1,941 karma · joined March 30, 2011
This seems a bit disingenuous. To people with a bit of understanding of cybersecurity, they are admitting that they haven't solved it; but to most of their customers, it will sound like they fixed it and are being cautious.
Of course, some forms of redundancy would be better than others--in cases where people aren't sure which particle to use, it probably isn't doing much good. However, language evolution is able to achieve some optimizations, and I suspect the particles people know tend to be the most important. For example, the many sushi or shellfish particles might sound particularly silly, but if you're in those industries, maybe they are helpful in maintaining important distinctions in a noisy kitchen/market, or in written records. If you're a customer you probably don't know them, and you don't need to.
Epistemic status: Wild-ass guessing from my armchair.
- TS with Vue: SFC are not really working (it's showing a style change as if the whole stylesheet were replaced with a mostly-identical stylesheet).
- Rust: It doesn't seem semantic at all. It's showing a lot of character-level insertions and deletions that seem worse than how git-diff or GitHub would break down the changes.
It doesn't seem ready yet for what I'd like to use it for.
Also, CRDT's don't provide synchronization for free. They ensure that all concurrent modifications will be merged somehow. If the data being synchronized has any structure, it requires careful CRDT-aware data model design to ensure the merging is semantically reasonable (or that, in the worst case, incompatible changes produce a detectably broken state).
You've piqued my curiosity. No syntax highlighting?
I'm not complaining though; we're entering a new golden age for people who like learning the intricacies of ISA's and microarchitectures!
Detecting every way of doing a 32-bit multiply with a 64-bit mul operator is impossible, yes. But there only needs to be one way of doing it that the compilers knows about, and then people can use that idiom.
It's not pretty, but it works. Compare the common scalar int rotate: x86 can do it in one instruction, but C doesn't have an operator for it. The way to do it in C is to use an idiom that optimizers are known to recognize[1].
That's almost exactly what I'd expect from an optimal compiler.
Graviton2 has 3 scalar integer ALUs, and 2 128-bit. Scalar code can do 3 intops per cycle, x4 vector code can do 8. 8/3 is +67%. Intel processors have typically 4 scalar ALUs, and 3 vector units. 12/4 = 3x.
Zen has 4 units for 128-bit vectors, though until Zen3 not all units can do all operations, so the speedup in AMD land would be 2x-8x depending on application (although code doing brief 128-bit vector work would be limited by Zen having only 1 vector write port).
Science should not be corrupted by the goal of countering human irrationality. It's no use: racists will use "science" to rationalize their positions whether or not mainstream science agrees. And it's harmful: the more science deviates from the pursuit of truth, the less we all can trust it.
It's kind of sad that "this could kill you" is followed by "and think of the hospital bills"
Does data support modern humans having lower stress levels than similar mammals? (Or, for that matter, that higher-status mammals have lower stress?)
How would the proposed adaptation not be equally beneficial to lower-status mammals?
The strongest argument for this hypothesis seems to be its explanatory power; it smells like grasping at straws
If you care mainly about things that wouldn't matter (or even make sense) if you were the only human, that ship had sailed. Might as well use it consciously.