Either way, classified materials should never have been there.
It seems it really should not matter how the source code with the faulty algorithm got into the software build, either by a new development error or a build system regression.
Either way, the vulnerability should not have been there.
Of course they know you use an ad blocker. That's one more data point they have about you...
It lumps you into the bucket of people with enough initiative to change the default settings on any aspect of their daily existence. You're probably an educated technocrat.
Michael Housman... said that while the company's research hasn't identified anything to suggest causality, he does have a theory as to why this correlation exists. "I think that the fact that you took the time to install Firefox on your computer shows us something about you. It shows that you're someone who is an informed consumer.... you've made an active choice to do something that wasn't default."
Okay, you're harder to neutralize with micro-disinformation.
So they suck you into pointless debates about SpaceX, colonising Mars, medical nanotechnology, life extension, the AI singularity, Hayekian economics, Objectivism, or liberal save-the-world TED porn.
Effectiveness: what you know times what you do.
Wolowitz syndrome: able to configure an ad-blocker, but not exactly picking the right fight. ____
Working with his daughter Rebekah, he's spent tens of millions more to advance a conservative agenda, investing in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the media outlet Breitbart.com, and Cambridge Analytica, a data company that builds psychological profiles of voters.
Groups he funds have attacked the science of global warming, published a book critical of Hillary Clinton, and bankrolled a documentary celebrating Ayn Rand.
The highest work-stress job, from the Wharton–Harvard perspective, is the star performer (software developer, sales person) promoted into their first management position, often without any prior psychological preparation for the change (how hard can it be to manage people doing what I so clearly excelled at doing? larvae in ointment: without actually doing their work for them?)
In a high-pressure setting, first year is hell, usually devolves into an unrelenting fire fight, with a high ultimate attrition rate. (Who new that hardball sales tactics don't translate well to daily proximity?)
Once the junior manager recovers from Boot Camp, the job remains difficult, but the compensation is pretty good, if you "manage" to hang around long enough to get promoted off the management front line.
Year one: learning how to delegate down
Year two: paying more attention to what lies above (and not just the marching orders)
Year three: fully investing in peer relationships with other managers at the same level, elsewhere in the organization
Someone who entered the work force intending to become a manager likely accomplishes this in less time. But these people have always been a small minority in the studies I've read.
A year into the job, there is nearly a 100% response rate that the new managers had failed to appreciate the importance of investing in peer relationships (not that they would have found the time during Management Boot Camp 101 in any case). Lateral politics. It's a thing.
Back to the article, at the bottom of the heap, how does one carve a reasonable line between general life stress and work stress?
I can't even imagine.
Dunderheads. Imagine having to manage the people who wrote this study. One can only imagine.
Look on my workers, troubled sea of mighty dunderheads, and despair!
Lots of people tried to hang on and lost their shirts on moving expenses because the housing markets happened to be going the opposite way of the moves.
Happened to be? Just as PetroCan is shifting shop?
Housing prices track the revenue base of the community around them, outside of a few exceptional gardens of geriatric Eden.
When you compare the person that you hate most of all to group X as an insult, what does that suggest is your opinion of group X?
When you can't even figure out that "group X" includes many women (on the giving side) and most men/almost every aspiring young man (on the receiving side), what does that say about your human categorization tree?
Really, the only significant group of people that "group X" excludes in America are post-curiosity lesbians and the Christian evangelicals, subset prudish (minus a large, crescent-shaped bite from the om nom nom nom Venn circle "hypocrite").
[*] Most lesbians these days are post-curiosity lesbians, as the social cost of an openly lesbian lifestyle has become less obnoxious.
Colbert could easily level the playing field by finding a suitably target (male or female) with a tiny tongue to tag as "Marine Le Pen's clit carpet".
Only that would probably backfire for the worst reason: your grandfather's Leave it to Beaver infested FCC is probably still mired in distinguishing "cock" from "clit" on the obscenity scale, and he'd probably receive an even bigger fine.
It is simply not true that an English adverb must indicate the manner in which the actor performs the action.
Adverbs come in two kinds: "verb phrase" adverbs such as "carefully," which do refer to the actor, and "sentence" adverbs such as "frankly," which indicate the attitude of the speaker toward the content of the sentence.
Other examples of sentence adverbs are "accordingly," "basically," "confidentially," "happily," "mercifully," "roughly," "supposedly" and "understandably." Many (such as "happily") come from verb phrase adverbs, and they are virtually never ambiguous in context.
The use of "hopefully" as a sentence adverb, which has been around for at least sixty years, is a perfectly sensible example.
Perhaps the author of this story item regards it as consistent that a popular course among Harvard undergraduates is known for having an unconventional atmosphere.
sendfile(2) has a very precarious history of not working reliably with things like NFS and ZFS, or if working, the performance hit in kernel-land being major.
I hate this shit. This is going to become such a nightmare in three to five years when these CPUs begin to hit the resale market. Typing "Xeon E5" into eBay proved too damn useful, so now this.
I'm trying to imagine myself typing "gold + anything" into eBay, and failing miserably.
Or any other search bar, without requiring "Coinage Act of 1792" peril impervious sunshades.
Intel is lately taking a sharp turn back to their Edward "RoDRAM" Hyde persona. You see this with Optane and Optame Memory. And now this, too.
Any margin we want = Intel behaves like "gentleman" Jekyll (those steady royalty cheques from the British East India Company have a salutary, soothing effect).
Competitive reality = Intel behaves like Hyde on bath salts in a Dutch bordello.
The thing about precious metals, linguistically, is that it anchors into a one-dimensional pyramid of extreme greed.
Exclusivity is well-ordered. Exclusivity doesn't trade RPM for towing capacity (well, it does, but that was resolved by the six-car ocean-frontage garage). But in terms of the human metaphorical reflex, the greed anchor flattens the ordering relationship. It's no longer horses for courses (unless, of course, one has so many horses the course no longer matters, and the debate is really blondes vs. redheads over cigars and cognac, because one also has so many blondes and redheads).
Under this new naming system, Intel will inevitably become less of an engineering company as the marketrons ride again.
These slides are related to the talk, but might not be an exact match.
Funny anecdote: someone got Linux running on an ARM chip inside a disk drive. That would be really useful for beating up on the algorithms inside Intel's new Optame, er, Optane Memory.
Yes, design a motherboard you're happy with, then stick it in an anti-static bag alongside an OS X DVD.
I assume the OS X DVD is there to absorb shipping abuse.
The other possibility is that somebody finally got their D-Wave into the right superposition to write universal device drivers (technically, universal self-writing device drivers—plug in a new piece of hardware, and your system gets very warm for about a week, and then everything Just Works).
I once read an article that claimed that most of C could be implemented as M6800 assembler macros, and gave a good demonstration of a lot of the parts.
Absolutely true, although the dead giveaway is your use of the phrase could be, in much the same way one could step out one's front door buck naked.
What you're proposing is effectively an inefficient way to program in Forth. Wake me up when your assembler macros implement live variable analysis and optimal register spilling.
Forth was limited in this domain for a long time, too.
The M6800 has six registers: A, B, flags (8-bit), IX, SP, PC (16-bit). One's basic code-generation heuristic was "spill always" (actual hands-on experience). The M6800 also had fairly short and deterministic instruction execution times, and hardly any instruction decode pipelining, both immense factors in efficient code generation for the last two decades. Don't even get me started on pointer aliasing or out-of-order loads and stores.
Once upon a time, there was this weird illusion that a CPU cycle and an external memory operation took roughly the same amount of time... we've been piling on the smoke and mirrors to maintain this happy illusion ever since.
The original illusion was due to novel-technology fabrication constraints, not physics.
Lickety-split, physics won.
C++ templates abstract the translation problem, if that's what you want (it'll take you a long way, if you bend your nose to the grindstone).
Other languages are far superior in abstracting away the actual machine. I don't give a shit about those languages. Least appealing abstraction ever. (Next stop: abstract away human incompetence; frequently has that bus departed, rarely has that bus arrived.)
Still more recent languages manage to abstract the design space or the problem space. I could find some serious love for those languages. Come on down Elixir and Julia.
Bubble sort was invented because it's optimal on a Turing machine, and it's easy to laugh at (ha, ha, topology matters after all). Of course, Turing chose the most reductive topology (linear tape) to simplify proof mechanics, and not as a realistic topology for any computation, ever.
Two fundamental technologies define our current electronic regime:
The first puts us into a fundamentally 2D electronic topology at the lowest scale. The second determines the first-order term in thermal efficiency. We've been running these rapids for my entire life—and for the better part of 50 years, it never blinked.
At the layer of the data center, with all those high-speed cross-bar switches pancaking the fabric, the meta topology is closer to 4D at the logical level (switching latency), and 2.5D at the physical level (speed of light effects). But still 2D at the silicon level. (It's only recently that TSVHBM is starting to appear in GPUs targeted at neural networks. Call that 2.5D.) With electronic switching, the 4D term presently dominates, but with the advent of photonic switching, the 2.5D term will likely dominate (alongside a one or two order-of-magnitude improvement in data-center bisection bandwidth).
When you look at computation on a planetary scale, and we're back to 2D (so far we mostly install our computational devices in the razor-thin planetary biosphere).
Now the human brain is 3D volumetrically, but probably closer to 2.5D at the logical connectivity layer. Back up to 3D at the level of individual neural networks. (Is that important?)
The band seems to range from 1–70 Hz. This is not dissimilar to planetary Internet-scale resonant frequencies: light circles the equator at about 7 Hz.
Human social intelligence resonates on the scale of seconds to minutes (your average drunk can thumb-select a wry emoticon for his Twitter feed in about the same length of time it takes to eject a floppy disk and jam in a different one—also known as 10 billion clock cycles). Machine social intelligence—should this come to pass—will resonate on a scale somewhere in the milliseconds to low seconds range.
The cleavage points in the time domain are strikingly different, yet more or less the same cup of tea, all the same.
This argument from time is hardly decided. An argument from Joules would probably be more useful, but is presently hard to assess in any shallow way.
What's the asymptotic data-recall efficiency of photonic memory?
Guest: The basis of my non-worry comes from the fact that I think the idea of universal computation is a myth. And by universal computation is the belief that starting with the mathematical idea called Turing-Church hypothesis, which says any computation is equivalent to any other computation. The full version of that is: Any computation is equivalent to any other computation given infinite time and space.
From my original notes:
There was good stuff, but he also went on irritating rambles I wouldn't wish to consume again.... The weirdest one is where he challenges universal computation as applying only when infinite in time and infinite in space.
Kelly seems not to comprehend the challenge involved in proving near-equivalency of computational systems (over any ingenious metric) in the finite case. You'd be walking straight uphill in the general direction of Chaitin's constant.
Although there are infinitely many halting probabilities, it is common to use the letter omega to refer to them as if there were only one.
Is lumping omega actually a real problem?
Kelly seems pretty sure that omega comes in flavours marsupial and mammal ("substrates").
Feynman had a supreme knack of not screwing this stuff up, even when he was skirting a field he really didn't know much about. He had such a strong sense of when his own feet were on solid ground, and was extremely clever is turning the discussion to where his solid footing generally carried the day.
My last two reads in this area were The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013) and When Genius Failed (2000), both of which I found highly engaging.
Is that what you were looking for?
On my near-term list is The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers (2014).
If you haven't got a billion dollars, you can't blather on about colonising Mars. How admirably crytocurrency fills its niche as a poor man's wild west. It's got everything. A Chinese Boss Hogg with a Fu Machu mustache can suddenly jump out of the woodwork at any moment. Hot damn!
I was never much of an Oregon Trail dreamer myself, so this whole scene amuses me greatly.
Almost any controlled diet (short of rice-cakes and water) improves health outcomes over what people eat when they're paying less attention.
Almost every controlled diet excludes most of the same extremely suspect foods (high-fructose bonbons, anything out of the smokey, rarely replenished deep-fat frier from hell).
It probably is true that inflammation is the underlying malady. High LDL levels probably exacerbate the negative effects of inflammation. Refined-carbohydrate–rich diets combined with a sedentary lifestyle are known to be inflammatory.
As I recall, studies of hard-working farmers who ate six eggs a day (with bacon) and not much sugar haven't shown unusually high rates of coronary heart disease. Thus I've begun to suspect that the problem comes from overloading the metabolism on two axes at the same time (lipids and carbohydrates) while also tying one-hand to the sedentary-lifestyle bed post.
In paleolithic times, it was possible to gorge yourself (from time to time) on one food group or another (bananas or bison), but rarely both at the same time (and certainly not without taking a long hike at some point either before, during, or afterwards, plus there's no shortage of labour involved in harvesting a side of bison with a stone axe, or spending an entire day climbing banana trees). These days we hang around in coffee shops playing chess, and the forty-move time control rarely elapses without inducing yet another mocha frappe and a "small" serving of cheesecake (it sure looks small beside that sugary 20-ounce drink).
It seems like any one of three corrective actions: elimination of excess sugar (rice cakes are 100% sugar), elimination of excess fat, or a vigorous physical lifestyle has an enormously beneficial effect. I suspect that any change will do, just so long as your metabolism is not confronting the triple-risk zone on a regular basis.
Of course, if they convince you to stay out of all three risk zones at the same time (carbs from green vegetables only, no animal fat, high exercise) your risk of crossing through the triple-risk zone at any point in time goes almost to zero. I tend to think of that as the belt and suspenders and sneakers approach. Or, if you convince someone to achieve a half-hearted three days of out seven compliance on each of those, he or she is probably mostly out of the weeds, as well.
Evolution tends to make us pretty adaptive. Two out of three stress factors poses only a moderate problem. Three out of three stress factors (a condition almost impossible to achieve in our evolutionary history) and now you have a big problem.
Pure approach to at-worst two-out-of-three:
* farming with ox and plow (always work hard, eat whatever you damn well want) * total elimination of refined carbs (it's not easy to get or stay fat on this diet, unless you've already got metabolic syndrome) * total elimination of animal fat (combining balanced nutrition with a green lifestyle is now your biggest challenge; almond production requires six-times more water than industrial chicken meat, per delivered ounce)
Impure approach to mostly at-worst two-out-of-three:
* vigorous exercise two days a week (with sustained spurts of 8-10 METs, ya lazy yoga-pant moron) * complete elimination of sugary beverages (requires moderation of alcohol, too) * plenty of animal fat, but not in the form of steak and cheesecake dinners (bad fat+ sugar), or all-you-can-eat fettuccine Alfredo buffets (also bad-fat Hoover Dam + sugar Niagara)
Of course, in any controlled study, interventions that ask for the moon have more margin for non-compliance, and that effect will definitely be measured, and found statistically significant.
That doesn't mean that impure moderation doesn't provide 80% of the benefits for 20% of the religious conviction.
on average millennials expect to retire younger than other working age generations.
Did you mean:
on average millennials expect to retire younger than other working age generations expected to retire when polled in the same way, at a comparable age and state of employment?
UPDATE: as a direct result of "the views espoused in my engineering article on Medium" I have been terminated from my contracting position at my current employer.
What's he's hoping people read:
UPDATE: solely as a result of "the views espoused in my engineering article on Medium" I have been terminated from my contracting position at my current employer.
Unfortunately, version 1.0 typically falls under the thick veil of he said, she said.
Here's the exact point where he wanders off into the weeds:
Its intractability comes not from incompetency or from a lack of discipline,...
It doesn't take a 4-Sigmund review to spot the out-of-school litigation here. No one in a state of conflict appreciates the lateral spread of subtext.
I know estimation is often used as a management bully club, and I've had some pretty dark thoughts about some indivisuals who have chosen to behave that way, but sorry, I'm just not feeling the sympathy in this instance.
Because I hate to tell you, but stores in Beverly Hills charge more than they do in Compton for the exact same product.
Personally, I would lump the surcharge for blowing smoke up the customer's ass as part of the actual product for most of the merchandise available in Beverly Hills. When you're wealthy enough, the retail experience is the product, and what you actually take home is just the Broadway playbill souvenir.
You can buy a 128GB SSD for less than $77 (plus the cost of a new CPU and motherboard). Exactly what is Intel's value proposition?
Here, let me do your thinking for you.
1 TB NAS drives are running about USD $65 at Newegg today. You'll want to run two in a mirror configuration. (This will double your pathetic read IOPs over a non-mirrored drive, and double your sequential read performance to 300 MB/s.)
Both of those, plus the Optane SRT, works out to $207.
A single Crucial MX300 1 TB M.2 will run you USD $289 all by itself. The SRT-boosted system will probably allow you to search your file system metadata faster than the SSD. 300 MB/s sustained sequential read is actually pretty fast, if the hard drives aren't constantly interrupted to fetch small-block metadata.
Clearly, though, this product does not displace an SSD in your single, small SSD consumer box. Like, for a guy with nothing much to store, and infinite faith in angular's 50 different shades of cloudy "I agree".
While we're at it, let's clear up a second common misconception. Most people think that "pair" in "pair of pants" refers to the biological bilateral symmetry. But no, it actually refers to the sociologicalbicoronal symmetry—the imperfect, candle-light symmetry between front and back. Because I just know that you're going to complain that Joe consumer is not going to pony up for a NAS drive pair.
Well, Joe consumer does not have to pony up for a NAS drive pair. Best Buy will sell him the front half of the NAS pair for exactly half the price. And then the Best Buy moron-vultures will tell him that with only one drive, now he only needs the smaller Intel SRT, and now the wallet bump for 1 TB of SRT-enhanced NAS drive is down to a very attractive $109 and shoeless Joe gets some new shiny to crow about, too.
"But the other store told me all I needed was 128 GB!"
"Have you heard about the number of pixels in the camera of the new iPhone 9?"
"Really? The iPhone 9?"
"Yeah, it'll be so amazing. Don't be caught short with a tiny little SSD. Hey, and check out the mirror, too. You're looking gooood."
For this purpose, Best Buy has a special hand-held mirror, only slightly larger than a dental mirror, which makes it almost impossible to see the startled expression on the face of anyone milling around behind you.
A public act by an organization ignoring robots.txt will only lead to the justification of other organizations ignoring robots.txt.
So what? When DoubleClick argues that they ought to have the same advantages as Archive.org, they'll only manage to look like douchebags reaching their filthy hands into a cookie jar.
It's not always a bad thing to set up douchebag-honeypot moral exemption, even if it does depend on the mass audience (mostly) managing to find two sticks to rub together.
The real solution here is to make the directives in robots.txt more explicit concerning the predatory/non-predatory use cases.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems it really should not matter how the source code with the faulty algorithm got into the software build, either by a new development error or a build system regression.
Either way, the vulnerability should not have been there.
And your point is?
It lumps you into the bucket of people with enough initiative to change the default settings on any aspect of their daily existence. You're probably an educated technocrat.
People Who Use Firefox or Chrome Are Better Employees
Okay, you're harder to neutralize with micro-disinformation.
So they suck you into pointless debates about SpaceX, colonising Mars, medical nanotechnology, life extension, the AI singularity, Hayekian economics, Objectivism, or liberal save-the-world TED porn.
Effectiveness: what you know times what you do.
Wolowitz syndrome: able to configure an ad-blocker, but not exactly picking the right fight.
____
I've already got a bit of file on Robert Mercer.
Yachts seen close together — March 2017
As Rene Magritte would say, "this is not a smoking gun." Not yet, anyway. Hey, that reminds me, has anyone here got a match?
Rachel Maddow Explains "The Money Man" — August 2016
What Kind of Man Spends Millions to Elect Ted Cruz? — January 2016
The highest work-stress job, from the Wharton–Harvard perspective, is the star performer (software developer, sales person) promoted into their first management position, often without any prior psychological preparation for the change (how hard can it be to manage people doing what I so clearly excelled at doing? larvae in ointment: without actually doing their work for them?)
In a high-pressure setting, first year is hell, usually devolves into an unrelenting fire fight, with a high ultimate attrition rate. (Who new that hardball sales tactics don't translate well to daily proximity?)
Once the junior manager recovers from Boot Camp, the job remains difficult, but the compensation is pretty good, if you "manage" to hang around long enough to get promoted off the management front line.
Year one: learning how to delegate down
Year two: paying more attention to what lies above (and not just the marching orders)
Year three: fully investing in peer relationships with other managers at the same level, elsewhere in the organization
Someone who entered the work force intending to become a manager likely accomplishes this in less time. But these people have always been a small minority in the studies I've read.
A year into the job, there is nearly a 100% response rate that the new managers had failed to appreciate the importance of investing in peer relationships (not that they would have found the time during Management Boot Camp 101 in any case). Lateral politics. It's a thing.
Back to the article, at the bottom of the heap, how does one carve a reasonable line between general life stress and work stress?
I can't even imagine.
Dunderheads. Imagine having to manage the people who wrote this study. One can only imagine.
Look on my workers, troubled sea of mighty dunderheads, and despair!
Happened to be? Just as PetroCan is shifting shop?
Housing prices track the revenue base of the community around them, outside of a few exceptional gardens of geriatric Eden.
When you can't even figure out that "group X" includes many women (on the giving side) and most men/almost every aspiring young man (on the receiving side), what does that say about your human categorization tree?
Really, the only significant group of people that "group X" excludes in America are post-curiosity lesbians and the Christian evangelicals, subset prudish (minus a large, crescent-shaped bite from the om nom nom nom Venn circle "hypocrite").
[*] Most lesbians these days are post-curiosity lesbians, as the social cost of an openly lesbian lifestyle has become less obnoxious.
Colbert could easily level the playing field by finding a suitably target (male or female) with a tiny tongue to tag as "Marine Le Pen's clit carpet".
Only that would probably backfire for the worst reason: your grandfather's Leave it to Beaver infested FCC is probably still mired in distinguishing "cock" from "clit" on the obscenity scale, and he'd probably receive an even bigger fine.
Disgusting.
FTFY.
"due to" and "owing to" are bog-standard street English.
Strunk's junk:
as a result of by reason of by virtue of for the reason that on the grounds that seeing as as a result of in view of the fact thatSeriously, you need the tin ear of a Tin Woodsman to prefer any of those.
In other news, any "boiling" sound you hear is sensitive ears boiling away.
Your day must have been a good while back.
Should be:
The comma after "consistently" is less obvious.
Steven Pinker — 1994
Perhaps the author of this story item regards it as consistent that a popular course among Harvard undergraduates is known for having an unconventional atmosphere.
No?
Okay, I admit defeat.
Wow. +5 Anonymous Coward
Just one question.
Algernon, is that you?
You know, I would give quite a bit to see the Xeon Pentium D become known in street slang as the "Xeon Redhead".
Between the Xeon Bronze and the Xeon Silver, I'll take the Xeon Redhead every time.
Xeon Bronze Age Xeon Silver Fox Xeon Gold Digger Xeon Platinum Bridge Xeon Palladium Anode — Lucille's most likely official name___
Ricky: You've got some 'splaining to do.
Lucy: Er, uhhhh, cold fusion?
Ricky: Really? Cold fusion?
Lucy: Yeah! Cold fusion!
I hate this shit. This is going to become such a nightmare in three to five years when these CPUs begin to hit the resale market. Typing "Xeon E5" into eBay proved too damn useful, so now this.
I'm trying to imagine myself typing "gold + anything" into eBay, and failing miserably.
Or any other search bar, without requiring "Coinage Act of 1792" peril impervious sunshades.
Intel is lately taking a sharp turn back to their Edward "RoDRAM" Hyde persona. You see this with Optane and Optame Memory. And now this, too.
Any margin we want = Intel behaves like "gentleman" Jekyll (those steady royalty cheques from the British East India Company have a salutary, soothing effect).
Competitive reality = Intel behaves like Hyde on bath salts in a Dutch bordello.
The thing about precious metals, linguistically, is that it anchors into a one-dimensional pyramid of extreme greed.
Exclusivity is well-ordered. Exclusivity doesn't trade RPM for towing capacity (well, it does, but that was resolved by the six-car ocean-frontage garage). But in terms of the human metaphorical reflex, the greed anchor flattens the ordering relationship. It's no longer horses for courses (unless, of course, one has so many horses the course no longer matters, and the debate is really blondes vs. redheads over cigars and cognac, because one also has so many blondes and redheads).
Under this new naming system, Intel will inevitably become less of an engineering company as the marketrons ride again.
It's a thoroughly bad omen.
Not quite. You've failed to correct cubic Z$ for the inflationary event horizon using the Specie Rhodesity Lowrents transform.
It's not as much as you think.
Interesting.
I just watched Rudolf Marek: AMD x86 SMU firmware analysis yesterday afternoon.
slides
These slides are related to the talk, but might not be an exact match.
Funny anecdote: someone got Linux running on an ARM chip inside a disk drive. That would be really useful for beating up on the algorithms inside Intel's new Optame, er, Optane Memory.
I assume the OS X DVD is there to absorb shipping abuse.
The other possibility is that somebody finally got their D-Wave into the right superposition to write universal device drivers (technically, universal self-writing device drivers—plug in a new piece of hardware, and your system gets very warm for about a week, and then everything Just Works).
Absolutely true, although the dead giveaway is your use of the phrase could be, in much the same way one could step out one's front door buck naked.
What you're proposing is effectively an inefficient way to program in Forth. Wake me up when your assembler macros implement live variable analysis and optimal register spilling.
Forth was limited in this domain for a long time, too.
The M6800 has six registers: A, B, flags (8-bit), IX, SP, PC (16-bit). One's basic code-generation heuristic was "spill always" (actual hands-on experience). The M6800 also had fairly short and deterministic instruction execution times, and hardly any instruction decode pipelining, both immense factors in efficient code generation for the last two decades. Don't even get me started on pointer aliasing or out-of-order loads and stores.
Once upon a time, there was this weird illusion that a CPU cycle and an external memory operation took roughly the same amount of time ... we've been piling on the smoke and mirrors to maintain this happy illusion ever since.
The original illusion was due to novel-technology fabrication constraints, not physics.
Lickety-split, physics won.
C++ templates abstract the translation problem, if that's what you want (it'll take you a long way, if you bend your nose to the grindstone).
Other languages are far superior in abstracting away the actual machine. I don't give a shit about those languages. Least appealing abstraction ever. (Next stop: abstract away human incompetence; frequently has that bus departed, rarely has that bus arrived.)
Still more recent languages manage to abstract the design space or the problem space. I could find some serious love for those languages. Come on down Elixir and Julia.
Bah, I've got more.
Bubble sort was invented because it's optimal on a Turing machine, and it's easy to laugh at (ha, ha, topology matters after all). Of course, Turing chose the most reductive topology (linear tape) to simplify proof mechanics, and not as a realistic topology for any computation, ever.
Two fundamental technologies define our current electronic regime:
The first puts us into a fundamentally 2D electronic topology at the lowest scale. The second determines the first-order term in thermal efficiency. We've been running these rapids for my entire life—and for the better part of 50 years, it never blinked.
At the layer of the data center, with all those high-speed cross-bar switches pancaking the fabric, the meta topology is closer to 4D at the logical level (switching latency), and 2.5D at the physical level (speed of light effects). But still 2D at the silicon level. (It's only recently that TSV HBM is starting to appear in GPUs targeted at neural networks. Call that 2.5D.) With electronic switching, the 4D term presently dominates, but with the advent of photonic switching, the 2.5D term will likely dominate (alongside a one or two order-of-magnitude improvement in data-center bisection bandwidth).
When you look at computation on a planetary scale, and we're back to 2D (so far we mostly install our computational devices in the razor-thin planetary biosphere).
Now the human brain is 3D volumetrically, but probably closer to 2.5D at the logical connectivity layer. Back up to 3D at the level of individual neural networks. (Is that important?)
Neural oscillation
The band seems to range from 1–70 Hz. This is not dissimilar to planetary Internet-scale resonant frequencies: light circles the equator at about 7 Hz.
Human social intelligence resonates on the scale of seconds to minutes (your average drunk can thumb-select a wry emoticon for his Twitter feed in about the same length of time it takes to eject a floppy disk and jam in a different one—also known as 10 billion clock cycles). Machine social intelligence—should this come to pass—will resonate on a scale somewhere in the milliseconds to low seconds range.
The cleavage points in the time domain are strikingly different, yet more or less the same cup of tea, all the same.
This argument from time is hardly decided. An argument from Joules would probably be more useful, but is presently hard to assess in any shallow way.
What's the asymptotic data-recall efficiency of photonic memory?
Right. I've got no clue, either.
The problem with Kevin Kelly is that he tickles the part of your brain that wants more Richard Feynman, and then this.
This thesis is not new.
Kelly on the Future, Productivity, and the Quality of Life — January 2013
From my original notes:
Kelly seems not to comprehend the challenge involved in proving near-equivalency of computational systems (over any ingenious metric) in the finite case. You'd be walking straight uphill in the general direction of Chaitin's constant.
Is lumping omega actually a real problem?
Kelly seems pretty sure that omega comes in flavours marsupial and mammal ("substrates").
Feynman had a supreme knack of not screwing this stuff up, even when he was skirting a field he really didn't know much about. He had such a strong sense of when his own feet were on solid ground, and was extremely clever is turning the discussion to where his solid footing generally carried the day.
Kevin Kelly not so much.
My last two reads in this area were The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013) and When Genius Failed (2000), both of which I found highly engaging.
Is that what you were looking for?
On my near-term list is The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers (2014).
Perhaps that's more what you're after.
I also liked The Man in the Machine (2015).
If you haven't got a billion dollars, you can't blather on about colonising Mars. How admirably crytocurrency fills its niche as a poor man's wild west. It's got everything. A Chinese Boss Hogg with a Fu Machu mustache can suddenly jump out of the woodwork at any moment. Hot damn!
I was never much of an Oregon Trail dreamer myself, so this whole scene amuses me greatly.
Almost any controlled diet (short of rice-cakes and water) improves health outcomes over what people eat when they're paying less attention.
Almost every controlled diet excludes most of the same extremely suspect foods (high-fructose bonbons, anything out of the smokey, rarely replenished deep-fat frier from hell).
It probably is true that inflammation is the underlying malady. High LDL levels probably exacerbate the negative effects of inflammation. Refined-carbohydrate–rich diets combined with a sedentary lifestyle are known to be inflammatory.
As I recall, studies of hard-working farmers who ate six eggs a day (with bacon) and not much sugar haven't shown unusually high rates of coronary heart disease. Thus I've begun to suspect that the problem comes from overloading the metabolism on two axes at the same time (lipids and carbohydrates) while also tying one-hand to the sedentary-lifestyle bed post.
In paleolithic times, it was possible to gorge yourself (from time to time) on one food group or another (bananas or bison), but rarely both at the same time (and certainly not without taking a long hike at some point either before, during, or afterwards, plus there's no shortage of labour involved in harvesting a side of bison with a stone axe, or spending an entire day climbing banana trees). These days we hang around in coffee shops playing chess, and the forty-move time control rarely elapses without inducing yet another mocha frappe and a "small" serving of cheesecake (it sure looks small beside that sugary 20-ounce drink).
It seems like any one of three corrective actions: elimination of excess sugar (rice cakes are 100% sugar), elimination of excess fat, or a vigorous physical lifestyle has an enormously beneficial effect. I suspect that any change will do, just so long as your metabolism is not confronting the triple-risk zone on a regular basis.
Of course, if they convince you to stay out of all three risk zones at the same time (carbs from green vegetables only, no animal fat, high exercise) your risk of crossing through the triple-risk zone at any point in time goes almost to zero. I tend to think of that as the belt and suspenders and sneakers approach. Or, if you convince someone to achieve a half-hearted three days of out seven compliance on each of those, he or she is probably mostly out of the weeds, as well.
Evolution tends to make us pretty adaptive. Two out of three stress factors poses only a moderate problem. Three out of three stress factors (a condition almost impossible to achieve in our evolutionary history) and now you have a big problem.
Pure approach to at-worst two-out-of-three:
* farming with ox and plow (always work hard, eat whatever you damn well want)
* total elimination of refined carbs (it's not easy to get or stay fat on this diet, unless you've already got metabolic syndrome)
* total elimination of animal fat (combining balanced nutrition with a green lifestyle is now your biggest challenge; almond production requires six-times more water than industrial chicken meat, per delivered ounce)
Impure approach to mostly at-worst two-out-of-three:
* vigorous exercise two days a week (with sustained spurts of 8-10 METs, ya lazy yoga-pant moron)
* complete elimination of sugary beverages (requires moderation of alcohol, too)
* plenty of animal fat, but not in the form of steak and cheesecake dinners (bad fat+ sugar), or all-you-can-eat fettuccine Alfredo buffets (also bad-fat Hoover Dam + sugar Niagara)
Of course, in any controlled study, interventions that ask for the moon have more margin for non-compliance, and that effect will definitely be measured, and found statistically significant.
That doesn't mean that impure moderation doesn't provide 80% of the benefits for 20% of the religious conviction.
But our research is never geared to tell us this.
Did you mean:
If not, fake news.
What he wrote:
What's he's hoping people read:
Unfortunately, version 1.0 typically falls under the thick veil of he said, she said.
Here's the exact point where he wanders off into the weeds:
It doesn't take a 4-Sigmund review to spot the out-of-school litigation here. No one in a state of conflict appreciates the lateral spread of subtext.
I know estimation is often used as a management bully club, and I've had some pretty dark thoughts about some indivisuals who have chosen to behave that way, but sorry, I'm just not feeling the sympathy in this instance.
Personally, I would lump the surcharge for blowing smoke up the customer's ass as part of the actual product for most of the merchandise available in Beverly Hills. When you're wealthy enough, the retail experience is the product, and what you actually take home is just the Broadway playbill souvenir.
Here, let me do your thinking for you.
1 TB NAS drives are running about USD $65 at Newegg today. You'll want to run two in a mirror configuration. (This will double your pathetic read IOPs over a non-mirrored drive, and double your sequential read performance to 300 MB/s.)
Both of those, plus the Optane SRT, works out to $207.
A single Crucial MX300 1 TB M.2 will run you USD $289 all by itself. The SRT-boosted system will probably allow you to search your file system metadata faster than the SSD. 300 MB/s sustained sequential read is actually pretty fast, if the hard drives aren't constantly interrupted to fetch small-block metadata.
Clearly, though, this product does not displace an SSD in your single, small SSD consumer box. Like, for a guy with nothing much to store, and infinite faith in angular's 50 different shades of cloudy "I agree".
While we're at it, let's clear up a second common misconception. Most people think that "pair" in "pair of pants" refers to the biological bilateral symmetry. But no, it actually refers to the sociological bicoronal symmetry—the imperfect, candle-light symmetry between front and back. Because I just know that you're going to complain that Joe consumer is not going to pony up for a NAS drive pair.
Well, Joe consumer does not have to pony up for a NAS drive pair. Best Buy will sell him the front half of the NAS pair for exactly half the price. And then the Best Buy moron-vultures will tell him that with only one drive, now he only needs the smaller Intel SRT, and now the wallet bump for 1 TB of SRT-enhanced NAS drive is down to a very attractive $109 and shoeless Joe gets some new shiny to crow about, too.
"But the other store told me all I needed was 128 GB!"
"Have you heard about the number of pixels in the camera of the new iPhone 9?"
"Really? The iPhone 9?"
"Yeah, it'll be so amazing. Don't be caught short with a tiny little SSD. Hey, and check out the mirror, too. You're looking gooood."
For this purpose, Best Buy has a special hand-held mirror, only slightly larger than a dental mirror, which makes it almost impossible to see the startled expression on the face of anyone milling around behind you.
So what? When DoubleClick argues that they ought to have the same advantages as Archive.org, they'll only manage to look like douchebags reaching their filthy hands into a cookie jar.
It's not always a bad thing to set up douchebag-honeypot moral exemption, even if it does depend on the mass audience (mostly) managing to find two sticks to rub together.
The real solution here is to make the directives in robots.txt more explicit concerning the predatory/non-predatory use cases.
If you can successfully write that prior down, you're almost certainly wrong.
If you can't write that prior down, you're still wrong (but in the opposite direction).