_dh54

> just overall seems like a genuine person.

Yet he admitted to deceiving a customer in that same anecdote

It's not an analogy. It's literally what is happening. This is apparent by your own admission that each pixel displayed is an average of the last eight frames of that pixel. That is the definition of a convolution filter. The display acts as a physical convolution filter, which is implementing a low-pass filter.

Pure lambda calculus does scratch a weird itch I never knew I had. Someone recently made a super tiny language runtime based on these concepts. https://justine.lol/lambda/

> There is a workaround called "internal mutability", an ability to mutate state pointed by a shared pointer. That is syntactically slightly messier, and generally frowned upon.

I don’t see why this would be frowned upon. It seems to be a runtime version of the borrow checker. For sufficiently dynamic code I don’t see how you can get around checking mutability access at runtime (or asserting that multiple blocks of code aren’t concurrently requesting a mutable reference).

As a comparison, there are many cases where the compiler can prove that a bounds check is unnecessary for accessing an element in a vector but there are also many useful cases where it’s simply not possible to do at compile time. It would be silly to frown upon runtime bounds checks when the requested index or the size of the vector is not known at compile time, a common occurrence in many interesting programs.

I get the motivation to make APIs as statically checkable as possible but it doesn’t seem to always be practical. Reusable UI components can be used in a variety of contexts, e.g. situations with multiple callbacks for different backends. The information is just not always there at compile time.

> It is some weird corporate politics that is way above my pay grade.

If you looked into these things you’d see it’s very much below your pay grade.

I cannot take this criticism seriously unless you are more specific than “yeesh.” If you aren’t willing to be specific then better to not say anything at all.

> you just have to put them on separate interfaces

I don’t have to do this with normal data link layers. That’s the point of the complaint. Wireguard is not a true data link layer. Manually configuring multiple interfaces for something I can do with just one interface with a normal data link layer at runtime is an extra inconvenience.

> This is for exactly the same reason that a routing table can only have one default entry. If you want two default entries, make two routing tables.

Using nftables I can specify different routers to use based on arbitrarily complex packet rules. Using just one interface. I can’t do this with wireguard, it will only allow me to to route arbitrary packets to a single peer on an interface. This is an inconvenience.

> Wireguard is not a link layer (layer 2)

Yes but UI wise it presents itself as one, since it’s acts as an interface. The fact that it is not a true data link layer is the basis of my comment.

> AllowedIPs can be disabled if you want; just set it to 0.0.0.0/0.

Only one peer is allowed to use 0.0.0.0/0 for AllowedIPs

> is just a particular case of their general propensity to follow rules.

Fair enough but this just kicks the can down the road. Why does Japanese culture have a propensity to follow rules? How can we duplicate that in America?

> Japan’s strong culture of morality.

Do sociologists yet understand why some cultures are strong in morality yet some aren’t? Surely if we understood the forces that drive macro behavior we could duplicate desirable attributes like high morality in other cultures. I would really like it if we had this high level of morality in America.

> Those things aren't "clean and simple" code and the team of 30-something 1337 guys that wrote wasn't imagining you when deciding how the program would work.

If those 1337 guys were tasked with writing software to accommodate those use cases, I’m certain it would be better than software today that accommodates those use cases

> Also it's not like these programs aren't still available. Did you write this comment using lynx? Do you do your finances with "gnome spreadsheet?" Do you listen to music with WinAmp 2.0?

I was referring to 80s software, not 90s software. In terms of architecture, 90s software is closer to the software of today than the software of the 80s.

We need updated laws and moral norms around suicide responsibility. There are thousands of suicides per year where no one is held responsible but the person themselves when in reality their death was a direct result of being intentionally treated maliciously. It should be no different than felony murder. By this more just standard Ortiz is guilty and should be charged with murder. Hopefully one day reform like this will happen.

The CEO first came onto my radar as a questionable individual some months ago in a thread where he was spreading FUD about former WASM engineers at Mozilla working at Fastly. Accusing them of being biased against him with very flimsy evidence. [1]

Later in that thread someone surfaced [2] the fact that the CEO had made a sockpuppet account [3] to praise his own projects.

So the OP is not surprising to me. At the same time all of the public communication I've read by the CEO has been polite so I wonder if he is just misunderstood but it's hard to say, it seems like there could also be a lot of bad things happening behind the scenes.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24900186

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24906498

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=peter998

Okay allow me to revise my comment: Imagine having to register with a certificate authority run by the Linux Foundation just to submit a patch.

> I feel like everyone who runs software has a strong incentive to determine the origin of it? Do you not feel that way?

Strong incentive no. In fact, most volunteer open source developers release their software with no legal liability at all (cf. MIT license).

Imagine having to register with a certificate authority run by Google just to submit a patch.

> which has very little to do with it being run by a corporation

On what basis can you say that? It’s clear that a corporation that accepts legal liability for the software they run in production or ship would have a strong incentive to create a process around determining the origin of said software.

So you think their grassroots marketing is appropriate?

> It's for open source maintainers, by open source maintainers.

> Google

> Red Hat (IBM)

Marketing in this manner is deceptive. Saying it’s “by and for” open source maintainers gives the impression this is a grass roots effort, when in reality this is a corporate initiative.

Despite the cheapness of those devices, they are increasingly irrelevant and inaccessible to the general public. They are instead being passed over for locked down devices like iPads and iPhones. To a normal person the mere thought of figuring out how to use a raspberry pi (or increasingly even a windows PC) induces a stress response.

The general public will lose access to cheap general purpose computers, to the extent that they even exist now. Maybe because it poses a threat but probably most because the general public doesn’t care about general purpose computing. There will be no outcry when it becomes inaccessible to them.

The government can never effectively ban general purpose computing in an authoritative way because it’s just too easy to build a computer. You can build a computer using a bunch of fpgas connected together. If they ban fpgas, hackers will start using 80s-style 8 bit micros.

That is all to say, the people who care about general purpose computing will never lose it and the people who don’t care won’t even notice.

My gut tells me that no cpu manufacturer can ever be trusted if intel cannot be trusted. What is hopeful to me are RISCV softcores running on FPGA. Will never beat CPU records but will likely be the best option available for private computing.

Exactly the type of thing I was hoping to see. Mind blowing the 286 could run a fully fledged Unix. I wonder what the process isolation story is, did everything run in the same address space? If so then were all binaries position-independent?

Edit: answered my own question. So this is the obsolete segmentation isolation I’ve always read about!

I believe there needs to be serious limits on the ability of “descriptivists” to condone divergent meanings of words. Within reason it is fine to describe new slightly expanded uses of words but wholesale accepting that word meanings can change arbitrarily in principle seems harmful to the maintenance of the integrity and quality of our language. For example, many people dislike HOAs but neighborhoods with HOAs maintain a certain level of quality, while neighborhoods without HOAs have quality levels across the board, including very bad.

It’s not a non-sequitor nor a joke, the point is to highlight the danger of linguistic relativism. If we dismiss the idea that words must follow some standard meanings, things we value can be gradually shifted into weapons of oppression.

> The difference is that it's limited in scope, and auditable. Even in a kernel, if you do it right, unsafe is the vast, vast minority of code.

That’s true but it’s also slightly misleading. Any code that uses the unsafe wrappers technically must be checked and all code that uses that code must checked in turn, ad Infinitum. Misuse of the Unsafe wrapper can occur at any level. For instance, if you misuse a DMA command that corrupts memory, it’s not simply the DMA command wrapper that must be checked, the entire sequence of logic that led to the bad command being executed must also be checked.

Just my two cents. I know passions are high and it’s tempting to see this as a struggle for power but I think that will only worsen the situation honestly. I would disengage completely from this situation and start up your own fork if you wish to continue working on this codebase.

It’s not a problem of being error-prone, the problem is that the ecosystem is split. As a crate author, do I implement my functions for color A or color B? Every crate author will eventually encounter this question and the inevitable fall out from making the wrong decision. Presently, the only way to deal with this is implement your functionality in both colors.

My pleasure. Don’t let these Rust justice warriors discourage you.

Gavin, I don’t know you but let me just take this opportunity to say that I think you’re an incredible person and a smart talented hacker. The idea that software maintainers do indeed have some responsibility to their users rings true and consistent with reality.