deschutes

Reference counting implies non deterministic frees. If you knew who the final owner of an object was, you wouldn't need reference counting.

While it is true that many (most?) GCs have STW sections, it's not at all clear that it is a bad tradeoff.

It's easy to argue for ascetism for other people.

powercfg /lastwake will tell you why the machine woke up.

Honestly I'm not sure where else you can find that information.

It's absolutely their fault. Folks have been saying from day 1 that aviation has dealt with this very problem. Telsa should know since they're trying to claim they mean autopilot in the technical rather than colloquial sense.

The only reason they haven't faced that is because it's completely devestating to the technology they're trying to market.

My reading of his argument is that sizeof is (compile time) function that maps expressions or types to their storage size.

From that lens, C has a design mistake. I'm inclined to agree.

If it is possible to have multiple revisions of libraries you will have multiple revisions of libraries. I've seen this play out "at scale" and what happens in practice is software rots until some kind of crisis or feature demands an upgrade. At which point somebody creates another set of branches to solve precisely their problem and nothing else.

Maybe it's just where I've worked, but atomic commit carries with it some strong cultural norms that make it really tractable to have one version of everything. If code compiles and automated tests pass, the change is safe and may be committed unilaterally. Inevitably things go wrong, but the post mortems for incidents don't lead back to the lack of permission from the affected projects.

I wouldn't maintain software that can kill people in this way, but for everything else it strikes a nice balance.

Is it a good counterexample? It seems to have approximately the same misuse resistance as parameter binding or equivalent apis. (For example, the dom api.)

In particular, this property of the described system makes it trivial for the unknowing or uncaring to subvert it: > It provides a string-management kernel that lets you create “safe strings” by certifying a regular string as representing either text or a fragment of a known language.

From what I understood, the certification is an unchecked assertion made by the program. One of the comments gives a great example of how this will go wrong in practice. The other aspect of this that is glossed over is that many data schemas represent all these things as "text". It is again an exercise for the program to get this right at the io boundaries.

The Tesla safety numbers are pure marketing. They make no attempt to control for obvious problems like the kind of miles. Notice how they say autopilot engaged not autopilot equipped when talking about autopilot miles. I bet gm has great numbers for cruise control engaged accident rate too but Id hardly call it a safety device, more like a convenience.

Given the telemetry the car is equipped with they absolutely have the data to control for some of these factors yet they make no attempt to do so. Why is that? My take is that after doing so autopilot doesn't look so good.

Efficacy and safety are intertwined. Safety can sometimes only be evaluated in the context of efficacy. For example, you wouldn't amputate a healthy arm. But for a gangrenous one, it may be the only option.

For establishing efficacy and safety, trials are the only process that works. Nobody can predict the effects of drugs because the current understanding of biology is very incomplete.

Thalidomide [1] shows the wisdom of the current approach.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

It's evil.

Mince words all you want. It's a scam.

What's stopping your adversaries from seizing hardware? Nothing? So the system relies folks playing nice in the physical world? The whole thing is a ridiculous fantasy with an asinine threat model.

How do you come to the conclusion that autopilot is safer?

The Tesla press releases? It's the kind of uncritical analysis that you would expect from a company trying to market something.

Food for thought: By considering only automated and mnual driving you exclude basically all possibilities. Hybrid systems that are designed around the limitations of humans and machines seem to be a much more promising but less flashy solution if safety is the goal. This approach has a long history if you consider things like ABS and the traffic fatality statistics suggest it actually works. (Crash mitigation technologies surely muddy the waters.)

Undermining trust in bitcoin is a plausible goal. An attacker with that goal wouldn't stop at one attack.

Crypto is a grift that grew into a scam economy. That's why it's unpopular on this site.

Even if one accepts the theory of military power your argument puts forth, how is bitcoin any different? What part of reality prevents a better armed group from taking over bitcoin mines?

And for that matter, I don't accept the theory; it reeks of motivated reasoning to me.

Bitcoin has the energy consumption of small nations. Banking is one of the many things that can be self contained in the energy budget of a small nation. On the other hand, bitcoin's transaction throughput would constrain my neighborhood's commerce at lunch. That is to say, traditional banks are doing a whole lot more to facilitate actual commerce.

It would seem to me that the efficiency gap is insurmountably large.

This comment sums my thoughts on that issue:

> Using uninitialized data as entropy source is an AMAZING idea in first place. “Fixing” or “unfixing” doesn’t make it any better.

A 2 datacenter configuration doesn't give you much if you want to survive a temporary outage of said datacenters. Observe that if you wanted to survive the loss of the dc with the minority of nodes you could place all nodes in the other dc. This is one of the reasons aws tries to have three availability zones per region. In practice things are messier than this because dcs don't always fail as a unit.

The unforgivable thing here isn't the anachronism -- it's the lack of a suitable replacement. If you want a full i64 worth of duration at a reasonable resolution, you're on your own.

The truth is that most folks writing c++ are spending a ton of time debugging their language knowledge or sticking to what they know.

The language is almost totally unprincipled in my opinion so you just have to know the minutiae to reason about and work with novel constructions.

In the hands of an expert, it's an awesome tool. To me, it's a miserable chore.

The authority on coping with cats: https://youtu.be/mHXBL6bzAR4

What is your point? The way refcounted smart pointers are used in modern c++ doesn't come close to addressing all the memory safety issues. Iterator invalidation, bounds checking, use of uninitialized memory, use after move, dangling reference (outside the aforementioned cases), etc.

What they're pretty good at is solving for use after free. Even there, caveats apply (see widely documented thread safety fiasco of shared_ptr).

What is the size of the served wasm binaries?

I'm not familiar with the controversy, so I went looking for actual views of said professors. Wikipedia states 'Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state."'

There might be more to this story than Glenn Greenwald frothing at the mouth.

After watching the video again I stand by the description. At that position in the video the man faces them and has his knife arm fully extended before the shots are fired. There is a second perspective following the first that shows this more clearly.

Given he yells "you're going to have to fucking kill me" seconds prior to being shot it's hard to interpret any of that as a surrender.

The other controversial killing in recent memory is a non compliant armed man. The body cam footage is inconclusive on this one to me. The man certainly doesn't seem like a threat because he's on the ground. However, he was struggling and armed with a pistol. They gave him many opportunities to surrender.

The Seattle police department releases bodycam footage of lethal encounters. I'd encourage you to watch some of the controversial ones and draw your own conclusions.

What's been interesting to me is that the narrative that develops between the event and the video release almost always survives the video even though the video challenges the narrative.

For example, somewhat recently spd killed a man that was brandishing a knife. Reports indicated he was shot in the back, causing an uproar. The video footage shows that the suspect was twisting and lunging towards them when shot.

The article is highly misleading. in the heating test, they heated the drug to 130 C, far beyond the temperature you'll find in a car. The gastric simulation with nitrites seems legit though.

To my understanding, all of jetbrains products run on the jvm. They work pretty well although I wouldn't characterize them as lean.

CO2 emissions are only part of the story when it comes to the effects of aviation on the climate [1]. For example, contrails and formation of clouds contribute to warming. Additionally, the proportion of emissions attributable to flight is expected to grow significantly over the next 30 years. And it's easy to understand why, a single roundtrip flight across the atlantic is comparable to a whole year of commuting [2].

[1]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-challenge-tackling-avi... [2]: https://www.sciencealert.com/ipcc-report-2018-easy-things-yo...