
Until they started merging it into the Windows UI for "all device support".
That's when people started letting their desktop developers influence their mobile design and you started seeing apps simply ported so that they were "operable" under Metro, or didn't bother.
In every other touch UI, you have to learn/guess what gestures/touches you can make for any given presentation, like playing a flight sim without a keyboard guide, or playing a text adventure and having to guess the author used 'anthracite' instead of 'coal', vs playing a point-and-click game.
In Metro, everything on screen was touchable, everything you could do was on-screen aside a couple of global gestures/physical buttons.
This lead to consistency, this lead to a short learning curve for almost any app.
I'm really, really glad to have had the experience.
I don't /miss/ my Windows 7 phone because ultimately they killed it, and the last few months weren't much fun.
But I do miss the best of Metro and every time I use a droid or ios phone ... I want to kick Ballmer in the Ballmers.
What advertisers pay Facebook for/get from Facebook is an ad-matching service, NOT your data.
"Show my ad to 20-29 year olds in Boston who are members of the Red Sox Fan Club group. Here's the text and images".
And finally, Facebook hosts the text and ads.
Data given to advertisers: 0.
[Full Disclosure: Facebook Production Engineer 2014-2016]
Not only is the second secondly not a secondly, there was supposed to be a thirdly in-between 2 and 4: The "character" as perceived by a "player" explicitly uses materiels created by Blizzard for the purpose of representing the "character" identified by that name - the model appearance, etc. LightsHope does not attempt to "recreate" the character, but actually exploits Blizzard's original material to make the character visible.
LightsHope isn't a MUD that you can log into and play text-only; it's not a wow-clone that provides its own community-contributed models and assets and nor is it a wow-emulator in the sense that you can access it with a 1st or 3rd party client program to play the game. It *explicitly* requires the Blizzard game client for its code AND materiel assets. If you do not have the Blizzard-created assets that comprise the layout of stormwind zone and cultural objects (buildings, etc), then you would not be able to play there in lightshope.
It doesn't break down like that.
I didn't say the npc names are copyright. I said "simple things like NPCs that have the same name as WoW": They are set in the same locations, they have the same lore and back story. No provision whatsoever is made to avoid infringing on any copyright that Blizzard might have; indeed, the exact opposite is true.
Consider a character called "Wynne Larson" in the city of Stormwind. Firstly, the entire fantasy setting is one created by Blizzard, not coincidentally, not accidentally, but deliberately, specifically leveraging Blizzard's text and binary materiels - that is art, textures, meshes, navmeshes, colliders, props, npcs, animations, rigging, shaders, sound effects, music, triggers, interactables, achievements and all the ip such as lore etc, without permission.
Secondly, the NPC in every way attempts to recreate the original character designed and created by Blizzard: The name explicitly references a character of that name in the Warcraft IP including accessing the visual model used by Blizzard in World of Warcraft. Not coincidentally or accidentally but explicitly and deliberately. The LightsHope dataset specifically instructs the WoW client to render the exact same model, in the same setting with the same behaviors, same items, same dialog, etc, as that in World of Warcraft.
Secondly, the fact that the "server" comprises some number of independent works of code has no bearing: it is part of the whole "game system". I could give you countless parallels or analogies, but I'm going with a tounge-in-cheek fun one, ok? If you pay for next-day UPS delivery it does not buy you permission to board the driver's vehicle and find the package for yourself.
It comes down to some very fine detail, which is basically that Lights Hope is entirely dependent on the use of the WoW client and its data. There are no character models in LH that weren't create in whole by Blizzard Entertainment. Those portions of content that were input by LH authors attempt entirely to duplicate material originally created by Blizzard Entertainment, and specifically does so using tangible assets created by Blizzard.
This inability to see the drawing of a parallel between data/ideas and concrete items shows now effort or ability to comprehend the copyright issue. The coward can safely be ignored.
The Warcraft lore/IP is not public domain and this project was based on a server emulator (MaNGOS) using Blizzard's client. So - the art, the zones, items, npc models, character models, etc, are all Blizzard's. Some of the content, such as NPC dialog, etc, had to be recreated, but since the goal was to recreate the material content of a still-in-development, still-in-operation product - and courts do not accept 'its not what it was' as a legal argument for discontinuity/abandonment - then simple things like NPCs that have the same name as in WoW ... is clearly an infringement of copyright.
LightsHope is a derivative of MaNGOS, a server emulator. This isn't a fan-recreation, you need Blizzard's client software and data to be able to play.
All the actual original creative and engineering work, creating and designing the zones, building the systems to support it, server, client and client/server, was done by Blizzard.
This is *very much* a direct violation of Blizzard's IP, copyright, trademark and etc rights.
As for Blizzard, they continue to actively develop the product, they've engaged the community in discussions about legacy and vanilla servers.
Contrary to the way "my chalice of leaving mom's basement" posts like this represent things, Blizzard are actually receptive to mimicry and fan works. Take a look at "Dungeons 3" sometime, and bear in mind that's #3.
There is a point at which Blizzard have to take action if they want to protect their ability to continue operating their business and having the ability to develop Blizzard quality games ... like WoW.
Dear Sir/Madam, I forced the lock on your back door this morning to find this house abandoned. I had to force the lock because you did not offer access to the tv or coffee machine and this exclusion creep was forcing me to use the space in a way I never intended to.
If you offer public access to your rooms, we can talk.
I made no such suggestion, however you made a very large assumption based on my terseness.
... making the difference between "return the evaluation of this expression" vs "don't" is such an improvement in software development practices.
Rust is interesting, the way that that wreck on the 101 is "interesting".
There are three main types of computing environment:
- Monolithic single process,
- Complex single process,
- Mixed processes
MSP: written in a low-level language (asm, c, c++), typically a very finely tuned process that may use CPU threads for parallelism in a very carefully managed way, probably implementing its own scheduling etc. Non-deterministic operations like OS/Kernel interactions are generally very, very carefully supervised, custom memory management all over the place, etc, this is the core focus of the system and every effort is made to strip the OS down to preserve cache and determinism,
CSP: possibly written in a less high-level language or one that uses a VM, or incorporates lots of disparate libraries, less to no focus on determinism, often heavy interaction with the os (file access, etc), non-organized thread organization (typically task-specific threads), cache/memory efficiency may be optimized for algorithms or routines but the overhead multitasking isn't a major factor,
Mixed: The system is expected to run a large number of processes/services and the process has no expectation of determinism, everything from assembly to python-implemented-in-bash.
The design of Windows means that it's hard to build an MSP on Windows but it's feasible now with some of the server versions. These are usually extreme cases like High Frequency Trading but also all kinds of realtime systems.
CSPs are your "performant" industrial server process, from game servers to web servers. They probably take huge amounts of RAM for granted, but you'd probably get fired if you logged in on one and started using CPU.
Mixed: everything from your mundane intranet server, mail machine, firewall, to desktop computer. There's a ton of stuff running and unless someone logs in and uses 100% cpu for a couple hours people probably wouldn't notice even high amounts of contention.
For all of these solutions we follow one model: Everything competes for time on the same CPU: Scheduler, Kernel, OS and Processes.
We've moved some tasks out to co-processors which have been reabsorbed into the CPU: MMU, FPU...
Now we have complex chips with multiple cores and ... thread assignment is done in code, in competition with the code-threads that should be running?
In the MSP case: The OS is essentially a forced hit you have to take on your processor availability: you know that every so often it's going to pop in and steal some cycles determining that ... you should carry on doing what you were doing, sorry for messing up your cache line.
In the other cases, especially when there are a lot of processes, you get a gradual degradation caused by the system taking longer to make decisions about what is fair, while it is, itself, obstructing work from being done.
We need the ability to have a Kernel-Core or a Scheduler-Core with custom instructions that can do things like tell memory to go zero a page for us rather than writing zeros to memory... That can get special state information about the CPU cores to make smart decisions about what to run, instructions only available on those cores.
Putting the kernel on its own core gives us a security barrier, and again allows us to dedicate instructions.
We're over due for this architecture. We're already trying to do this with containers and hypervisors, but CPU vendors are just like "*shrug* we'll sell you more of the same"...
The most obvious change needed in the US is that voting needs to not be optional: Bump individual tax rates by 1-2% and make voting get you it back.
We should also look to make the campaign durations shorter so that they don't have the time to get into mud-slinging and filth and focus on issues.
The requirements of the kernel and scheduler are largely different than the requirements of the main processing cores/threads of a CPU.
Giving the scheduler its own die/core/silicon would allow it to have cpu-reflection primitives so it can make more informed decisions, and the benefits of not having an interrupt come along and stomp your cache/bus states would help high-perf apps a lot.
Think about a big-data or finance linux server architecture for a moment. You have these finely-crafted, high-perf processes burning cpu threads to try and process expensive data loads and, when you paw thru the code, you find lots of repetition of scheduling and system reflection for self tuning, because the operating system does such a terrible job of scheduling once you stop pretending it's a 386 system.
You need a lot more insight into CPU state to be able to determine whether super-massively tuned, false-cache-avoiding, cache-warming super-app or "tail -f" would be worst affected by swapping it with a bash process or syslogd or ...
Providing some dedicated kernel silicon would (eventually) be massively advantageous. Initially for virtualization and containerization, but ultimately (if you think it through) having the bulk of the kernel or it's facilities on separate silicon would have huge benefits.
web.archive.org/web/20171220115909/https://www.gop.com/
Maybe they shouldn't have skipped that lecture.
Remember the term "surfing"? That's not what you're trying to do when you use a web-browser on your TV. This is for things like connecting your plex account to the plex app you just installed, or being able to hand off sites from your kindle to the big screen to show the family without a lot of fussing about and transferring stuff.
This isn't a new browser, it's the kindle/alexa ecosystem browser becoming available on a kindle/alexa ecosystem device, so the "PRAAHVAHCY!" response to this smacks of knee-to-the-nuts-in-the-mirror-jerk reaction.
For those of us who live the Kindle/Alexa lifestyle, this means Alexa being able to bring up pages on my TV instead of having to go fetch my kindle; it means that when I get pissed off trying to navigate thru Domino's pizza-ordering voice-state-machine farce, I have it bring up the web interface.
If this is "one more reason" you won't be buying a Kindle or Alexa, tell me about those aliens...
After the clusterfucks of Vista and 8, I had no hopes for 10. But then I have *switched* to using the full-screen start menu. It's my context-switch page. And yes, I do actually draw immense benefit from the live tiles because I've chosen apps with live tiles that actually suit me and help me keep my phone out of mind.
In a nutshell: A few seconds looking at my start screen replaces all kinds of other activities.
There are opportunities missed - like the ability to pin live tiles to the desktop, or the ability to pin a preview of an app as a live tile to the desktop or start screen/menu.
In particular, it's the long-running processes that would benefit here. Whether its a developer compiling a large project, someone converting a video or waiting on an upload. Progress dialogs would be a fantastic thing to be able to minimize an app to, especially when they are modal, and why not make that a tile?
But we're in agreement on the store. There's useful stuff in there, and as someone who trial-ran the Windows 7 Phone and watched it die because of the Windows 8 announcement and the immediate death of W7P app development, it's been forever clear that the Windows Store would never achieve the levels of usefulness of even PIP let alone something like the debian repos or brew.
San Fran isn't the most expensive part of the bay area, and $3000 rent is a pretty good deal. We pay $4k for a 3 bed in an Irvine Company complex at the San Jose end of the bay, 1600sqft: we're living comfortably. San Mateo, 30 minutes south of San Fran, you'd be looking at $3k for low quality. Redwood City, expect $3.6k+ for an apartment complex where the 2year old kid *walking* across the floor in the apartment above you will make the glasses in your kitchen shake...
Menlo Park, Mountain View, Sunnyvale - homes to Facebook and Google? Forget it.
People who can afford to live there are either earning ridiculous 6-7 figure salaries or they are grandfathered. Guy cut my hair in San Carlos bought his house for $75k and sold it last year for $1.5mil...
The rest of them have to commute. At Facebook, there was a group of ladies who carpooled in from near Gilroy, up to 2 hours each way.
They commute insane distances.
I'm missing that because its your imagination. And regardless of rank of the people who felt this strongly about the material, the simple facts remain: no stories were suppressed, whomever leaked this would have been all over that, there was just a discussion. "Facebook" didn't try anything, contrary to, what the article implies. Facebook asked itself whether it should act based on how some of what Trump says measures up to what non-followers gauge as hate speak. And they recognized they shouldn't.
"Employees" and "pushed for". According to Google, Facebook had over 12,500 employees in 2015. So some employees felt strongly enough about Trump's posts to raise a discussion, and the company said "No". Zero conspiracy. Nobody stole the secret codes to the hidden filter chamber.
Basically, this articles takes Facebook taking things seriously, doing what I think most of us would hope it would do, and tries to paint it as beastial. I would *hope* that Facebook /doesn't/ hire based on political perspective, so I would hope it has employees of all ends of the political perspective and seeks to maintain a neutral stance. That doesn't mean that it's employees shouldn't be able to raise their concerns internally either way.
The article misses a key word for both takedowns: briefly. It portrays Facebook as being unreachable by the posters, and yet tucked away at the end of the article, Facebook has reversed the decision and apologised *before* the takedown made press.
In that light, the article and your presumption of intent really don't hold up to scrutiny.