NohatCoder

The plain servers aren't that bad, but then they get some extra billing in. Traffic is pretty nuts, if you sustain sending on that 10 Gb/s link it will cost you approx $160000 per month.

Then there are all the services that ain't plain servers, those are generally priced at at least a 10x markup, some of them much more than that.

They are already on AWS, and that is the problem. Probably wouldn't cost 1/10 with normal server leasing, but they have to code their way out of any AWS specific services they rely on before they can switch provider.

But do they make much of a difference? You have always been able to write:

    myArray.sort(function(a,b){return a-b})

People for some reason treat this syntactic sugar like it gives them some new fundamental ability.

While this doesn't restore minified identifiers, like the LLM version claims to do, it tends to help a lot with understanding the code. Usually minified code still has the original identifiers in global function names, object attributes, DOM classes and a few other places where it is hard to guarantee no side effects of name mangling. This makes guessing the purpose of the remaining identifiers substantially easier to a human, and it is probably also the main reason why an LLM is capable of making reasonable guesses at what they could reasonably be called.

To some people Facebook is basically the way of browsing the web, in particular when it comes to news that people don't actively search for.

Obviously this always depends on what code you compare it to. I don't think there can be much doubt that a well written performance oriented framework-free implementation is in practice always going to be faster than anything using virtual DOM, as one can update simply the parts that need updating without creating the virtual DOM in the first place.

If you assume programmers who don't know what they are doing it is a very different question. Some people will manage to make a train wreck both with and without a framework. But if we assume that there is a skill level where people will manage to make something useful with a framework, but not without it, or vice versa, then I really do not know which way it swings.

For anyone who can live without <> syntax I made DOM Maker, no compilation step, no injection vulnerability footguns, just make a bunch of function calls in a tree structure, and you get DOM with the same tree structure, complete with non-string event handlers.

Mostly I just do Vanilla.js, but the vanilla DOM creation functions turn really verbose, I got tired of that and created this to cut back on code size and increase readability.

There are other libraries that do something similar, but in my own very biased opinion this is one of the better.

https://github.com/NoHatCoder/DOM_Maker

That doesn't really matter, everyone know what a Chromecast is, that is worth far more than a descriptive name.

It is probably easier to add more functionality to existing ALUs. Various instruction sets have added "free" bonus operations, but one could go a step further and allow any two functions from a wide set to be combined, the intermediate value would not hit the registers, and thus save a store and a load relative to two individual instructions.

It is not a problem that different CPUs have different execution time, the problem is if the same CPU, running the same instruction has a timing difference depending on the data it operates on. In this regard CPUs have actually gotten better, specifically because it is a feature that AMD and Intel has pursued.

You pretty much answered your own question. ~20 years ago and back. But I think it is also worth pointing out that it has gotten worse, those 20 years has been a steady trickle of new foot guns.

We had ~30 years of "undefined behaviour" practically meaning "do whatever the CPU does". It is not new that people want predictable behaviour, it simply wasn't a talking point as we already had it.

The cryptographic constant time requirement only concerns operations that are influenced by secret data. You can't learn the contents of say a secret key by how long it took to load from memory. But say we use some secret data to determine what part of the key to load, then the timing might reveal some of that data.

There is the difference that this mistake is much simpler. A lot of business people will understand that having a litigation team without even the most basic Streisand filter is a newbie mistake. How they should have/could have protected themselves against the big breakdown is a lot more complicated, even for tech people.

Telephone roaming charges in the EU.

Yeah, if he had made $107M instead he would have had the lawyer power to go free.

Being pessimistic is not the same thing as not trying. On the contrary, if you want to make the future better, focusing on what looks to be going wrong is often the best place to spend your effort.

The optimists in this context are people who don't believe in problems like climate change or the fall of democracy, and therefore do nothing to prevent them. Their optimism is what will destroy society.

It is beyond me how a CEO can serve at any board, at all, let alone the CEO of one billion dollar corporation serving at the board of another billion dollar corporation.

There are potential issues with non-compete agreements, any and all deals between the companies, hiring and compensation of executives, board members actually having the time to do the job of a board member, and or course also sensitive information leaking to where it shouldn't.

To all the downvoters: Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean that it is obvious to everyone else. Three character abbreviations can make context discovery really difficult as simply plopping the abbreviation into Google will quite often produce mostly unrelated results.

Having written a fair amount of SPA and similar I can confirm that it is actually possible to just write some JavaScript that does fairly complicated jobs without the whole thing ballooning into the MB space. I should say that I could write a fairly feature-rich chat-app in say 500 kB of JS, then minified and compressed it would be more like 50 kB on the wire.

How my "colleagues" manage to get to 20 MB is a bit of mystery.

At toy scale, yes, just like quantum computers. And since we haven't seen any news of working boson sampling with thousands of photons I assume that it stops working when you try to scale up, just like quantum computers.

New fundamental physical principles are at this stage required in any case, quantum mechanics and general relativity don't fit together, meaning that at least one of them need to be overhauled into something that explains the same observations but doesn't have quite the same maths. The lacklustre performance of quantum computers could be a hint to what needs overhauling.

Yes, there are people who don't agree with your consensus, that is part of my point, the consensus is not all that universal. And the other part of my point is that if you only count people who have a full time job developing quantum computers as experts then you get a massive bias in opinion, as the sceptics are more likely to pick different jobs.

As for my own belief, I don't know how it will pan out, but I'm inherently sceptical of people who are too certain that it is one way or another, the hard evidence simply does not exist yet.

I'm personally most inclined to believe that the universe is computationally classical, and while quantum physics necessitates that there must be quite a lot more information and processing happening than a Newtonian model requires, it is still a finite, thus putting a finite limit on what speed-up we can gain from a quantum computer. Most likely this pans out as the error correction limit being impossible to reach, but there is also the possibility that more complicated quantum states result in higher per-gate error rates.

I'm open to other conjectures, but if you want to dispel mine I would like to see some hard evidence.

The strong expert consensus has been reached between a lot of people who would be out of a job if their consensus was the opposite.

I forgot the source, but I recall some game dev telling that they had taken to run a basic stability test every time the game launched. Half the crash reports came from systems that failed the test, so those were summarily ignored.

There is an error correction layer in DDR5, could that be spotted statistically as a difference between Ryzen 5000 and 7000 processors?

I can't help but feel like something has gone fundamentally wrong when there are so many arbitrary strings in the system that this optimisation makes a tangible difference.

None of the airship concept art in that article looks like it passes a simple weight-to-lift ratio check. Real airships have a tiny usable compartment relative to the total size of the vessel, and everything is optimised for weight.

And sure, carrying one, or a few small planes is possible. But real combat planes are heavier, they require more fuel, ammunition is heavy, especially if we want something beyond basic machine gun rounds. And of course we will need crew, including life support. Leaving the planes hanging under the belly is no good if we want to do basically any kind of maintenance, even loading ammunition could be tricky in this position. But an indoor hangar, and mechanisms for getting planes in and out is just more weight. Realistically we will end up with way fewer and smaller planes than any seaborne aircraft carrier can support.

There are suggestions of adding something reminiscent of ship deck guns, but there is no way we have weight budget for that with all the planes, and I doubt the frame of the whole ship is actually rigid enough to absorb the shock of firing a big cannon. I think some light machine gun placements will have to do.

We also got the suggestion of the whole thing flying so high that it would be out of range of land-based AA weapons. That sounds neat, but the higher we want to fly, the less lift we get per volume, and we already spend a good part of the lift on just the hull, engines and fuel, we can't actually go terribly high before the number of planes supported drops to 0.

But for all this trouble, we will get a fortress in the sky! A fortress made of balsa wood and paper-thin skin that is. Minor bullet holes is one thing, the helium leaks really really slowly. But say someone drops a fire bomb on top of the hull, helium rushing out might extinguish the fire, but not until there is already a pretty big hole for that helium to rush out through. Basically our carrier is really big, really expensive, and really easy to hit.

Depends on the aircraft, some small planes are basically stall-free, as long as they have sufficient height they can recover using the speed gained by falling.

They might complain, because that is what ISPs do, but they won't necessarily be that bad off. Popular content can be mostly circulated within their own network, saving peering bandwidth. This will be somewhat offset by less popular content that generates a bit extra outgoing traffic. The scale of YouTube would make the advantage much more pronounced than it has ever been for torrents.

What you describe sounds like international waters, close enough to the pier to matter would be within US territorial waters. So if the relevant laws are not there it is purely a domestic issue.

It is only 2600 light years away. Our galaxy is a little under 100000 light years across, depending on how you measure. So it is a rare type of double star, and it is very close to Earth, the combination is what makes it special.