halayli

This is a naive take, sensationalized, and clickbait article. You cannot logically look at a graph and jump to conclusions without understanding the why, and without eliminating other factors like the possibility that it could be compiler regression or compiler not generating optimal code for latest CPUs, or power related issues in latest machines.

I am not making any claims, but the reasoning in the article makes a huge leap of faith conclusion.

The broken culture is what you actually suggested and it has a name, the blame culture.

> has claimed that the main techinique behinds o1 is the reinforcement learining.

Typos in the first sentence of the paper doesn't give confidence that I am about to read something worthwhile.

or not respond at all. On linux you can disable the rst behavior using

  sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_reset_reject=0

That's exactly how I use it. I find claude way more plesent to use than any other gpt I've used.

these numbers are just your perception. The way you ask the question will very much influence the output and certain topics more than others. I get much better results when I share my certainty levels in my questions and say things like "if at all", "if any" etc.

directional dependence of mass isn't as strange as it might first appear, since we already see similar effects in solid-state physics. But you're drawing a good parallel here.

I recommend you send samples to coffee machine reviewers on youtube and have them review it and offer their opinion. I feel this is the kind of product that needs consistent marketing efforts to maintain stream.

I am referring to physical pages in an SSD disk. The 8k pg page maps to 2 pages in a typical SSD disk. Your comment proves my initial point, which is write amplification cannot be discussed without talking about the disk types and their behavior.

This topic cannot be discussed alone without talking about disks. SSDs write 4k page at a time. Meaning if you're going to update 1 bit, the disk will read 4k, you update the bit, and it writes back a 4k page in a new slot. So the penalty for copying varies depending on the disk type.

youre answer shows dunning-kruger is full effect.

A random person claims adding 1=1 is a security risk and you are going to add it as caveat without verifying if the claim is true nor knowing why? That's how misinformation spreads around.

OP doesn't know what they are talking about because adding 1=1 is not a security risk. 1=1 is related to sql injections where a malicious attacker injects 'OR 1=1' into the end of the where clause to disable the where clause completely. OP probably saw '1=1' and threw that into the comment.

got it. The confusion then is spawning(no pun) from the assumption that pid 1 script forks while it doesn't. It calls a program and wait for it to exit. Only then pid 1 exits and the system shuts down.

what do you mean pid 1 should exit right away? pid 1 is the init process and is the first and last process in the OS life cycle. All other processes run as child processes of init.

This post is meaningless without clearly defining what reliable means.

Regarding ack not being received by sender when connection breaks, it's a weak and dishonest argument thinking it will strengthen their position, but completely ignoring the fact that TCP reliability is dependent on the simple and obvious fact that the connection exists!

That's far from factual and you are making things up. You don't need to send the actual keys to a siem service to monitor the usage of those secrets. You can use a cryptographic hash and send the hash instead. And they definitely don't need to dump env values and send them all.

Sending env vars of all your employees to one place doesn't improve anything. In fact, one can argue the company is now more vulnerable.

It feels like a decision made by a clueless school principle, instead of a security expert.

IMO the book title be 'The Elements of Web APIs'

> This seems like a questionable design decision. Should a program be allowed to behave differently based on its name? From a 2020s standpoint, this seems highly undesirable, as it makes software less predictable and goes against modern design principles.

No it doesn't make software less predictable nor does it goes against modern design principles. argv has very handy use cases and can be used to provide better user experience.

Unless you have evidence to back up your claims, you're just turning a subjective opinion to an objective one without any merit.

Either way, it's software developer choice and irrelevant to the user as much as it is irrelevant to the user whether the developer prefers for(;;) over while(1).

Reading your very confident response it makes me wonder the same about you.

> Multiple engineers identified the issue via analysis of stack dumps as being triggered by a null pointer bug in the C++ the Crowdstrike update was written in; it appears to have tried to call an invalid region of memory that results in a process getting immediately killed by Windows, but that take looked increasingly controversial and Crowdstrike itself said that the incident was not due to "null bytes contained within Channel File 291 [the update that triggered the crashes] or any other Channel File."

In C++ lingo they are called function objects or callables, not functor. You might stumble on code here and there that suffix a class name with Functor but it's not that common.

The term "vector" represents an ordered collection of elements(ex 3-dim vector is [x,y,z]). A list is flat out incorrect because it is used to refer to linked list(std::list), and a collection means a group of objects and that can be anything like a map, set, etc so it's too generic.

Before C++ popularized the term, other programming languages and libraries had already used "vector" to describe similar data structures. For example, Common Lisp has a vector type that represents a one-dimensional array.

Consumers buy these devices. Apple doesn't give them away for free. A consumer should be able to run whatever they want on the devices they have purchased. We are a long way from achieving this basic goal.

No, that just proves that intelligence can create another intelligence. It does not rule out that intelligence can exist due to entropy.

My comment was in the context of which is better for learning purposes. You spun my comment and turned it into mono vs micro kernel.

System Design is about trade offs. You conveniently say "expose the same structural flaws monolithic kernels do" and not mention anything about microkernels. System arch discussions are not about who "wins", but about trade offs.

> but monolithic kernels face the same problems they did in the 80s

Putting your lack of balance aside, what problems are you talking about specifically? Are you aware of how many new instructions have been added since the 80s that were designed specifically to address the shortcomings of monolithic kernels? Microkernels, even when resources were much scarcer back in the 1980s, still did not become popular.

Both designs have their use cases. Micro and mono kernels have pros and cons but for learning purposes it makes more sense to teach about monolothic kernels since all popular operating systems follow this design.

Vonn Neumann architecture is 80 yrs old. Why is it relevant how long a design is if it's still the most relevant and widely used one? The basic abstractions of unix v6 still holds to this day.

The main difference between Microkernels and Monolithic is how address space get to be shared between userland and kernel. I don't see how microkernel design would be "better". Why teach a design that isn't widely used?

HTTP is a request-response protocol. It doesn't deal with state transfer nor does it define it. I find it weird that the first thing they mention is this:

> Braid-HTTP is an extension to HTTP that generalizes it from a state transfer to a state synchronization protocol.

They could simply say it's a synchronization protocol over HTTP.

A mistake is not exclusive to actions, it encompass judgement as well. Misguided actions start from a misguided judgement.

They talk about what they store but zero mention on their retreival requirements.

Agreed. Database in this context is expected to be a DBMS or equivalent.