It's a common argument, but why does x86 continue to dominate, in performance and performance-per-dollar and performance-per-watt? (If not absolute-low-watts.)
Is it just because they have the best fabs or designers or the most experience? Those are probably true, but you seem like you know what you're talking about so I'd like to float a different theory:
- x86 has a pretty expressive instruction set which improves code density enough that more code can fit in cache than RISC-y architectures - Modern processors are so fast and have so many cores that the RAM is often the bottleneck, especially with NUMA. Managing the cache is more and more important, so code density pays increasing dividends - The standard argument is that the compiler can make better optimization decisions, but is that really true? Intel's engineers are really really good and the optimization they're able to do in generating the microinstructions (and potentially different microinstructions for identical instructions!) that's informed by their intimate knowledge of that specific die are just too powerful to beat the compilers, which don't know the chip as well as the designer.
It's a bit like the native code vs JIT VM debate - the VM folks argue that the VM knows more about the program since it's at a higher level and can make smarter choices. I wonder if CISC is analogous to VM bytecode here.
I should also note the irony of essentially saying "the compiler makers will figure out how to make the dumb chip fast" on an article about Itanium - that's a large part of why it failed, even Intel couldn't figure out how to make a compiler good enough to really make use of the chip. Of course Itanium wasn't RISC, but still.
Likewise; I first booted it in a VM probably 10+ years ago. It's a nifty idea but it's far, far behind Wine. It's probably great if you're the sort of person who gets excited about the NT kernel and know about subsystems other than Win32 (though I don't actually know how NT-style the kernel of ReactOS is).
It turns out making a Windows compatibility layer as well as the kernel, sound, print, network, graphics, etc stacks is kind of a lot of work and there's a good reason for taking an existing fully-featured OS and adding just the compatibility layer. If you like Windows, you might be better off working on a Windows-style desktop environment for Linux.
Code review isn't supposed to be about rejecting code, it's supposed to be about improving code and providing another set of eyes with a different perspective. In several years doing code reviews for men and women, and having my code reviewed by men and women (for >1000 overall), I can count on maybe two hands the number of changes that I'd count as rejected - either because the change was unneeded and I was misunderstanding, or because it was needed but I wasn't the person to do it because I wasn't experienced enough with the code I was changing. Many changes go through substantial rework, though as you gain experience you can write better code that needs fewer fixes - so if on average females are more junior (which is true across a wide range of industries and largely responsible for the gender pay gap) then they will on average face greater rework - though on an individual basis they will face less and less as they become more experienced just like everyone else.
But thinking of - or practicing - code review as adversarial or something where changes can be "rejected" (other than for mundane reasons like trying to change another team's code in ways that don't fit their model of how their code works) is an antipattern. The most senior people, people who literally have invented entire disciplines, still have their code reviewed and change it in response to feedback. My tech lead likes to say that "confusion is a signal" - if your code is so brilliant or clever that it leaves a brand new engineer going "wha?" then it means you have to fix it, regardless of how senior you are, since the code should be understandable by the average employee. And when I review code I don't expect to pass down edicts, and probably 10-15% of my comments receive pushback from the author. It has to be a real problem for me to actually refuse to accept a change - maybe that's happened twice for reasons of code quality and not the mundane stuff I mentioned earlier like "I planned to rewrite how that test worked anyway, let's hold off on this hacky fix since I'll fix it properly". I prefer to chat informally with the author (and, and as an author, vice-versa) to come to something mutually agreeable, which lets me understand their concerns and vice-versa - and we both learn something.
Great story - I'd never heard that one, but I had heard the one about Woz hand-assembling Integer BASIC because they couldn't afford to buy a symbolic assembler.
Little nit, the FAA doesn't (usually) require scheduled overhauls at "TBO" (time before overhaul) for part 91 (basically, private aviation) operations. And an engine overhaul is more like $15,000-$20,000 (for an IO-360). (There's a reason pilots/aircraft owners joke about the AMU - aviation maintenance unit - or $1,000. Basically nothing costs under that.)
The real killer will be the multi-thousand-dollar annual inspections required of every certified aircraft - not to mention airworthiness directives.
I'm ICS 100, 200, 300, and NIMS 700 certified, so I definitely buy the need for coordination - but this is a lot of the same stuff that people have been talking about forever, and they've been trying to throw money at the problem with absolutely no success. And our agency actually responded (before I joined) to the staging area at Jersey City on 9/11/2011. (There were effectively no injuries - everyone was fine and dusty, or dead...)
We mostly use a UHF system on a spare frequency the police already had a repeater set up for. It's a huge upgrade from our low-band VHF system (46MHz) that was unrepeated, though we still use that for dispatch because we can't afford to buy UHF pagers for everyone. We have no shortage of frequencies, and can mostly talk to the people we need to talk to, but it's not easy. On our UHF radio we can talk to our police, ourselves, one of the two neighboring towns' police departments - the other one is on a trunking system we can't access, so we have their fire department programmed in (which doesn't do us any good except at a fire standby).
We have a VHF radio for exactly this sort of cross-agency collaboration, but it's hardly simple. There's 4 different state police frequencies, there's something called JEMS which has 5(?) frequencies, some of which are used for normal operations by some city's paramedic team, and several other tactical (VTAC) frequencies as well. (We don't have access to UTAC, I don't think.) Basically we assume the next time "the big one" happens, we'll show up and ought to have the frequencies programmed in that they tell us to use, but we don't know what those are and we don't really expect any coordination to work very well. Radio protocol is shit even (especially?) by the pros, and between range and availability concerns we're not really convinced. I'm really the only one who knows how to use it, and maybe a few of the emergency management wonks who are planning to make a living in public safety. With the main radio being in the ambulance, coordination with folks in the field is difficult and likely to happen on agency frequencies. The state gave us one or two VHF handheld radios with most of the same frequencies, but that doesn't really help. Mostly we use our VHF gear for calling the hospitals and I sometimes put up the NOAA weather or medic dispatch frequency, but that's just me.
It sounds like what they're proposing is sort of uber-trunking-system, which would be pretty cool if it actually worked - basically you mostly live on your agency's and other commonly used talkgroups like today's programmed frequencies, but then when you need to, just type in some nationwide ID and everyone's radio can talk to everyone else's.
Simple enough, right? The problem is: - The existing tech is mostly proprietary. - It doesn't scale to this level. - Trunking radio has a nasty fallback mode when the coordinator(name?) fails - basically the radios revert to normal analog operation. That's obviously not acceptable for any nationwide effort, so it really can't fail. But it can't be like a cellphone base station either, where it turns into a brick if the base is down. - Public safety radios are hilariously expensive - think >$800 per (basic!) handheld, far more for a mobile or base station, and then labor for programming and setup - so if you want people to actually switch you're gonna need to drop a lot of cash. If we were to upgrade everyone's radio this year it would cost more than our entire annual expenditures on *everything else*. (Mind you, they are worth the money - they are virtually indestructible and it's not something you want to fail at a bad time.)
I also don't like how they play up the data aspect. Data is occasionally useful for computer-aided dispatch purposes (which we have, technically, because our dispatcher isn't using pen and paper - except they do, mostly) but it's overhyped. Big cities make more effective use, where multiple units can be coordinated more automatically than with voice, but even there that's more about e
Any of those operating in class-B airspace are required to be in communication with and complying with ATC instructions. If I want to fly over Newark Airport, which I've done, I have to follow the rules - and they're quite precise. (They want you to fly directly over the runway numbers, since the only place at an airport where's no planes is directly above the runway.)
You need explicit clearance to enter class-B airspace and usually a transponder code so they can track you specifically. If you deviate from their instructions you can expect FAA enforcement action.
Never heard of such a thing. The large airports I've flown into generally have markings on the pavement denoting the secure area, and you don't cross it unless you felt like having some very awkward conversations with people with large guns. Which makes sense as the real danger (to the extent there is any) comes from being within the aircraft with a bunch of people at your mercy (or vice-versa, as seems more common) or being able to somehow compromise the aircraft itself while in flight - neither of which are served particularly well from a Cessna on the ramp, or even taxiing before or after the jet. Sure you could load up with explosives and it would mess up the jet but it's doubtful you'd do much damage to a lot of people inside.
That's a 5,000 foot runway: https://www.airnav.com/airport/KHHR. That's quite long actually - for comparison, LaGuardia in NYC only has 7,000 foot runways. 5kft isn't enough for a hundred-person passenger jet (well maybe, if you're light) but lots of private jets are just fine.
Most of the numbers that are immediately available are max takeoff weight (MTOW), you'd have to go into the POH to get the numbers for lower weights. The bigger private jets may need to not take off with full fuel, but they won't normally do that anyway except in rare circumstances - you'd generally only carry enough fuel for the flight and legal reserve, plus a generous safety margin on top, since it costs fuel and speed to carry excess fuel. You'd want full fuel if you were going somewhere far away but that's only a factor if your destination was makeable safely with full fuel, but not makeable without - otherwise you have to land somewhere in the middle anyway and it doesn't matter how much fuel you have as long as you can make it midway (and you'd probably not carry too much extra beyond midway fuel for the above reasons).
No. Fake news is news that's been deliberately fabricated, often to make its purveyors money, and doesn't attempt to relate to the truth. For instance, "child sex ring in some Washington pizza shop" - there's just no relationship to the truth and whatever their reasons for publishing such nonsense, it wasn't an attempt to inform anyone of anything that could plausibly have been said to have been real. Real news may be inaccurate or flat-out wrong, but real news is intended to be based on some sort of truth. Now whether and how often a particular source succeeds could be a question of some debate, but even the most partisan news sources are - if they're real news - based on some event that actually occurred.
The deliberate confusion of "fake news" with "news I don't like" is actually a very postmodern idea. There's no such thing as fact, it's just your perception that matters.
The only time I can think of where Obama attacked some specific, average guy just doing his job, he realized he fucked up and invited him to the White House for beers and things ended amicably. Trump did it unapologetically before even taking office and the guy hadn't even wronged anyone but Trump.
Name the things Trump wants to do that are the same as what Obama wanted to do. The list isn't zero (things like infrastructure, which Obama was stymied on by the Republicans in Congress) but I'm curious what you come up with.
This times a thousand. I've had my AT&T number since they were Cingular in 2005, and that was on my parents' account that had been AT&T since the early nineties - their first phone was AMPS, and I remember at age 6 or so them complaining about the new digital (D-AMPS) service's coverage range. I signed up for unlimited data for $20/mo on a Razr with HSDPA back in 2005 that I modded to have push IMAP and other smartphone-like capability years before the iPhone came out. AT&T is more expensive than others, but the service is quite good and very fast, and their network uses international standards. I primarily have the unlimited data because I just don't want to think about my use of cellular data - and until the recent price hikes you didn't save any money switching to a metered tier ($30 for unlimited, or $30 for 2GB? What do you think?).
I may not walk right away, but eventually they will succeed in getting me off unlimited data. What I can tell you is they won't be steering me to one of their metered plans, they'll be steering me to T-Mobile where I can get comparable service for half the price, and even though I'd be allowed less full-speed data I wouldn't have any bill concerns which is all I ever wanted.
That's something you'll need to backup with facts. In the past 10 years where I've lived various governments have caved under pressure to let kids get their L plates at an earlier and earlier age.
That would have a lot to do with very little information being passed onto them and people complaining about it everytime they do. How they would love to know how many hours you spend behind the wheel, as you already alluded to:-)
So we're in agreement - without that data they can't do much more than average across the population. But that unfairly (for some definition of "fair") benefits some people while punishing others, assuming you believe in some notion of the intrinsic safety of a driver
Not only did it count for me, the insurance company promoted the classes and I was able to claim back the cost of the class from the insurance company.
This wasn't a class the public could take - it was a class about emergency driving, with lights and siren. It did involve going on a skid pad and learning how to drive through a loss of traction, as well as slalom and reverse-slalom as well as general situational awareness (there's no rear window so you have to track where nearby cars are). Most useful to me was learning driver "psychology" as it were, learning how people in aggregate respond to unusual situations and seeing lots of examples of the ways drivers can screw up given a surprising event means I'm rarely surprised by what someone on the road does. I've had to take evasive action several times to avoid an imminent crash and it's certainly helped to know the limits of the vehicle performance, the road surface, and what the other driver(s) are likely to do given the circumstances.
I don't expect the insurance company to promote or pay for such a class, and in fact they would have no business doing so, but if they took it into consideration it would be a sign that they were willing to individualize their notion of driver risk. But they aren't interested.
Really to be fair, flying a plane is a very different skill set than driving a car. It is a much more refined skill with a metric shitload of inference based on information provided by instrumentation. Where looking out the window becomes important a lot of information is incredibly subtle (at height the landscape can appear almost unmoving) By comparison one of the biggest problems with new drivers is they spend too much time looking at instruments in a scenario where pretty much anything can jump out infront of their windscreen at any moment. It's a very different kind of situational awareness, and personally I don't believe that being a pilot would make you a better (or worse) driver on the road but I would be happy to see some stats to correct me.
The biggest problem with new pilots is that they spend too much time looking at instruments, too. Most private flying is done visually and "seat of the pants", and a flight instructor will commonly cover up all the instruments if a new student is fixating on something (usually the artificial horizon) to try to fly the plane without a "feel" for it. We don't typically fly high enough for the landscape to seem still; it's typical for me to fly at 3500' or 5500' and I spent a lot of time lower than 2500'.
I never said that they were exactly the same skillset, and I don't have any data, but becoming a pilot forces you to become very very good at multitasking, risk management, planning ahead (both before you get in the p
A bit offtopic, but I'd like to see any data suggesting that 16 or 18 year olds have substantially harder times with self-control than people in their 30s or older. I suspect the biggest factor is that you stop getting in "trouble" for it (aside from ending up broke or pregnant/a dad or with a shit life or alcoholism or something) or that being underage puts you in position where similarly-stupid behavior has bigger consequences. Certainly I knew plenty of kids who did stupid things, but I know plenty of older adults who also do similar kinds of stupid things and I know of no data to refute the idea that some people just are bad at self-control and we just hold it against young people as a class instead of adults where we're willing to localize it to the individual.
Most of the times people come out with data from brain scans (not sufficient, the brain is too complex to be reduced to size comparisons, as a recent study about brain-size changes as a result of pregnancy) or things like drunk-driving accidents. How many of those were a result of being unable to drink legally at the bar or picking up some liquor at the store for consumption at home? Personally I've never driven drunk, but all the times it would have solved a problem for me were before I was 21. You also tend to drink more if you're not - and can't - pay for it, between it being someone else's opportunity and the relative rarity of any alcohol promoting bingeing when it is available. Once you turn 21 it's usually a hit to your own wallet, which tends to put a damper on things. And my behavior personally changed quite a bit when I got a friend who was 21 and I could just keep beer in my fridge as a result - I started drinking better beer less frequently and stopped going to parties for the sole purpose of having alcohol.
Now that people are learning to drive later in life, insurance companies are starting to move away from age as a risk factor for precisely the reason that the GP states. Someone who learns to drive at 25 is not particularly safer after 5 years (at 30) than someone who started driving at 16 after 5 years (at 21). States' "graduated drivers' licenses" are needing adjustment as well. When I got licensed in NJ starting at 16, I had to take a 6-hour road course with a school (after passing the written test of course), then I could drive with parents until 17, then I could drive by myself and one non-family member (and nowadays a red sticker) until 18 when I got a full license. So by 18 I'd already done hundreds of hours of accident- and ticket-free driving, but they still wanted a fortune for insurance. Meanwhile someone I know got licensed in NJ at 22, and they pretty much turned him loose after filling out some paperwork, 3 months of "supervised driving" (which he didn't actually do for more than a few hours, being out of the country for most of it), and passing the "road test" which consists of driving around a parking lot - and his insurance starting out was cheaper than mine after 2 years of driving despite having spent about 10 hours in the drivers' seat.
In general, car insurance companies are not particularly good at estimating individual risk. My insurance rates were unaffected by becoming a certified emergency vehicle operator (for my town's volunteer ambulance agency) on my 18th birthday, which requires special training. For some reason the computer goes "ding" if you have a good high school report card (which I did), but spending a day of classroom and on-the-road training in how to handle vehicles and other drivers while operating radios and sirens doesn't count. Becoming a pilot didn't count either, despite extensive training and practice in high-stakes multitasking, situational awareness, and "thinking ahead of the vehicle" that you can feel working on every drive. But getting a high-paying job in a city where I don't drive at all (and thus lose practice)? Sure, lower rates.
For flying, your insurance has to do with the value of the airplane modulated by your experience as a pilot (in number of hours) as well as any advanced ratings on your certificate. For instance an instrument rating dramatically lowers what you pay. For driving they have their tables based on age and length of license, but those are aggregate statistics. Even if you kept a logbook of every drive and its duration and special skills required on that drive (analogous to the one pilots keep for flying), they wouldn't be interested. This is why the insurance companies are so interested in those ODB plugs with cell modems to report on your driving skill, to actually get that info.
I'm still pretty damn liberal, and I paid in excess of $80,000 in tax last year and have the W2 to prove it. I'm not making enough to get out of paying any of it, either. (I reduced my AMT by about $800 because I made a retroactive contribution to a HSA, but that's it.) Most people in this country don't make as much income as I pay in tax (the median income is something like $50k?). They certainly don't pay as high an high overall rate, especially if they get to deduct mortgage interest (I pay rent in an apartment) or aren't subject to AMT.
I look at what the federal, state, and local governments do with my tax money and figure they should do even more. Sure they ought to be more efficient, which is true for everything, but that would let them do more stuff without having to raise taxes.
But then again I can see that government services - like universal healthcare - are frequently a way to reduce my out-of-pocket expenses. There's also the tiny problem that if things get bad enough, people will rise up and attack - and I don't have the kind of money to buy an island or private army or something.
Yeah, I know people like you. You voted for someone you don't understand and have no clue either what he's going to do. (But you're sure it'll be good, or at least better.) You trust that he's got your interests in heart, because billionaire real-estate magnate sons of millionaire fathers know your problems well. (Or at least better than Clinton.) You're sure he's going to do all the things he said, except the things you figure he didn't really mean, right? (Of course, those two sets are different for each supporter and even opponent.)
Basically it's an experiment, but that's not so bad because you think things are really bad and they can't get any worse.
If it does, then we probably need one I hate to say. The Founding Fathers were very smart and chose to make the Electoral College full of people who could vote however they chose. They knew full well they could simply do the numerical apportionment we all assume today's EC is, but they didn't - it's people. The only reason that could be is because they were expected to make their own choice, and the only time that's meaningful is if it's different from what the popular vote in their state was.
If the Electoral College exercises their intended autonomy and doesn't elect Trump, they are doing the very thing they're there for. If that - following the letter and intent of the Constitution - causes a revolution then we are a very sick country indeed.
On the other hand, if the EC rubber-stamps Trump's nomination, I have to ask: what purpose does the EC serve? Under what circumstances would they exercise that autonomy? Do we even need an EC at all in that case? And if we're changing things, how should we elect the president considering the urbanization of the country? The current system gives far more weight to citizens in rural states than urban ones, and we should have a conversation about that as well.
Honestly the country is very, very ill. I sometimes wonder if the "liberal" and "conservative" areas would consent to a sort of a "trial separation" - say 6 or 10 years, something with a fixed end date that would result in a vote to continue or reunite. The details are extremely complex but it's the only thing I can come up with that might get people appreciating their countrymates.
That's an overly simplistic (dare I say, engineering) view of how the law works. While their decisions are grounded in statute and constitutional law, as well as common law, they have broad enough latitude in how they apply it that they use a number of doctrines to actually figure out how they're going to rule even if they could rule either way based on the merits of the case. The higher up the court, the more likely this becomes - after all the case is sufficiently ambiguous that the lower courts couldn't resolve it easily. These doctrines are broadly speaking the court's view of "justness" and help them consistently apply the law to the facts of the case.
For instance, a number of laws have been struck down as being overly vague and a court could certainly find that because your hypothetical law doesn't define "shoe size" precisely enough, it's essentially void. Or if they figured that such a law was fair, they could also agree with the government that "shoe size" is commonly understood.
Put more broadly, one of the reasons the courts are so important is because they can essentially create law from thin air. For instance, did you know that the Constitution has nothing in it giving the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws? The court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison. (It's a bit more complicated than that, as history is, but nonetheless the Constitution doesn't mention it.) The court's mandate is deliberately left vague enough to continue to be relevant - for instance, if you piss off the court, you might find yourself jailed indefinitely for contempt, which is the only indefinite detention allowed by law. If you proscribe a court's behavior too much it becomes too easy to circumvent which leads to absurdities. Thankfully courts are reactive, not proactive, by nature - and they tend to have pretty reasonable and history-conscious people on them, so this usually works out alright.
Sure. On the money side I was against Citizens United, and on the media side I think cable news is an abomination. There's a lot to be said for there being a few national networks - ideally non-profit public broadcasters - that attempt to reach everybody. With a national audience you have to be balanced and clearly call out editorializing to be broadly palatable. Cable news (let alone the Internet) can get away with confusing opinion and fact on a regular basis - in fact it's a virtue.
But again, we expect citizens to influence our elections. Foreign governments don't get to do it, let alone covertly. It's axiomatic. Why is this so hard?
No. It doesn't work that way. Governments don't get to interfere in other country's elections without repercussions. Full stop. Especially covertly - if their motives are so noble why are they all cloak and dagger? Is it because they think people wouldn't like it if they started running ads on TV saying "Russia thinks you should vote for Trump"? You know, the last time the Russians interfered in our elections, people got kind of annoyed about it.
If you think saying this is locker room banter, stay the FUCK out of my locker room. I've heard some stuff in locker rooms and it didn't come close to this. You just don't get it, do you? There's a difference between "wow, she's hot, I'd like to fuck her, look at those boobs, think they're real?" and "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything"
One is vulgar appreciation for hot women, which (while in poor taste perhaps) certainly qualifies as locker room banter. Guys think women are hot and would like to have sex with them - news at 11. Talking about how you, as a celebrity, get to "grab 'em by the pussy" and KNOWING that you get away with it is a whole other level. It's not abstract, it's not hypothetical, and there's mounting evidence that this has actually happened more than once.
You are what is wrong with this country. And you don't even understand why! Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment was a pretty awful thing to say about her countrymates, but damn it all you just keep trying to prove it, huh?
Clinton is a damaged candidate in a lot of ways and I doubt she'll be seen as one of history's great presidents. Trump represents an existential threat to this country. And if you don't see why, you are the existential threat. Because the problem isn't Trump - it's you who have brought him to the cusp of power and given him the support he requires. Without you and your cohorts he has nothing but money. When he loses, you will still be there.
I have made it a point of pride to respect people I disagree with politically. I understood Mitt Romney and his supporters, I knew John McCain was a decent man, and thought Paul Ryan was looking out for the best interests of the country. I knew they saw the world and the country and its problems differently than I did, but that seems like a silly thing to lose respect over. This year that all went out the window. I can have no respect for the Trump supporter. It's that simple. You've allowed yourself to become so wound up over a bogus set of facts that you can't even see where you're going, and you can't be allowed to take the country with you. Even Trump campaign staffers have had enough!
"It's appalling. It's just flat out appalling," a Trump adviser said.
Asked about the reaction at a campaign field office, a Trump field staffer told CNN there were "gasps. Collective gasps. We're trying to get our heads around it right now, but there's no way to spin this. There just isn't."
Don't bother replying, I really don't care what you think. Instead take the time to ask a woman in your life what she thinks about someone famous and powerful grabbing them by the pussy because he knows she won't be able to do anything to him. You at least have a mother or aunt or sister or something so ask her.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a common argument, but why does x86 continue to dominate, in performance and performance-per-dollar and performance-per-watt? (If not absolute-low-watts.)
Is it just because they have the best fabs or designers or the most experience? Those are probably true, but you seem like you know what you're talking about so I'd like to float a different theory:
- x86 has a pretty expressive instruction set which improves code density enough that more code can fit in cache than RISC-y architectures
- Modern processors are so fast and have so many cores that the RAM is often the bottleneck, especially with NUMA. Managing the cache is more and more important, so code density pays increasing dividends
- The standard argument is that the compiler can make better optimization decisions, but is that really true? Intel's engineers are really really good and the optimization they're able to do in generating the microinstructions (and potentially different microinstructions for identical instructions!) that's informed by their intimate knowledge of that specific die are just too powerful to beat the compilers, which don't know the chip as well as the designer.
It's a bit like the native code vs JIT VM debate - the VM folks argue that the VM knows more about the program since it's at a higher level and can make smarter choices. I wonder if CISC is analogous to VM bytecode here.
I should also note the irony of essentially saying "the compiler makers will figure out how to make the dumb chip fast" on an article about Itanium - that's a large part of why it failed, even Intel couldn't figure out how to make a compiler good enough to really make use of the chip. Of course Itanium wasn't RISC, but still.
Likewise; I first booted it in a VM probably 10+ years ago. It's a nifty idea but it's far, far behind Wine. It's probably great if you're the sort of person who gets excited about the NT kernel and know about subsystems other than Win32 (though I don't actually know how NT-style the kernel of ReactOS is).
It turns out making a Windows compatibility layer as well as the kernel, sound, print, network, graphics, etc stacks is kind of a lot of work and there's a good reason for taking an existing fully-featured OS and adding just the compatibility layer. If you like Windows, you might be better off working on a Windows-style desktop environment for Linux.
Good thing his show runs at 23:30 then.
Code review isn't supposed to be about rejecting code, it's supposed to be about improving code and providing another set of eyes with a different perspective. In several years doing code reviews for men and women, and having my code reviewed by men and women (for >1000 overall), I can count on maybe two hands the number of changes that I'd count as rejected - either because the change was unneeded and I was misunderstanding, or because it was needed but I wasn't the person to do it because I wasn't experienced enough with the code I was changing. Many changes go through substantial rework, though as you gain experience you can write better code that needs fewer fixes - so if on average females are more junior (which is true across a wide range of industries and largely responsible for the gender pay gap) then they will on average face greater rework - though on an individual basis they will face less and less as they become more experienced just like everyone else.
But thinking of - or practicing - code review as adversarial or something where changes can be "rejected" (other than for mundane reasons like trying to change another team's code in ways that don't fit their model of how their code works) is an antipattern. The most senior people, people who literally have invented entire disciplines, still have their code reviewed and change it in response to feedback. My tech lead likes to say that "confusion is a signal" - if your code is so brilliant or clever that it leaves a brand new engineer going "wha?" then it means you have to fix it, regardless of how senior you are, since the code should be understandable by the average employee. And when I review code I don't expect to pass down edicts, and probably 10-15% of my comments receive pushback from the author. It has to be a real problem for me to actually refuse to accept a change - maybe that's happened twice for reasons of code quality and not the mundane stuff I mentioned earlier like "I planned to rewrite how that test worked anyway, let's hold off on this hacky fix since I'll fix it properly". I prefer to chat informally with the author (and, and as an author, vice-versa) to come to something mutually agreeable, which lets me understand their concerns and vice-versa - and we both learn something.
Er, I'm using RSS in Firefox right now (it's how I found this article). 52.0.2.
Great story - I'd never heard that one, but I had heard the one about Woz hand-assembling Integer BASIC because they couldn't afford to buy a symbolic assembler.
Little nit, the FAA doesn't (usually) require scheduled overhauls at "TBO" (time before overhaul) for part 91 (basically, private aviation) operations. And an engine overhaul is more like $15,000-$20,000 (for an IO-360). (There's a reason pilots/aircraft owners joke about the AMU - aviation maintenance unit - or $1,000. Basically nothing costs under that.)
The real killer will be the multi-thousand-dollar annual inspections required of every certified aircraft - not to mention airworthiness directives.
Search queries are user data. What they're not is personally identifiable information.
I'm ICS 100, 200, 300, and NIMS 700 certified, so I definitely buy the need for coordination - but this is a lot of the same stuff that people have been talking about forever, and they've been trying to throw money at the problem with absolutely no success. And our agency actually responded (before I joined) to the staging area at Jersey City on 9/11/2011. (There were effectively no injuries - everyone was fine and dusty, or dead...)
We mostly use a UHF system on a spare frequency the police already had a repeater set up for. It's a huge upgrade from our low-band VHF system (46MHz) that was unrepeated, though we still use that for dispatch because we can't afford to buy UHF pagers for everyone. We have no shortage of frequencies, and can mostly talk to the people we need to talk to, but it's not easy. On our UHF radio we can talk to our police, ourselves, one of the two neighboring towns' police departments - the other one is on a trunking system we can't access, so we have their fire department programmed in (which doesn't do us any good except at a fire standby).
We have a VHF radio for exactly this sort of cross-agency collaboration, but it's hardly simple. There's 4 different state police frequencies, there's something called JEMS which has 5(?) frequencies, some of which are used for normal operations by some city's paramedic team, and several other tactical (VTAC) frequencies as well. (We don't have access to UTAC, I don't think.) Basically we assume the next time "the big one" happens, we'll show up and ought to have the frequencies programmed in that they tell us to use, but we don't know what those are and we don't really expect any coordination to work very well. Radio protocol is shit even (especially?) by the pros, and between range and availability concerns we're not really convinced. I'm really the only one who knows how to use it, and maybe a few of the emergency management wonks who are planning to make a living in public safety. With the main radio being in the ambulance, coordination with folks in the field is difficult and likely to happen on agency frequencies. The state gave us one or two VHF handheld radios with most of the same frequencies, but that doesn't really help. Mostly we use our VHF gear for calling the hospitals and I sometimes put up the NOAA weather or medic dispatch frequency, but that's just me.
It sounds like what they're proposing is sort of uber-trunking-system, which would be pretty cool if it actually worked - basically you mostly live on your agency's and other commonly used talkgroups like today's programmed frequencies, but then when you need to, just type in some nationwide ID and everyone's radio can talk to everyone else's.
Simple enough, right? The problem is:
- The existing tech is mostly proprietary.
- It doesn't scale to this level.
- Trunking radio has a nasty fallback mode when the coordinator(name?) fails - basically the radios revert to normal analog operation. That's obviously not acceptable for any nationwide effort, so it really can't fail. But it can't be like a cellphone base station either, where it turns into a brick if the base is down.
- Public safety radios are hilariously expensive - think >$800 per (basic!) handheld, far more for a mobile or base station, and then labor for programming and setup - so if you want people to actually switch you're gonna need to drop a lot of cash. If we were to upgrade everyone's radio this year it would cost more than our entire annual expenditures on *everything else*. (Mind you, they are worth the money - they are virtually indestructible and it's not something you want to fail at a bad time.)
I also don't like how they play up the data aspect. Data is occasionally useful for computer-aided dispatch purposes (which we have, technically, because our dispatcher isn't using pen and paper - except they do, mostly) but it's overhyped. Big cities make more effective use, where multiple units can be coordinated more automatically than with voice, but even there that's more about e
Any of those operating in class-B airspace are required to be in communication with and complying with ATC instructions. If I want to fly over Newark Airport, which I've done, I have to follow the rules - and they're quite precise. (They want you to fly directly over the runway numbers, since the only place at an airport where's no planes is directly above the runway.)
You need explicit clearance to enter class-B airspace and usually a transponder code so they can track you specifically. If you deviate from their instructions you can expect FAA enforcement action.
Never heard of such a thing. The large airports I've flown into generally have markings on the pavement denoting the secure area, and you don't cross it unless you felt like having some very awkward conversations with people with large guns. Which makes sense as the real danger (to the extent there is any) comes from being within the aircraft with a bunch of people at your mercy (or vice-versa, as seems more common) or being able to somehow compromise the aircraft itself while in flight - neither of which are served particularly well from a Cessna on the ramp, or even taxiing before or after the jet. Sure you could load up with explosives and it would mess up the jet but it's doubtful you'd do much damage to a lot of people inside.
That's a 5,000 foot runway: https://www.airnav.com/airport/KHHR. That's quite long actually - for comparison, LaGuardia in NYC only has 7,000 foot runways. 5kft isn't enough for a hundred-person passenger jet (well maybe, if you're light) but lots of private jets are just fine.
Most of the numbers that are immediately available are max takeoff weight (MTOW), you'd have to go into the POH to get the numbers for lower weights. The bigger private jets may need to not take off with full fuel, but they won't normally do that anyway except in rare circumstances - you'd generally only carry enough fuel for the flight and legal reserve, plus a generous safety margin on top, since it costs fuel and speed to carry excess fuel. You'd want full fuel if you were going somewhere far away but that's only a factor if your destination was makeable safely with full fuel, but not makeable without - otherwise you have to land somewhere in the middle anyway and it doesn't matter how much fuel you have as long as you can make it midway (and you'd probably not carry too much extra beyond midway fuel for the above reasons).
No. Fake news is news that's been deliberately fabricated, often to make its purveyors money, and doesn't attempt to relate to the truth. For instance, "child sex ring in some Washington pizza shop" - there's just no relationship to the truth and whatever their reasons for publishing such nonsense, it wasn't an attempt to inform anyone of anything that could plausibly have been said to have been real. Real news may be inaccurate or flat-out wrong, but real news is intended to be based on some sort of truth. Now whether and how often a particular source succeeds could be a question of some debate, but even the most partisan news sources are - if they're real news - based on some event that actually occurred.
The deliberate confusion of "fake news" with "news I don't like" is actually a very postmodern idea. There's no such thing as fact, it's just your perception that matters.
The only time I can think of where Obama attacked some specific, average guy just doing his job, he realized he fucked up and invited him to the White House for beers and things ended amicably. Trump did it unapologetically before even taking office and the guy hadn't even wronged anyone but Trump.
Presidents need to be bigger than that.
Name the things Trump wants to do that are the same as what Obama wanted to do. The list isn't zero (things like infrastructure, which Obama was stymied on by the Republicans in Congress) but I'm curious what you come up with.
This times a thousand. I've had my AT&T number since they were Cingular in 2005, and that was on my parents' account that had been AT&T since the early nineties - their first phone was AMPS, and I remember at age 6 or so them complaining about the new digital (D-AMPS) service's coverage range. I signed up for unlimited data for $20/mo on a Razr with HSDPA back in 2005 that I modded to have push IMAP and other smartphone-like capability years before the iPhone came out. AT&T is more expensive than others, but the service is quite good and very fast, and their network uses international standards. I primarily have the unlimited data because I just don't want to think about my use of cellular data - and until the recent price hikes you didn't save any money switching to a metered tier ($30 for unlimited, or $30 for 2GB? What do you think?).
I may not walk right away, but eventually they will succeed in getting me off unlimited data. What I can tell you is they won't be steering me to one of their metered plans, they'll be steering me to T-Mobile where I can get comparable service for half the price, and even though I'd be allowed less full-speed data I wouldn't have any bill concerns which is all I ever wanted.
That's something you'll need to backup with facts. In the past 10 years where I've lived various governments have caved under pressure to let kids get their L plates at an earlier and earlier age.
With the reference to L plates, perhaps you're British? Here is a Guardian article with some statistics in the first paragraph about decline in licensure among 17-to-20 year olds, as well as 21-29. Here's a similar set of statistics for the US.
That would have a lot to do with very little information being passed onto them and people complaining about it everytime they do. How they would love to know how many hours you spend behind the wheel, as you already alluded to :-)
So we're in agreement - without that data they can't do much more than average across the population. But that unfairly (for some definition of "fair") benefits some people while punishing others, assuming you believe in some notion of the intrinsic safety of a driver
Not only did it count for me, the insurance company promoted the classes and I was able to claim back the cost of the class from the insurance company.
This wasn't a class the public could take - it was a class about emergency driving, with lights and siren. It did involve going on a skid pad and learning how to drive through a loss of traction, as well as slalom and reverse-slalom as well as general situational awareness (there's no rear window so you have to track where nearby cars are). Most useful to me was learning driver "psychology" as it were, learning how people in aggregate respond to unusual situations and seeing lots of examples of the ways drivers can screw up given a surprising event means I'm rarely surprised by what someone on the road does. I've had to take evasive action several times to avoid an imminent crash and it's certainly helped to know the limits of the vehicle performance, the road surface, and what the other driver(s) are likely to do given the circumstances.
I don't expect the insurance company to promote or pay for such a class, and in fact they would have no business doing so, but if they took it into consideration it would be a sign that they were willing to individualize their notion of driver risk. But they aren't interested.
Really to be fair, flying a plane is a very different skill set than driving a car. It is a much more refined skill with a metric shitload of inference based on information provided by instrumentation. Where looking out the window becomes important a lot of information is incredibly subtle (at height the landscape can appear almost unmoving) By comparison one of the biggest problems with new drivers is they spend too much time looking at instruments in a scenario where pretty much anything can jump out infront of their windscreen at any moment. It's a very different kind of situational awareness, and personally I don't believe that being a pilot would make you a better (or worse) driver on the road but I would be happy to see some stats to correct me.
The biggest problem with new pilots is that they spend too much time looking at instruments, too. Most private flying is done visually and "seat of the pants", and a flight instructor will commonly cover up all the instruments if a new student is fixating on something (usually the artificial horizon) to try to fly the plane without a "feel" for it. We don't typically fly high enough for the landscape to seem still; it's typical for me to fly at 3500' or 5500' and I spent a lot of time lower than 2500'.
I never said that they were exactly the same skillset, and I don't have any data, but becoming a pilot forces you to become very very good at multitasking, risk management, planning ahead (both before you get in the p
A bit offtopic, but I'd like to see any data suggesting that 16 or 18 year olds have substantially harder times with self-control than people in their 30s or older. I suspect the biggest factor is that you stop getting in "trouble" for it (aside from ending up broke or pregnant/a dad or with a shit life or alcoholism or something) or that being underage puts you in position where similarly-stupid behavior has bigger consequences. Certainly I knew plenty of kids who did stupid things, but I know plenty of older adults who also do similar kinds of stupid things and I know of no data to refute the idea that some people just are bad at self-control and we just hold it against young people as a class instead of adults where we're willing to localize it to the individual.
Most of the times people come out with data from brain scans (not sufficient, the brain is too complex to be reduced to size comparisons, as a recent study about brain-size changes as a result of pregnancy) or things like drunk-driving accidents. How many of those were a result of being unable to drink legally at the bar or picking up some liquor at the store for consumption at home? Personally I've never driven drunk, but all the times it would have solved a problem for me were before I was 21. You also tend to drink more if you're not - and can't - pay for it, between it being someone else's opportunity and the relative rarity of any alcohol promoting bingeing when it is available. Once you turn 21 it's usually a hit to your own wallet, which tends to put a damper on things. And my behavior personally changed quite a bit when I got a friend who was 21 and I could just keep beer in my fridge as a result - I started drinking better beer less frequently and stopped going to parties for the sole purpose of having alcohol.
Now that people are learning to drive later in life, insurance companies are starting to move away from age as a risk factor for precisely the reason that the GP states. Someone who learns to drive at 25 is not particularly safer after 5 years (at 30) than someone who started driving at 16 after 5 years (at 21). States' "graduated drivers' licenses" are needing adjustment as well. When I got licensed in NJ starting at 16, I had to take a 6-hour road course with a school (after passing the written test of course), then I could drive with parents until 17, then I could drive by myself and one non-family member (and nowadays a red sticker) until 18 when I got a full license. So by 18 I'd already done hundreds of hours of accident- and ticket-free driving, but they still wanted a fortune for insurance. Meanwhile someone I know got licensed in NJ at 22, and they pretty much turned him loose after filling out some paperwork, 3 months of "supervised driving" (which he didn't actually do for more than a few hours, being out of the country for most of it), and passing the "road test" which consists of driving around a parking lot - and his insurance starting out was cheaper than mine after 2 years of driving despite having spent about 10 hours in the drivers' seat.
In general, car insurance companies are not particularly good at estimating individual risk. My insurance rates were unaffected by becoming a certified emergency vehicle operator (for my town's volunteer ambulance agency) on my 18th birthday, which requires special training. For some reason the computer goes "ding" if you have a good high school report card (which I did), but spending a day of classroom and on-the-road training in how to handle vehicles and other drivers while operating radios and sirens doesn't count. Becoming a pilot didn't count either, despite extensive training and practice in high-stakes multitasking, situational awareness, and "thinking ahead of the vehicle" that you can feel working on every drive. But getting a high-paying job in a city where I don't drive at all (and thus lose practice)? Sure, lower rates.
For flying, your insurance has to do with the value of the airplane modulated by your experience as a pilot (in number of hours) as well as any advanced ratings on your certificate. For instance an instrument rating dramatically lowers what you pay. For driving they have their tables based on age and length of license, but those are aggregate statistics. Even if you kept a logbook of every drive and its duration and special skills required on that drive (analogous to the one pilots keep for flying), they wouldn't be interested. This is why the insurance companies are so interested in those ODB plugs with cell modems to report on your driving skill, to actually get that info.
I'm still pretty damn liberal, and I paid in excess of $80,000 in tax last year and have the W2 to prove it. I'm not making enough to get out of paying any of it, either. (I reduced my AMT by about $800 because I made a retroactive contribution to a HSA, but that's it.) Most people in this country don't make as much income as I pay in tax (the median income is something like $50k?). They certainly don't pay as high an high overall rate, especially if they get to deduct mortgage interest (I pay rent in an apartment) or aren't subject to AMT.
I look at what the federal, state, and local governments do with my tax money and figure they should do even more. Sure they ought to be more efficient, which is true for everything, but that would let them do more stuff without having to raise taxes.
But then again I can see that government services - like universal healthcare - are frequently a way to reduce my out-of-pocket expenses. There's also the tiny problem that if things get bad enough, people will rise up and attack - and I don't have the kind of money to buy an island or private army or something.
Yeah, I know people like you. You voted for someone you don't understand and have no clue either what he's going to do. (But you're sure it'll be good, or at least better.) You trust that he's got your interests in heart, because billionaire real-estate magnate sons of millionaire fathers know your problems well. (Or at least better than Clinton.) You're sure he's going to do all the things he said, except the things you figure he didn't really mean, right? (Of course, those two sets are different for each supporter and even opponent.)
Basically it's an experiment, but that's not so bad because you think things are really bad and they can't get any worse.
You're wrong.
If it does, then we probably need one I hate to say. The Founding Fathers were very smart and chose to make the Electoral College full of people who could vote however they chose. They knew full well they could simply do the numerical apportionment we all assume today's EC is, but they didn't - it's people. The only reason that could be is because they were expected to make their own choice, and the only time that's meaningful is if it's different from what the popular vote in their state was.
If the Electoral College exercises their intended autonomy and doesn't elect Trump, they are doing the very thing they're there for. If that - following the letter and intent of the Constitution - causes a revolution then we are a very sick country indeed.
On the other hand, if the EC rubber-stamps Trump's nomination, I have to ask: what purpose does the EC serve? Under what circumstances would they exercise that autonomy? Do we even need an EC at all in that case? And if we're changing things, how should we elect the president considering the urbanization of the country? The current system gives far more weight to citizens in rural states than urban ones, and we should have a conversation about that as well.
Honestly the country is very, very ill. I sometimes wonder if the "liberal" and "conservative" areas would consent to a sort of a "trial separation" - say 6 or 10 years, something with a fixed end date that would result in a vote to continue or reunite. The details are extremely complex but it's the only thing I can come up with that might get people appreciating their countrymates.
That's an overly simplistic (dare I say, engineering) view of how the law works. While their decisions are grounded in statute and constitutional law, as well as common law, they have broad enough latitude in how they apply it that they use a number of doctrines to actually figure out how they're going to rule even if they could rule either way based on the merits of the case. The higher up the court, the more likely this becomes - after all the case is sufficiently ambiguous that the lower courts couldn't resolve it easily. These doctrines are broadly speaking the court's view of "justness" and help them consistently apply the law to the facts of the case.
For instance, a number of laws have been struck down as being overly vague and a court could certainly find that because your hypothetical law doesn't define "shoe size" precisely enough, it's essentially void. Or if they figured that such a law was fair, they could also agree with the government that "shoe size" is commonly understood.
Put more broadly, one of the reasons the courts are so important is because they can essentially create law from thin air. For instance, did you know that the Constitution has nothing in it giving the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws? The court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison. (It's a bit more complicated than that, as history is, but nonetheless the Constitution doesn't mention it.) The court's mandate is deliberately left vague enough to continue to be relevant - for instance, if you piss off the court, you might find yourself jailed indefinitely for contempt, which is the only indefinite detention allowed by law. If you proscribe a court's behavior too much it becomes too easy to circumvent which leads to absurdities. Thankfully courts are reactive, not proactive, by nature - and they tend to have pretty reasonable and history-conscious people on them, so this usually works out alright.
(IANAL)
Sure. On the money side I was against Citizens United, and on the media side I think cable news is an abomination. There's a lot to be said for there being a few national networks - ideally non-profit public broadcasters - that attempt to reach everybody. With a national audience you have to be balanced and clearly call out editorializing to be broadly palatable. Cable news (let alone the Internet) can get away with confusing opinion and fact on a regular basis - in fact it's a virtue.
But again, we expect citizens to influence our elections. Foreign governments don't get to do it, let alone covertly. It's axiomatic. Why is this so hard?
No. It doesn't work that way. Governments don't get to interfere in other country's elections without repercussions. Full stop. Especially covertly - if their motives are so noble why are they all cloak and dagger? Is it because they think people wouldn't like it if they started running ads on TV saying "Russia thinks you should vote for Trump"? You know, the last time the Russians interfered in our elections, people got kind of annoyed about it.
If you think saying this is locker room banter, stay the FUCK out of my locker room. I've heard some stuff in locker rooms and it didn't come close to this. You just don't get it, do you? There's a difference between "wow, she's hot, I'd like to fuck her, look at those boobs, think they're real?" and "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything"
One is vulgar appreciation for hot women, which (while in poor taste perhaps) certainly qualifies as locker room banter. Guys think women are hot and would like to have sex with them - news at 11. Talking about how you, as a celebrity, get to "grab 'em by the pussy" and KNOWING that you get away with it is a whole other level. It's not abstract, it's not hypothetical, and there's mounting evidence that this has actually happened more than once.
You are what is wrong with this country. And you don't even understand why! Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment was a pretty awful thing to say about her countrymates, but damn it all you just keep trying to prove it, huh?
Clinton is a damaged candidate in a lot of ways and I doubt she'll be seen as one of history's great presidents. Trump represents an existential threat to this country. And if you don't see why, you are the existential threat. Because the problem isn't Trump - it's you who have brought him to the cusp of power and given him the support he requires. Without you and your cohorts he has nothing but money. When he loses, you will still be there.
I have made it a point of pride to respect people I disagree with politically. I understood Mitt Romney and his supporters, I knew John McCain was a decent man, and thought Paul Ryan was looking out for the best interests of the country. I knew they saw the world and the country and its problems differently than I did, but that seems like a silly thing to lose respect over. This year that all went out the window. I can have no respect for the Trump supporter. It's that simple. You've allowed yourself to become so wound up over a bogus set of facts that you can't even see where you're going, and you can't be allowed to take the country with you. Even Trump campaign staffers have had enough!
"It's appalling. It's just flat out appalling," a Trump adviser said.
Asked about the reaction at a campaign field office, a Trump field staffer told CNN there were "gasps. Collective gasps. We're trying to get our heads around it right now, but there's no way to spin this. There just isn't."
Don't bother replying, I really don't care what you think. Instead take the time to ask a woman in your life what she thinks about someone famous and powerful grabbing them by the pussy because he knows she won't be able to do anything to him. You at least have a mother or aunt or sister or something so ask her.