DaveFlater

Keep reading. It's surely open source, but the license is mixed due to reuse of previous work that was CC-By 3.0 and similar.

An R package that I did was blocked from CRAN solely because they wanted me to choose a license from a fixed menu and I legally could not. Such policy creates a perverse incentive to not acknowledge previous work or to rationalize about the point at which the code is so mutated that it is no longer derivative.

It was incidental to software metrology. CPU utilization is a measurable quantity. The question is what can we do with that.

Nope

The purpose of Chesterton's Fence is what it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

No mental hacks, only a phone app. Always have the phone handy. Always note the task immediately before it gets forgotten.

I see 80 year old men on TV and in positions of privilege, but they don't exist in my fam. Now you say 120? Yeah, maybe for someone with an easy life.

Related work for those who are into this: Álvaro P. Raposo. The Algebraic Structure of Quantity Calculus II: Dimensional Analysis and Differential and Integral Calculus. Measurement Science Review, 2019. doi:10.2478/msr-2019-0012 Full text available at the DOI and on ResearchGate.

It's not really a competition. Ramping up nuclear will not make fossil fuel burning go away. You just have two sets of problems.

Both industries have a track record of allowing "can't happen" events to happen. Oil & gas gave us climate change disasters, Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, and so on. Nuclear power gave us Chernobyl, Fukushima, and a bunch of other incidents that pale in comparison.

Big oil took control of their political situation. Nuclear power never did. So we get political hyperfocus on the risks of transporting nuclear waste while tanker trucks are exploding on a daily basis.

Hydropower has limited opportunities and known costs. The other shoe has not yet dropped on what happens with a massive scale-up of other energy sources like wind, solar, maybe fusion...

I participated in several standards organizations that used Robert's Rules. They were FAR more effective at getting stuff done than the other organizations I've been involved with.

The key contribution of Robert's Rules is right in the name: order. Everyone has a chance to speak, but in an orderly fashion. No shouting down. And when enough has been said, you vote on it and move on. One party who refuses to cooperate cannot hold the proceedings hostage forever.

"The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay." — Tony Hoare

It is impossible in practice to persuade people to pay the same amount for a simple, reliable product that they would pay for a complex, unreliable one with more features. Reliability is a promise, and they have to trust. Features can be demonstrated now, so less trust is involved (or so it appears).

And then the features stop working.

Like many others, I have looked at the subproblem of whole-life scheduling and concluded that it can't be done well. On the one hand, a scheduling system has to implement a simple model or the overhead of working with it makes its net value negative. On the other hand, you have to deal with the fractal complexity of real life situations and priorities all the way down, and no simple model can represent it all accurately.

We can make it America All Caps, Bolivia Bold, Italy Roman

Sweden Sans logically implies America Bold and Italy Italic

My current burb has been fighting "cut through" traffic since before phone navigation was a thing. They do it with "traffic calming" (filling streets with obstacles to through-traffic) and designs that give people no alternative to getting on the main stroad. The result has been sheer hell. The frustration level is so high that whenever the main stroad is not gridlocked it is like Fury Road: harrowing for drivers and 100% lethal to peds and cyclists. But I guess that one guy on the side street who was shaking his fist at people speeding past his house is happy now.

Deja vu, I have been in this place before. Prior art: John Aycock and Mike Zastre. An Exceptional Programming Language. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Programming Languages and Compilers. https://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~aycock/papers/plc05.pdf

Feedback systems often fail to distinguish constructive critique from random opinion-having and assertions of personal taste. A kneejerk reaction based on nothing but gutfeel carries the same weight as a careful and well-informed evaluation. This is fine if the goal is popularity or profit—the votes or the dollars are the same. But it's not fine if the goal is a high-integrity product that delivers on a particular vision.

DEC's documentation for VAX/VMS and related apps. The great orange/gray wall of heavy-duty binders. What wowed me: whatever I needed to know, it was in there, I could find it, and the software behaved as the documentation said.

AFAIK, the optimization undermined the only use case that -fno-omit-frame-pointer actually had on x86_64. Is there a real use case that benefitted from allowing the frame pointer push to wander? Why why why

Uh... [Begin flashback] 2012: A change made in GCC 4.7 allowed optimization to reschedule and defer the push of the frame pointer that previously occurred in the function prologue whenever frame pointers were enabled. When binaries are profiled using frame pointers, incorrect call chains are derived whenever a sample is taken between the top of the function and the instruction that pushes the frame pointer. I complained, but got an immediate WONTFIX: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55667

So did they fix that eventually or is everyone just oblivious?

How I found the problem in 2012: Configuration of profiling tools for C/C++ applications under 64-bit Linux https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1790