Attack the source all you want, you can't attack the facts and numbers they cite.
On the contrary, when someone makes a numeric argument, it's essential that they be arguing in good faith and that they have the basic outlook of a reasonable person. This is because it's easy to spin numbers to say anything, usually without lying. The person analyzing and reporting the numbers should ideally be disinterested as well as reasonable, not someone with a strong opinion to share.
There's no way in hell that overlay should have been crippling hardware acceleration. It was a bug. Blame whoever you want for exposing it, but don't pretend it wasn't a bug in Edge.
I've not done much bare metal graphics programming, but isn't their a clear difference between something which is on top (can render directly to the screen) and something which isn't on top and so needs depth testing and/or compositing before it is rendered in the final form?
If I'm correct, I consider the problem not a bug but an opportunity for future optimization. A transparent HTML entity could be detected and ignored as a special case, but I would not call that part of the core feature, considering that most entities aren't transparent.
It's come to my attention that Python has acquired almost exactly the same threading API that Perl has. I haven't explored the differences and similarities (can I pass lambdas between processes?), but it seems like the difference in performance would not be as dramatic as for the older Python versions.
> I would not use Python for something that needed to handle a lot of data quickly.
Strangely that is the exact area where Python has seen a huge growth in usage: Data analysis with Pandas, NumPy and others, and AI. Both of which are about handling lots of data quickly.
It is quicker to write code for 10 minutes and have it run in 15 minutes than it is to write code for 30 minutes to have it run in 10 minutes.
When I said "lots of data", was thinking of analyzing the files on a full hard drive. Since I took advantage of threading, it would be more a matter of taking three evenings to write instead of six, but it would run for a week each time instead of a day. (Python has threading, but it mutexes all access to core interpreter data (the GIL), so my understanding is that threads have no performance benefit unless they invoke non-Python logic so control leaves the VM.)
As an aside, I find C# to be way more expressive than Python, because it has all the same advantages, plus more syntax like ref and out as well as a type system that can help you in so many ways. Performance and debugging are really good. The async API is a dream. But it's just not as easy to write or run, so I use Python for scripts where it is a better fit. And the third party Python libraries are potentially better, but the.NET standard library and NuGet are pretty damn good. Project configuration is sometimes a pain. Running is far harder than./my-script.py. People don't like Microsoft. So Python fits in several niches.
I just don't see what other people see in the hype of Python. It has poor backwards compatibility (Python 3 != Python 2), it is single-threaded like JavaScript
I see the draw as the REPL (for testing single lines of code), and being able to run short scripts with nothing more than a text editor. The only thing that can compete is Perl, and let's face it, Perl has a lot more gotchas than Python. (Perl has better threading for sure, even if the only fast technique is to pass tasks in work queues.)
Python can do a lot, and there's a good compromise between ease of writing and ease of running. I would not use Python for a medium to large program until the static type-checking system gets the power of something like C# (perhaps this means never), and I would not use Python for something that needed to handle a lot of data quickly. But it fills the gap between compiled languages and short shell scripts.
To save anyone else the effort, the parent is totally mischaracterizing the change linked. "Pliant children" (referring to functions, not processes or hardware) was changed to "helpers", which I think most people would say is clearer. It formerly said "pliant slaves", which is not a descriptive thing to call a function, like calling my fork a pliant slave.
Does that actually negate the GP's point? Symptoms of paranoia aren't really indicative of paranoia if there is a demonstrable threat or attack. Joseph Heller was not writing as a doctor or serious philosopher.
According to the Connecticut Department of Public Health, permethrin "has low mammalian toxicity, is poorly absorbed through the skin, and is rapidly inactivated by the body. Skin reactions have been uncommon."
Permethrin was still the most common bug spray last time I went shopping for the stuff.
Compared to what could happen if that robot punctured a pallet of household cleaners, bear spray is relatively harmless... Hell, oven cleaner tends to basically be aerosolized lye. Imagine if a can of that got punctured.
Mix the wrong two cleaners and congrats, you've now got a cloud of chlorine gas. The bear spray will cause some pretty severe discomfort, but likely won't kill you.
It's not aerosolized inside the can. It's only aerosolized as it passes through the nozzle. It would probably be safe for anyone that didn't get sprayed directly.
And FYI, bleach won't release chlorine unless you mix it with acid. If you mix it with other cleaners, the danger is typically chloramines.
Fuck's sake... we've got seven billion on this planet and people are helping AIDS victims reproduce??
What in the flying fuck...
It seems like we should help everyone or no one. Tell me how AIDS victims are less deserving than someone who waited until she was 40. The only tier of people that's more deserving is those who had no hand in making their situation, such as those with birth defects or gay couples.
Know how we solved it? Mostly cops giving out tickets... no massive and terrifying misuse of government power.
Ha, good one. You know what problem China doesn't have? A police force that scares the crap out of regular people. Most police don't even carry guns! Obviously a big part of that is that the Chinese aren't as violent as the Americans, by and large. But Chinese police mediate in a way that's almost unheard of for American cops. Conflicts are often solved without court cases.
It's a bit of a paradox. China is certainly a police state. But the police are less likely to ruin your day than American police. Plus, tickets are a system that hurts the poor more than the rich, just as jail time hurts the rich more than the poor (in terms of loss). I'm not at all sure the strong arm is the best way for China to solve its cultural problems. (For criminal activity with human victims, I do think the police should be more aggressive, but that's not the majority of their problems.)
Obviously this is like a dystopian dream and will stifle the feeling of freedom. But we should keep in mind Beijing (and China in general) has some a lot of the sort of petty problems which more rarely happen in the west: Rampant littering. People encourage their children to urinate in the street. Scammers take advantage of tourists, brazenly acting in public places in broad daylight. Taxi drivers lie about the fare, or refuse to use the meter so they can set whatever rate they choose, depending on the passenger's skin color and accent. People get to the front of a queue not by waiting, but by walking to the front of the queue.
The questions that come to mind are whether it will work, whether this is temporary (until the above cultural problems are solved), and whether it's worth the loss in feeling of freedom.
Your.Master answered the bulk of your post, so I'll simply respond to this:
I fail to see how "providing products and services of superior quality" would do anything but maximize profits.
It's a fine point, but a lot of companies provide decent/acceptable products at high volume. P&G could do that, but they've at least made the claim that the middling quality market is not where they want to sell. Which is more profitable? Probably the route P&G chose, and they surely thought about that while designing the mission statement. But it is their plan, and if an officer decided it would also be profitable to make cheap junk, they would get internal pushback about it not being in line with their mission.
they company doesn't have to keep growing or maximise profits.
That's absolutely not true for a public company.
Not so. Companies have missions. The mission generates profit, but profit is not the mission. This allows them to plan long term instead of doing what makes the most money this quarter. P&G explains this right in their mission statement:
We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come. As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creation, allowing our people, our shareholders and the communities in which we live and work to prosper.
On the other hand, some companies appear to be full of shit in their mission statements. Here's what Nestle has to say:
Our mission of "Good Food, Good Life" is to provide consumers with the best tasting, most nutritious choices in a wide range of food and beverage categories and eating occasions, from morning to night.
In my region, Nestle switched their powdered milk product from being straight dehydrated milk to a roughly 50/50 split of milk and carbohydrate. The packaging appeared identical, except the ingredient list and nutrition facts. Adulterating a dairy product with a simple carbohydrate gives the lie to their claim about "most nutritious" choices. Here, we find a mission that is not followed.
You are not comfortable with the concept of shared liability/responsibility, where more than one party had to mess up to cause a problem? In those cases, damages are normally shared/split, rather than assuming a counterfactual where one party or the other did not mess up.
Don't forget not all our laws are just. Also, don't forget police are also part of the group that solves problems by pointing guns at them.
Have you ever called the police and subsequently been arrested yourself because of some tired cop's poor judgment or personal biases? That happens, too.
My point is: I caution you against assuming all arrested people are violent thugs. Some of them are, most aren't.
It's hard to feel sorry for the guy, even if he did lose a lot of money.
Never, ever, ever put working video files - original footage or working copies, on an external drive. It's just too slow, especially in these days of 4K and upwards. The only things I use external drives for are backups, and transferring copies to clients.
Does not compute. Why do you feel sorry for him due to him having an inefficient workflow? That makes me feel more sorry for him! (Clueless user's work was all deleted.) I feel like there's an additional subtext to your comment that I didn't pick up.
Why have they been doing such a good job of developing it? I recently tried to use MariaDB in my project, and it fundamentally could not do a basic JSON manipulation I needed (recursive merge with overwrite). I looked into how to write custom functions and got nowhere. As far as I could tell, the API deals with rows and tables, not other datatypes.
After using MySQL for ten minutes, I found the function that did what I needed. It has been adapted to real-world usage it a way that MariaDB has not.
I can't give the strongest testimonial because I'm not an experienced database programmer, but it certainly seems to me that Oracle is actively developing MySQL. What makes you think they want it to die?
To be rigorous, you would also want to compare it to Skype over an uncommon obfuscated protocol, and you would want to compare it to other VOIP programs. This would rule out VPNs being prioritized and all VOIP services being deprioritized. Though I don't mean to imply that that type of prioritization is okay.
While it's not nearly as straightforward as you imply, private interest groups influence US government policies far more than individuals. For example, the reason taxes haven't been automated as a pre-filled form a person needs only to sign or correct and sign: because of lobbying by tax preparation companies.
Have you never been hot and realized you would be more comfortable without a shirt, but couldn't take it off due to the setting? The analogy fits, but it is confusing due to the other reasons for clothing which are not about privacy or modesty.
I'll take a stab at it. A SJW is someone who ostensibly supports social causes, but shows hypocrisy by one or more of the following:
1) neglects some basic morality or fairness in the causes they choose to support (for example, supporting their favorite cause over another which has greater need or is more deserving) 2) makes a game of oppression, where the most oppressed must be believed to be more correct in every discussion 3) tries to achieve their goals with quasi-violent tactics like lying, vandalism, ruining reputations, or ruining careers 4) claims to support social justice but actually only picks fights for their own satisfaction 5) lying in discussions about social issues 6) virtue signalling (as opposed to taking actions which achieve social goals) 7) advocating exclusively for one's own group rather than for fairness
Aside: why are lying and violence hypocritical? Because if the goal is fairness (and it should be, lest we advocate sexism and racism in favor of one's own group), honest conversation is the only path forward. Free exchange of ideas, perspectives, and hard data and statistics is the way we discover what is right and fair. A person that advocates fairness has no credibility if he lies, misquotes, or puts words in someone else's mouth.
That's what I thought before I knew anything about psychology. (That swearing is just like any other word.) But when you read that swearing reduces pain or increases pain tolerance, argument falls flat in the face of empirical results.
the newer ones will probably have even better life and might just beat the Huawei ones (for real life use especially).
There can be no fair comparison, since the Huawei firmware kills critical background processes and services. So their selling point is also a bug. Apple probably works much better in that regard, but I can't vouch for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Attack the source all you want, you can't attack the facts and numbers they cite.
On the contrary, when someone makes a numeric argument, it's essential that they be arguing in good faith and that they have the basic outlook of a reasonable person. This is because it's easy to spin numbers to say anything, usually without lying. The person analyzing and reporting the numbers should ideally be disinterested as well as reasonable, not someone with a strong opinion to share.
There's no way in hell that overlay should have been crippling hardware acceleration. It was a bug. Blame whoever you want for exposing it, but don't pretend it wasn't a bug in Edge.
I've not done much bare metal graphics programming, but isn't their a clear difference between something which is on top (can render directly to the screen) and something which isn't on top and so needs depth testing and/or compositing before it is rendered in the final form?
If I'm correct, I consider the problem not a bug but an opportunity for future optimization. A transparent HTML entity could be detected and ignored as a special case, but I would not call that part of the core feature, considering that most entities aren't transparent.
It's come to my attention that Python has acquired almost exactly the same threading API that Perl has. I haven't explored the differences and similarities (can I pass lambdas between processes?), but it seems like the difference in performance would not be as dramatic as for the older Python versions.
> I would not use Python for something that needed to handle a lot of data quickly.
Strangely that is the exact area where Python has seen a huge growth in usage: Data analysis with Pandas, NumPy and others, and AI. Both of which are about handling lots of data quickly.
It is quicker to write code for 10 minutes and have it run in 15 minutes than it is to write code for 30 minutes to have it run in 10 minutes.
When I said "lots of data", was thinking of analyzing the files on a full hard drive. Since I took advantage of threading, it would be more a matter of taking three evenings to write instead of six, but it would run for a week each time instead of a day. (Python has threading, but it mutexes all access to core interpreter data (the GIL), so my understanding is that threads have no performance benefit unless they invoke non-Python logic so control leaves the VM.)
As an aside, I find C# to be way more expressive than Python, because it has all the same advantages, plus more syntax like ref and out as well as a type system that can help you in so many ways. Performance and debugging are really good. The async API is a dream. But it's just not as easy to write or run, so I use Python for scripts where it is a better fit. And the third party Python libraries are potentially better, but the .NET standard library and NuGet are pretty damn good. Project configuration is sometimes a pain. Running is far harder than ./my-script.py. People don't like Microsoft. So Python fits in several niches.
I just don't see what other people see in the hype of Python. It has poor backwards compatibility (Python 3 != Python 2), it is single-threaded like JavaScript
I see the draw as the REPL (for testing single lines of code), and being able to run short scripts with nothing more than a text editor. The only thing that can compete is Perl, and let's face it, Perl has a lot more gotchas than Python. (Perl has better threading for sure, even if the only fast technique is to pass tasks in work queues.)
Python can do a lot, and there's a good compromise between ease of writing and ease of running. I would not use Python for a medium to large program until the static type-checking system gets the power of something like C# (perhaps this means never), and I would not use Python for something that needed to handle a lot of data quickly. But it fills the gap between compiled languages and short shell scripts.
Lets not forget their getting triggered over master/slave -- https://github.com/python/cpyt...
No, I'm not kidding.
To save anyone else the effort, the parent is totally mischaracterizing the change linked. "Pliant children" (referring to functions, not processes or hardware) was changed to "helpers", which I think most people would say is clearer. It formerly said "pliant slaves", which is not a descriptive thing to call a function, like calling my fork a pliant slave.
Does that actually negate the GP's point? Symptoms of paranoia aren't really indicative of paranoia if there is a demonstrable threat or attack. Joseph Heller was not writing as a doctor or serious philosopher.
The AI might be right. According to Wikipedia:
According to the Connecticut Department of Public Health, permethrin "has low mammalian toxicity, is poorly absorbed through the skin, and is rapidly inactivated by the body. Skin reactions have been uncommon."
Permethrin was still the most common bug spray last time I went shopping for the stuff.
Compared to what could happen if that robot punctured a pallet of household cleaners, bear spray is relatively harmless... Hell, oven cleaner tends to basically be aerosolized lye. Imagine if a can of that got punctured.
Mix the wrong two cleaners and congrats, you've now got a cloud of chlorine gas. The bear spray will cause some pretty severe discomfort, but likely won't kill you.
It's not aerosolized inside the can. It's only aerosolized as it passes through the nozzle. It would probably be safe for anyone that didn't get sprayed directly.
And FYI, bleach won't release chlorine unless you mix it with acid. If you mix it with other cleaners, the danger is typically chloramines.
Fuck's sake... we've got seven billion on this planet and people are helping AIDS victims reproduce??
What in the flying fuck...
It seems like we should help everyone or no one. Tell me how AIDS victims are less deserving than someone who waited until she was 40. The only tier of people that's more deserving is those who had no hand in making their situation, such as those with birth defects or gay couples.
Know how we solved it? Mostly cops giving out tickets... no massive and terrifying misuse of government power.
Ha, good one. You know what problem China doesn't have? A police force that scares the crap out of regular people. Most police don't even carry guns! Obviously a big part of that is that the Chinese aren't as violent as the Americans, by and large. But Chinese police mediate in a way that's almost unheard of for American cops. Conflicts are often solved without court cases.
It's a bit of a paradox. China is certainly a police state. But the police are less likely to ruin your day than American police. Plus, tickets are a system that hurts the poor more than the rich, just as jail time hurts the rich more than the poor (in terms of loss). I'm not at all sure the strong arm is the best way for China to solve its cultural problems. (For criminal activity with human victims, I do think the police should be more aggressive, but that's not the majority of their problems.)
Obviously this is like a dystopian dream and will stifle the feeling of freedom. But we should keep in mind Beijing (and China in general) has some a lot of the sort of petty problems which more rarely happen in the west: Rampant littering. People encourage their children to urinate in the street. Scammers take advantage of tourists, brazenly acting in public places in broad daylight. Taxi drivers lie about the fare, or refuse to use the meter so they can set whatever rate they choose, depending on the passenger's skin color and accent. People get to the front of a queue not by waiting, but by walking to the front of the queue.
The questions that come to mind are whether it will work, whether this is temporary (until the above cultural problems are solved), and whether it's worth the loss in feeling of freedom.
Your.Master answered the bulk of your post, so I'll simply respond to this:
I fail to see how "providing products and services of superior quality" would do anything but maximize profits.
It's a fine point, but a lot of companies provide decent/acceptable products at high volume. P&G could do that, but they've at least made the claim that the middling quality market is not where they want to sell. Which is more profitable? Probably the route P&G chose, and they surely thought about that while designing the mission statement. But it is their plan, and if an officer decided it would also be profitable to make cheap junk, they would get internal pushback about it not being in line with their mission.
they company doesn't have to keep growing or maximise profits.
That's absolutely not true for a public company.
Not so. Companies have missions. The mission generates profit, but profit is not the mission. This allows them to plan long term instead of doing what makes the most money this quarter. P&G explains this right in their mission statement:
We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come. As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creation, allowing our people, our shareholders and the communities in which we live and work to prosper.
This quote, and further explanation from here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a...
On the other hand, some companies appear to be full of shit in their mission statements. Here's what Nestle has to say:
Our mission of "Good Food, Good Life" is to provide consumers with the best tasting, most nutritious choices in a wide range of food and beverage categories and eating occasions, from morning to night.
In my region, Nestle switched their powdered milk product from being straight dehydrated milk to a roughly 50/50 split of milk and carbohydrate. The packaging appeared identical, except the ingredient list and nutrition facts. Adulterating a dairy product with a simple carbohydrate gives the lie to their claim about "most nutritious" choices. Here, we find a mission that is not followed.
You are not comfortable with the concept of shared liability/responsibility, where more than one party had to mess up to cause a problem? In those cases, damages are normally shared/split, rather than assuming a counterfactual where one party or the other did not mess up.
Don't forget not all our laws are just. Also, don't forget police are also part of the group that solves problems by pointing guns at them.
Have you ever called the police and subsequently been arrested yourself because of some tired cop's poor judgment or personal biases? That happens, too.
My point is: I caution you against assuming all arrested people are violent thugs. Some of them are, most aren't.
It's hard to feel sorry for the guy, even if he did lose a lot of money.
Never, ever, ever put working video files - original footage or working copies, on an external drive. It's just too slow, especially in these days of 4K and upwards. The only things I use external drives for are backups, and transferring copies to clients.
Does not compute. Why do you feel sorry for him due to him having an inefficient workflow? That makes me feel more sorry for him! (Clueless user's work was all deleted.) I feel like there's an additional subtext to your comment that I didn't pick up.
Oracle WANTS VIRTUALBOX TO DIE. Same with MySql.
Why have they been doing such a good job of developing it? I recently tried to use MariaDB in my project, and it fundamentally could not do a basic JSON manipulation I needed (recursive merge with overwrite). I looked into how to write custom functions and got nowhere. As far as I could tell, the API deals with rows and tables, not other datatypes.
After using MySQL for ten minutes, I found the function that did what I needed. It has been adapted to real-world usage it a way that MariaDB has not.
I can't give the strongest testimonial because I'm not an experienced database programmer, but it certainly seems to me that Oracle is actively developing MySQL. What makes you think they want it to die?
To be rigorous, you would also want to compare it to Skype over an uncommon obfuscated protocol, and you would want to compare it to other VOIP programs. This would rule out VPNs being prioritized and all VOIP services being deprioritized. Though I don't mean to imply that that type of prioritization is okay.
While it's not nearly as straightforward as you imply, private interest groups influence US government policies far more than individuals. For example, the reason taxes haven't been automated as a pre-filled form a person needs only to sign or correct and sign: because of lobbying by tax preparation companies.
Have you never been hot and realized you would be more comfortable without a shirt, but couldn't take it off due to the setting? The analogy fits, but it is confusing due to the other reasons for clothing which are not about privacy or modesty.
In all honesty.. please define a SJW.
I'll take a stab at it. A SJW is someone who ostensibly supports social causes, but shows hypocrisy by one or more of the following:
1) neglects some basic morality or fairness in the causes they choose to support (for example, supporting their favorite cause over another which has greater need or is more deserving)
2) makes a game of oppression, where the most oppressed must be believed to be more correct in every discussion
3) tries to achieve their goals with quasi-violent tactics like lying, vandalism, ruining reputations, or ruining careers
4) claims to support social justice but actually only picks fights for their own satisfaction
5) lying in discussions about social issues
6) virtue signalling (as opposed to taking actions which achieve social goals)
7) advocating exclusively for one's own group rather than for fairness
Aside: why are lying and violence hypocritical? Because if the goal is fairness (and it should be, lest we advocate sexism and racism in favor of one's own group), honest conversation is the only path forward. Free exchange of ideas, perspectives, and hard data and statistics is the way we discover what is right and fair. A person that advocates fairness has no credibility if he lies, misquotes, or puts words in someone else's mouth.
That's what I thought before I knew anything about psychology. (That swearing is just like any other word.) But when you read that swearing reduces pain or increases pain tolerance, argument falls flat in the face of empirical results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...
the newer ones will probably have even better life and might just beat the Huawei ones (for real life use especially).
There can be no fair comparison, since the Huawei firmware kills critical background processes and services. So their selling point is also a bug. Apple probably works much better in that regard, but I can't vouch for it.