belovedeagle

I guess one of my plugins steals ^Z; maybe evil-mode itself.

It doesn't imply a latency drop though.

Psh. Map ; to :, git gud.

No, applications can and do trap either ^z or the signal it generates (not sure which). I'm a vi user [0] but I'm pretty sure emacs requires ^z^z to STOP.

[0] autocorrect lol of the day: "I'm a vi[rgin]"

I try hard to train myself that ^[ is ESC, but of course only in situations where jj doesn't work. =)

This reminds me of some dev tools (can't remember which ones) which require the user to do something like set an environment variable to "YES_THIS_IS_A_TERRIBLE_IDEA". If the switch to disable aircraft automation involves such cognitive barriers, it's possible that pilots could be relied upon not to use it except when truly necessary. Heck, the barrier could be that pilots aren't told of its existence until contacting maintenance. It sounds silly and useless but it would have offered greater assurance in this situation that landing could be done safely.

Which already exists in Rust in the form of... wait for it... the Drop trait. It's the same thing.

Yep, that first number is way too high since the federal government doesn't need to be involved with those things.

Luckily, the existence of confused or insincere persons doesn't provide any evidence against my claims. Any pair of people who believe themselves to have a sincere disagreement about whether mathematics is science are in fact both mistaken; what they really have is a disagreement about what "science" is. Furthermore anyone who thinks mathematics is science must define science to be the whole sum of human knowledge (rendering the word meaningless) or else some uselessly large subset thereof.

Mathematicians and philosophers generate hypotheses and test them using the tools of their discipline as well, which often includes statistical reasoning to guide more rigorous analysis. The difference is that in true science there is no more rigorous analysis; it's statistics and empiricism all the way down.

And at my university the philosophy department was in the college of arts and sciences; does that make philosophy science?

That's a terrible definition of science. All of human knowledge can be captured that way, including philosophy, which is clearly not science, even if people are so misinformed to call math science.

Computer science is in no way a field of science. Not even close. It's a branch of mathematics. Science is the practice of generating and testing putative facts using experimental evidence. Computer science and mathematics do not rely on empirical evidence and in fact empirical evidence is entirely illegitimate as a proof method.

Sounds like the SSA are the ones refusing to accept his status, but I guess headlines aren't allowed to criticize them.

SCOTUS rulings are not yes-no votes. There are any number of opinions written and justices who took part in the case (usually all of them) will sign on to one of these opinions, while sometimes noting that they largely agree with another one. I didn't look up this particular case but usually that sentence means that there were at least two opinions written: one agreed by a plurality, one by Alito, and zero or more additional opinions (at least one if there were any dissents). It means that Alito's opinion amounted to the same yes-no answer(s) as the majority but he was unwilling to say he agreed with their actual written opinion.

SCOTUS rulings are somewhat more complicated than yes-no votes. There can be any number of opinions written, and every Justice involved with the case will essentially sign on to one of these opinions (while possibly noting that they largely agree with another opinion and just have more to say).

Better lesson? Use zsh, where variable​s don't need to be quoted because they're expanded as a single shell word.

It's impressive how the article is reporting "as of 1pm" in SF, at 12:30 PDT...

Ah, well... point-free style is going to be more-or-less possible in any decent functional language; it (or rather, functional composition) is one of those things like "while loops" in imperative languages which, if absent, would cause you to consider a functional language kind of rubbish. Functional programming would be far too verbose to be comprehensible otherwise.

That said, Scheme is probably a good example. Lisps in general are a funny case for functional programming: historically they were described as "functional" but the word had a different meaning we would now call "procedural"; I think Lisp may have predated Algol so the concept of having functions at all was fairly notable. However, Lisps generally support functional programming and Scheme has embraced it more fully than the others. Note, for example, that Scheme doesn't actually have loops as a fundamental concept in the language; it emulates them with obligatory TCO and convenience macros.

Yes, yes, but have they finally given a human-understandable definition for BFM and related instructions? Because there's a really straightforward one possible but all of the current instructions are so misleadingly described that I think they might be incorrectly described, but I can't tell.

> piping multiple statements together into a single chain of processing[] without having to explicitly declare variables to hold the temporary inputs

This is known as point-free style. I think point-free style implies functional programming (at least locally; i.e., a point-free function will by definition be functional, although it can call imperative functions) but functional certainly does not imply point-free.

Wealth redistribution: a solution in search of a problem. The article does nothing to link this supposed solution to the world's problems​; it merely asserts this dubious connection.

Of course the article shows its bias more clearly here:

> Whether in the US, UK or elsewhere, the more dissatisfied and afraid people become, Homer-Dixon says, the more of a tendency they have to cling to their in-group identity – whether religious, racial or national. Denial, including of the emerging prospect of societal collapse itself, will be widespread, as will rejection of evidence-based fact. If people admit that problems exist at all, they will assign blame for those problems to everyone outside of their in-group, building up resentment.

This is using a lot of loaded language to suggest that it's primarily the right guilty of these things, but identity politics is a mainstay of the left, at least in the US. Could it be that eliminating identity politics is more important than redistributing wealth?

> Every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll.

This is bullshit, but it's very pernicious bullshit because while it only takes one person to pull this out of their ass, no one person can refute it. No one person can articulate where all the stuff in an iPhone came from; abstraction is one of the true marvels of technology today

This is answered in TFA.

While I suspect you're correct in this instance, that's not actually the point I was making. A lot of people have been going around the past few days saying, "I accepted a $20 voucher for my cancelled flight; was that illegal and they should have paid cash?!?!" People seem to have no notion of voluntary exchange.

I dunno; if you think that this is mere "exchange of opinions" where facts don't matter and people can just make shit up (I'm not saying you are, but that's the natural conclusion of such an attitude) then it's not surprising if you're involved in a lot of conversations in which the counterparty uses the words "argument" and "incorrect". Kind of like if I notice a lot of people I'm talking to are using the words "where" and "your" and "pants" in close proximity, I'm going to start wondering if I maybe forgot to do something this morning. It's ridiculous to come up with a theory that maybe people are just weird and like talking about pants.

That just goes to show that Ubuntu and friends are not serious production OS. In what world is extended vulnerability to months-old bugs a legitimate prerequisite for production viability?

So what you're saying is, "if your use-case doesn't support kmalloc then shut up and go away, no statics for you!"? That's ridiculous, inappropriate, and generally unhelpful.

Sorry, but you're rather sure of yourself when it's not clear whether you understand the constraints kernel writers are operating under. On many platforms simply enumerating valid RAM addresses where a heap may be constructed, let alone mapping them, is going to require considerable effort. It will inevitably be necessary to use memory somewhere off the stack to achieve that effort. Yet it will also be very difficult to write a custom allocator for that environment.

One choice, for example, would be to rely on the bootloader's handling of .bss sections to allocate a temporary 'heap'. Haven't tried it, but it probably gets the job done well enough to bootstrap a real dynamic allocator. The point is, though, you can't just say "throw lazy-static and a custom allocator at the problem". Note, for example, my proposed solution requires writing the custom allocator entirely outside of Rust, since it can't access any Rust statics. It also requires two implementations of the custom allocator - one for bootstrapping, and the other after bootstrapping. These will have to be dynamically selected between at runtime since (AFAIK) Rust is hardly going to support static switching between them. Then you have to consider interoperability between them.

Finally, not all kernel designs are prepared to do any kind of dynamic allocation at all: microkernels which hand all available physical memory to userspace for management there cannot dynamically allocate (except, perhaps, for O(1) of allocation in a small, static heap - but at that point, what's the point?).

Only if you were involuntarily denied boarding. The $800 offer is just that, an offer, and the carrier can set their own terms.