biorach

> I certainly hope you're not so naive

There is absolutely no need to take this tone, especially seeing as the person you are replying to is clearly in good faith.

Nice, thank you

yeah well quote that line then

Pinning on a core like this is done in areas like HPC and HFT. In general you want a good assurance that your hardware matches your expectations and some kernel tuning.

I haven't heard of it being done with PC games. I doubt the environment would be predictable enough. On consoles tho..?

> C is completely dangerous and Rust is perfectly safe"

Nobody in this conversation said that.

If you're actually continuing an argument from somewhere else you should save everyone a lot of time and say so up front, not 10 comments in.

Arguably PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, as described in the article is an attempt in this direction which is being deprecated.

From the article, second last paragraph:

> There is also, of course, the need for extensive performance testing; Mike Galbraith has made an early start on that work, showing that throughput with lazy preemption falls just short of that with PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY.

You're talking about user-space preemption. The person you're replying to, and the article are about kernel preemption.

any citations for all that?

there's a lot of assumption of causation with no backup.

in particular I'd mention that there are countries with far more extensive welfare programs with measurably better social outcomes, so maybe there's something else going on

Right. But there was Oxycontin. So it's obviously got its flaws.

Linux does not have a stable internal kernel API

That wasn't whataboutism

Or, just don't be a dick, full stop.

> you would need re-write your code anyway, right?

Heavily restructure, sure. Rewrite? Probably not.

I'm getting a 404

> English is in all ways a Germanic language

Actually it's quite the outlier, due to its radically simplified verb system, loss of case and gender and large amounts of French vocabulary.

There's no "political program of obfuscation", there's simply a debate on whether these features make English a creole.

Mostly the former. Much of what is now France was dominated by speakers of Germanic languages after the fall of the Roman empire. They were eventually assimilated but left a linguistic legacy.

> He’s called a “threat to democracy” and that’s laughable considering the Democrat nominee won not a single primary

He's called that not because of anything leading up to the upcoming election, but because of what he keeps saying he'll do after it.

Well maybe that is a bad assumption in this case

> one of the worst corporations that exists.

Disney? I'm not a fan, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with a list of a few dozen worse corporations.

> most on the left have a strong support of Hamas

"most" is a vast exaggeration.

support of a two-state solution is not "support for Hamas"

having concerns about the massive civilian casualties in Gaza is not "support for Hamas"

It's attempting to gauge sentiment through tracking a number of proxies. It's obviously flawed, but it's a reasonable attempt at measuring shifting attitudes in various spheres.

That... doesn't necessarily mean that it's a "vanilla SQL server"

> So you could theoretically never press return or space more than once,

There are people that actually do this?

> you just don't know when something is going to dynamically dynamic the dynamics on you.

I'm going to use that!

Maybe there's some context missing? Was there something about superbabies that made them more likely to contest the TM?

I imagine that the DC legal team were well aware that the trademark was indefensible but figured that the expense of counter suing a well funded industry giant would cause most small players to fold immediately. Their luck ran out in the end but they got a few decades out of it.

Today we only remember the great thinkers of these times, and tend to see a linear accumulation of knowledge. If you look at the history of the times you realise that at the time there was a vast and confusing babble, it was very hard at the time to distinguish the valid science from the superstition, the blind regurgitation of classical authority, the soothsayers and yes, the fraudsters.

For example Kepler considered his work on the Music of the Spheres (google it) to be more important than, and the ultimate goal of, his research on the mechanics of planetary motion. Newton dabbled in alchemy, and his dispute with Leibnitz was very very bitchy with some dubious jostling for priority. And there was no end of dubious research and outright fraud going on at the time. So no, it was not a golden era of disinterested research.

See for example the wikipedia articles on Phlogiston, The Music of the Spheres, the long and hard fought battle over Epicycles etc

> There was a period of time when science was advanced by the aristocrats who were self funded and self motivated.

From a distance the practice of science in early modern and Enlightenment times might look like the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. If you read the detailed history of the times you'll see that the reality was much more messy.

> There's a false dichotomy between prohibition and laissez-faire, which the US seems particularly prone to.

Nicely put