halayli

That barely scratches the surface when it comes to reproducible c and c++ builds. In fact the topic of reproducible builds assumes your sources are the same, as in that's really not the problem here.

You need to control every single library header version you are using outside your source like stdlibs, os headers, third party, and have a strategy to deal with rand/datetime variables that can be part of the binary.

That's not the right abstraction. What op needs is barrier/latch.

lvalue/rvalue are not defined by their movability. value categories are about identity vs non-identity. a pr value is a pure result that has no identity. you cannot reference it by name, and everything else is a consequence of that.

I don't know what kind of data you are dealing with but its illogical and against all best practices to have this many keys in a single object. it's equivalent to saying having tables with 65k columns is very common.

on the other hand most database decisions are about finding the sweet spot compromise tailored toward the common use case they are aiming for, but your comment sound like you are expecting a magic trick.

> It’s only in recent history that freedom has come to mean having a huge array of choices in life. Did we take a wrong turn?

Said who? This is an argument from invented opposition. I’m not sure anyone actually defines freedom as "a huge array of choices". The author seems to invent a mainstream narrative just to dismantle it(arguing against a straw man)

Abundance of choice and freedom are orthogonal. Having the right choice and being free are not.

without publishing mem_etcd code, and without telling us what happens when one of the etcd/mem_etcd node dies to compare, this write up doesn't provide much information.

You need to consider secured line of credit vs unsecured and the interest rate is significantly different as one is backed by collateral and the other is not.

if you have $100M and you need a $1M, you'd use your credit line and borrow $1M and pay it back from interests coming from $100M. it's not that different in corp.

The paper claims that 95% of companies see no AI revenue gains, which seems like an outrageous blanket statement. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

The real issue here is a fundamental statistical and categorical error: the paper lumps all industries, company sizes, and maturity levels under the single umbrella of "companies" and applies one 95% figure across the board. This is misleading and potentially produces false conclusions.

How can anyone take this paper seriously when it makes such a basic mistake? Different industries have vastly different AI adoption curves, infrastructure requirements, and implementation timelines.

It's equally concerning that journalists are reporting on this without recognizing or questioning this methodological flaw.

You're comparing apples to oranges. In pure functional languages, Option is a fundamental type. It's a concept introduced very early on when learning FP. Historically it had the same behavior and definition.

Trying to gaslight ppl to question their reasonable reaction of std::optional transitioning from its previous behavior to an Option like behavior when no other type in C++ behaves as such is disingenuous.

Of course it is weird in the C++ context, but is it a step in the right direction? absolutely!

Strictly speaking, in the C++ object model, malloc allocates storage but doesn't create objects. Accessing that memory as if it contains an object (even a trivial one like int) without properly giving it object lifetime is technically UB. For trivial types, this is rarely enforced in practice, but the standard says to use placement new or std::start_lifetime_as (C++23) to properly begin object lifetime.

> I've noticed an inverse correlation between how much someone is immersed in Reddit, Twitter, and Discords and how well they function in a business environment.

That's probably due to the sample bias.

you've checkboxed two fallacies with one stone: motivated reasoning, and attribution of malice. I am defending reasoning and logic here, not insurance industry. what you said might be true but you need to back up your claims.

I think privacy fits better rather than security. If your primary key is being used as a secret then you probably got your schema wrong. how will you encrypt them when required?

Fortunately, Chris knows what he's doing. https://docs.modular.com/mojo/manual/python/

When you read the title, "Why everything feels broken and what can we do", it is obvious op turned a me problem into an us problem.

It's a common pitfall to take yourself out of the equation when you are about to make assertions without evidence to back them up. The title could have been written as:

"Why do I feel everything is broken, and what can I do about it".

you will end up writing a completely different post as a result. a more sincere one, and one that is closer to the reality of the situation that needs to be addressed, and that is one's perceptions, biases, and feelings that come from our own personal experiences.

The fact that you are expecting a paper just published to have been peer reviewed already tells me that you are likely not familiar with the process. The first step to have your work peer reviewed is to publish it.

Prolonged stress is often a major contributor to cp. The problem is that after being stressed for a long period we no longer feel the weight until it's fully lifted which requires taking some time off and the majority of us are not in a position to do that.

this is one of the best videos to understand what a dB is and when it is used, and how to interpret them. what's unique about this unit is it relies a lot on the context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mulRI-EZ80

That is your opinion. If all you understood from my post was that I am commenting about voting, then you missed the point.

[flagged]

It's a bit dishonest imho to quote out of context. Here's the full quotation:

> Joy also claims that most of vi's popularity came from the fact that it was readily available and bundled with BSD, while other editors, like Emacs, could cost hundreds of dollars.

Joy was referring to the late 1970s early 80s here and in the context of making VI available when he created BSD and published it for free. Unix operating systems were not freely available outside academia back then.

If you're interested in RF circuits, I highly recommend taking a look at X-MWblocks prototyping framework by https://quanticxmw.com/

I'll try to explain myself better. What triggered my response was that the edit is not different from NYT/CNN publishing an article titled '20 people died when a building collapsed on their head' instead of '<entity> launched a missile on a civilian building'. What's the criteria we are using here to keep or remove '<entity>'? The article involves 3 entities and dropping anyone of them changes the narattive.

I have been hanging out on HN since 2009 and I truely appreciate your dedication to keep this site civil and it definitely is one of the very few that did not degenerate over time. That's the main reason why HN is in my bookmark bar. I appologize if my comment triggered you, and I totally understand where you are coming from as well. If it was my decision, I would keep politics out of HN as I never saw anything fruitful come out of these posts and stresses out moderators as they have to police the thread and find themselves in the way of fire.

I totally understand the contention around this topic but you're altering the keypoint of what the article is about. Why remove one country name and keep the other? The article is not about Meta, but how their platform is being manipulated by one country against the other. Your edit shows a strong evidence you're not taking a partisan position and have a preference. I am not sure you should be editing contenious posts when you don't hold a partisan position. Your edit is in the same realm as what the post is talking about. I understand moderation is tricky, but this goes way beyond moderation.

intereresting read. I might be wrong but I think the central limit theorem is what's contributing to the binomial distribution of arrivals approaching a normal distribution due to the summation of qi-1 + arrivals().

Over many iterations (minutes, hours), you accumulate the effects of these random additions. As a result, even though the distribution is binomial (or approximated Poisson), its behavior for large enough values and sums of multiple minutes becomes approximately gaussian due to CLT.

This is more or less reverse reasoning starting with a false equivalence. Most construction projects that are a tad different than the typical go over budget and over time. Most construction projects are thesame. If you ask a software engineer to build the same project repetitively, they can give you a very reasonable estimation.

then print it as pdf

You need to establish the causal link between user1 doing something and atop segfaulting. That link is what determines whether there's a potential exploitability to take advantage of. it's easy to think of a scenario where user1 is using almost all the memory on the system and user2 runs atop and segfaults because atop is missing a memory check and overcommit is disabled, or user1 deletes a file that can cause another app to crash given the wrong permissions on the file.

Great work! Maybe in the next iteration try adding a lite haptic tracking device(or similar) on the inner sides.