fancl20

Asking nicely doesn't work in pratice because people willing to answer the question is not a randomly sampled group of people and usually highly biased. You can check how polling works and why it doesn't work.

The problem is always how to randomly sample people and AFAIK there is no good way except randomly sample people (a.k.a telemetry). You can argue that developers shouldn't care that much about their software are being used and whether they are performing as expected, but asking nicely really is not a solution.

APPENDED: PLEASE NOTE I'm saying asking nicely is not a solution to get correct data from statistical standpoint. You can argure the data accuracy is not important in this context.

Note this is a correlation analysis. Before draw any causal effect between the result and Developers' identity, the data itself may include bias.

To give an example of possible bias that totally not related to developers' identity. From Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10, Softwipe scores over LoC have a very different pattern from star-repos, which could be:

If whether a developer uses swearwords is statistically independent, then a project with more contributors are more likely includes swearwords. More contributors may correlate with having a coding style guide which has causal effect on the score from SoftWipe tool (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89495-8).

Be careful when trying to explain data :)

From my personal experience if you have a good personal relationship with your manager, when you want to leave the company they may told you there’s an unannounced layoff in months so you can wait until then. You get extra cash and they can meet the headcount reduction goal.

Although it’s hard to know whether this is the case here \_(ツ)_/¯

How Rust's memory safety can help to solve JIT generating bug code?

BTW Chromium is testing rewriting critical parts in Rust (https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/...)

I mean, wether this is a bullshit won't affect "Small business were crushed by Apple" is a fact? It's a statement based on data. How you or apple justifying their behaviour is another story.

Two seperate facts:

1. Apple did use their market power crush small companies. 2. Facebook does have an awful privacy history.

So the question is, do you think improving Facebook's privacy must hurt small companies? Another example, Google is working very closely with UK's Competition and Markets Authority to make sure the plan of replacing third-party cookies won't punch other companies at their faces.

While this is a "narrative", there is quite a lot data back that this is a fact. You can argue that you trust and fell comfortable to give apple the power of crushing any other small businesses they don't care based on Apple's own company decision.

BTW, you can here the same story from small businesses' narrative: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087425495/tech-giants-and-ti...

It doesn’t have to. If your allocator is the first-class citizen in the language, simply check the allocated memory when allocator itself is manually destroyed (exit its region) is enough for detecting memory leak.

What do you mean by saying heap allocation? Do you mean syscall or libc? Zig has a extremely explicit requirement for any allocation. You can have a preallocated region of memory in the allocator for recursion and only move the needle for each “heap allocation”.

Before anyone jumps to why Chrome doesn't block third-party cookies, some context:

Regulators did warn Google NOT TO block third-party cookies before they provide a replacement, UK CMA accepted the latest proposal from Google: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-...

Apple's tracking rules also raised a lot of anti-trust concerns, giving advertisement in App Store unfair advantages among other ad platforms. Latest from German Government: https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Pr...

Banning third-party cookies will increase the gap between Google, Microsoft, Apple and other ad platforms, because they can still track you based on your account (e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, iCloud). It's a huge red flag for antitrust cases they are facing (especially Google).

That's a little over simplified the complexity of making a decision. A decision rarely reach a fully supported level of consensus in any cases. The process is more focused on reaching an accepted level for everyone, which usually means "I don't like it but that's FINE so I won't block it". The consensus of decision is grey instead of black or white.

Also, "the holders of divergent opinions must be minimized", not really. You can even continue without a consensus as far as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

"wisdom of the crowds" means respect everyone's opinion IMO. Direct attack to your colleagues will end up with warning from managers or being fired. It doesn't have any meaning of enforcing maximium level of consensus.

The problem of "try my best to prove I'm not WRONG" is much broader than Google's company culture. It's part of our self defense process and has been well identified in psychology (Well, same emotion as what you feel in this thread when someone opposed your opinon, your are trying to prove you have better understanding of the problem or smarter than them as you described yourself). Google's culture is trying to (maybe not that successful) minimize that type of self defense since it's harmful in many cases.

That's exactly the point I want to express - this type of communication design is not bind to microkernel or io_uring or any system. It's a general architecture pattern appears on any cross subsystems communication. Hardware DMA also has a similar design.