626 karma · joined January 10, 2015
Haven't regretted that decision at all and it seems to be playing out about how I expected. (Except LLMs make rewrites into other languages more tractable so the slow decline of Java may accelerate)
Seeding PRNGs with sufficiently unpredictable data was a real security concern for a while. New cloud instances have a small entropy pool space for attackers to enumerate due to lack of a real source of randomness. (See the Debian/OpenSSL issue for what can happen when your entropy pool is too small/predictable)
One fun fact about XOR is that anything XOR'd with a uniform random distribution results in a uniform random distribution, so there isn't any harm in mixing additional non-attacker-controlled entropy sources in as long as at least one of them is sufficiently unpredictable. The lava lamps provide a potentially hard-to-predict source of entropy for this, but if it's not available then it certainly doesn't "take down the internet". They'll still use packet arrival timing, interrupt timing, etc to seed their CSPRNGs.
Not sure if Double's underlying brokerage is reporting everything necessary for this to be the case though, as I believe some brokerages don't.
It gets 35mpg city and highway, 1mpg less than the front wheel drive Sienna (which, to be fair, is also a hybrid)
Things like my printer and wifi-connected grill live on a much more restrictive VLAN. (with some firewall rules to allow devices on the trusted network to still print to my printer's hard-coded IP address)
>While it is true that Nvidia cards are generally preferred by miners due to better price-to-performance, AMD GPUs such as the Radeon RX 6600 XT could still be mined on profitably until recently. […] So yes, carefully consider the condition of all used graphics cards—Nvidia or AMD.
[0] https://www.pcworld.com/article/395149/should-you-buy-a-used...
>I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have.
Nvidia has been working hard(er than their competition) on the software side for almost 2 decades to be in the position they find themselves today. 16 years ago, they released CUDA for general-purpose computing on GPUs, and then 9 years ago they followed that up with cuDNN. They have a consistent pattern of making a intentional, long-term bets to diversify their market exposure and unlock new product areas while building a software ecosystem moat.
Yes, they obviously got super lucky with the cryptocurrency frenzy, but there's a reason all the miners were mostly buying Nvidia cards instead of AMD cards.
Also, many postpaid plans (like my home ISP) require SSN because they are providing you service on credit. Postpaid cell paone plans have been the "default" in the US for a long time, though prepaid seems to be gaining market share.
Are you making a rate limiting/ddos argument about "turning them all on at the same time"?
IIRC some of the information about their approach is considered sensitive so I won't elaborate further.
It only (meaningfully) changes behavior if you're both iterating over an odered datastructure and the body of your loop has direct or indirect side-effects. (like printing, writing to a file, making network requests, etc)
Also, the code introducing a race condition may get lucky when your CI system runs the tests and still make it into your main branch.
I agree that tooling (like static analysis, Rust's borrow-checker, etc) can play a big role here though.
eg `for` loops are being replaced by `foreach` loops,`map` and `filter` operations, etc. These tell the compiler/interpreter that you want to do some operation to all the items in your datastructure, leaving it up to the compiler/runtime whether and how to parallelize the work for you.
Because many gun owners own multiple guns. (especially the ones who consume the most ammo) If they're short on ammo to shoot their AR-15 at the range this weekend, they're not going to just sit at home. They'll go to the range and shoot 30-06, .357, 9mm, etc.
Retailers know the score and can preemptively raise prices on their non-NATO rounds before they run out because they know their customers are going to be less price sensitive due to the shortage in NATO alternatives.
(in economic parlance, the different rounds are still "substitute goods" despite not working in the same firearms, so it would actually be pretty surprising if their prices WEREN'T correlated)
Generally speaking, it makes sense to keep hiring more workers if you're getting a net benefit from hiring each one. That being said, at a certain scale the organizational challenges may eat into your net marginal profit. (eg unclear ownership and diffusion-of-responsibility, more layers in the org chart making it harder for decision-makers to hear from the people actually doing the work, longer deprecation cycles, etc)
Hiring is hard and slow, so it's definitely possible that the other companies you used as examples were theoretically understaffed. (if you ignore the costs of hiring, anyway)