initplus

Products don’t come with a label measuring how much oil was burned in their production. Even if the manufacturer wanted to know, tracing that detail through their entire supply chain is really difficult. Preventing fraud is also very challenging.

Whereas if you tax at extraction this is automatically take into account at every step of the supply chain. The market does all the hard work for you.

It's not as easy as just filing a correction, there are different timelines for when large share acquisitions must be disclosed. It's intended to make financial markets fairer.

If he wants to join the board he needed to have filed correctly disclosing his acquisition of the shares earlier. To do otherwise is illegal and the SEC will surely take legal action. Filing now can't make everything OK, Elon can't go back in time and retroactively disclose the purchase.

It's impossible to spend any time tuning Go's GC parameters as they intentionally do not provide any.

Go's GC is optimized for latency, it doesn't see the same kind of 1% peak latency issues you get in languages with a long tail of high latency pauses.

Also consider API design - Java API (both in standard & third party libs) tend to be on the verbose side and build complex structures out of many nested objects. Most Go applications will have less nesting depth so it's inherently an easier GC problem.

System designs that rely on allocating a huge amount of memory to a single process exist in a weird space - big enough that perf is really important, but small enough that single-process is still a viable design. Building massive monoliths that allocate hundreds of Gb's at peak load just doesn't seem "in vogue" anymore.

If you are building a distributed system keeping any individual processes peak allocation to a reasonable size is almost automatic.

Look I really don't want to be a hater, but please look at the way your words are perceived publicly. This doesn't read as open comments about trademark law, it reads as defensive and oppositional.

This wasn't a huge PR challenge, all the statement needed to say was "Sorry, some lawyers we contracted applied for the trademarks in error, we have not progressed the applications and aren't claiming any ownership of the terms WASM or Webassembly".

Wasmer only has controversy because basic PR like this statement has been mishandled over and over again. You need to come off as good-faith actors participating in the WASM ecosystem. Defensiveness when you have obviously done the wrong thing, arguing with commenters under what is supposed to be an apology, employees posting supportive comments of their employer on said apology without disclosure... surely it is obvious how these actions are bad PR?

I know this reads really negatively but please understand that it's intended as sincere feedback. It's really important that Wasmer can reform it's image problem. There isn't any reason you guys should be perceived so negatively, if you can stop screwing up PR at every opportunity.

Do you see how comparing your company to Oracle is not the most flattering?

Oracle owns the Javascript trademark because it was originally owned by Sun, who trademarked it under an agreement with Netscape who are the original authors of Javascript. Oracle at least has legal claim to the trademark.

There obviously is not a way to get trademarks on WASM or Webassembly.

If you admit the trademarks were applied for in error, why continue pretending there was a chance they would be granted?

It's hard to escape the feeling that Wasmer is trying to hijack Webassembly for their own commercial advantage.

Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime.

It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation". Their recent efforts with the closed source Webassembly Package Manager reek of trying to copy the npm business model: take commercial advantage of a non-commercial programming language.

If Wasmer want to be trusted they need to stop acting like they are official stewards of Webassembly. Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders.

You can even see (unattributed) supportive comments from Wasmer employees in this comments section. It just feels off.

You still pay capital gains tax when you sell the shares. Buybacks don't let investors avoid taxable events, they just allow investors to control when the taxable event happens.

Whereas with a dividend, you pay tax immediately when the dividend is issued.

I'm most curious about whether there is an actual difference on the die between the performance and efficiency cores?

Or is this just fancy binning? If you get a die with 10 working cores, assign the weakest 4 as E cores and the best 6 as the P cores? This would be a great value proposition for Intel & the customer, cores that aren't up to snuff are not a complete write off for Intel like previous designs.

Higher tier chipsets have more PCIe lanes and allow overclocking. I would be very surprised if there is a large performance difference outside those two scenarios. DDR5 prices are inflated, and 16Gb is sufficient for use cases this CPU is suitable for.

Extra RAM and more PCIe lanes don't really help single core performance benchmarks that much. You can build something much more cost effective than the test system in the article.

Not being fundamentally different to the N64 purchase model from 1996 is the problem!

And in fact it’s actually worse given that many titles are available digital only.

Every pointer you can replace by a pass-by-value optional or a non-nullable reference is one less opportunity for errors.

Providing more restricted types that can replace raw pointers for many use cases makes languages safer.

It's meaningless to us as software developers but I'm sure ARM likes having customers to buy their low spec designs. Every product doesn't have to be a top tier high performance CPU design.

ARM's less open platform also comes with some advantages though. It's easier for ARM to prevent ecosystem fragmentation and non-standard instruction set extensions. Or to push for migrating to newer platforms like the move to 64bit ARM.

Software is less affected by these issues because it's inherently more flexible. If I install some wonky experimental Linux feature, it doesn't really matter and I can just revert. Different story when this is baked into hardware. The startup costs for independents to contribute to a software only ecosystem is also much lower. How many organisations have the talent to contribute to RISC-V, but wouldn't be able to afford purchasing a license?

Didn't mean to sound so negative but I worry in the hardware space that the advantages of such an open design are not as great.

I think much of the confusion around nulls stems from the fact that in mainstream languages pointers are overloaded for two purposes: for passing values by reference, and for optionality.

Nearly every pointer bug is caused by the programmer wanting one of these two properties, and not considering the consequences of the other.

Non-nullable references and pass-by-value optionals can replace many usages of pointers.

I'm not sure focusing on the instruction set is the right angle.

x86 would be more competitive in the mobile space if Intel had offered efficient chips. Is the instruction set the biggest blocker that prevented this? Or is it the licensing model? Perhaps if Intel had licensed their architecture and instruction set to others, like ARM does, they would be in a better position?

ARM's licensing model get's a lot more eyes on instructions sets and chip designs. It allows big companies like Apple come in and run the show, licensing just the instruction set. Why wasn't Intel working with large customers with an interest in custom x86 designs? In hindsight it seems presumptuous to assume there is no x86 talent outside Intel/AMD.

Really impossible to know how much the actual instruction set is holding Intel back without being on the inside.

Perhaps I've misunderstood but my understanding was that suspend/resume on the deck itself is recording some low level state (locally). So you can reopen the deck and be right where you left off with no loading.

But they also provide a hook so the game has a chance to save and sync to the cloud before being suspended, so the user can pick up from the same point on another steam device. Loading the game normally of course.

Nobody in such a combat situation has ever held their camera as steady as that footage.

Ultimately, you have to trust some photographer or organisation.

The camera sensor is not a trusted input. Nothing can prevent somebody pointing their camera at a high resolution screen displaying a manipulated image. Or a staged scene. No image signing mechanism can prevent this kind of attack.

There are manipulation detection techniques, but they are imperfect. And even if you verify the image is an unmodified camera original, you still have to analyse the context surrounding the image (what is portrayed in the image, does it line up with other reports, who is the photographer etc.) to determine if it is actually a true.

It is trivial to digitally sign text, but a signature on a string doesn't mean that string is telling the truth. It just means someone signed it.

Highly recommend http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/ for in depth digital image forensics content.

Maybe that's helpful today, but by remaining (relatively) standards compliant the kernel codebase has a more long-term resiliency. The more tightly wedded to a single compiler implementation the greater the long term risk for the project.

If some shenanigans were to happen upstream in GCC it would not be the end of Linux.

Note these are seperate issues, caused by the same underlying issues with float precision.

Some game engines solve the jittery rendering issues by moving the world relative to the player/camera, rather than the opposite (though it may be more intuitive). This way all your shaders work in nice accurate low floats relative to the camera at the origin, no matter the player location in the world.

But to implement worldgen with relative coordinates would be much more complex.

Curious why there is a derailleur, but seems to be only one fixed gear at the back? Guess you trust that motor to have enough torque to not need any rear gears?

Well the whole point is they didn't have permission to use that spectrum. The interference the FAA is complaining about is explicitly outside of the radalt allocated spectrum.

FCC has allocated radalt's 200Mhz, with another 200Mhz guard on either side. If these devices are not properly filtering out frequencies outside of this massive 600Mhz range, those devices are faulty and should never have been certified by the FAA in the first place.

It's reasonable for the FCC to assume that spectrum users will not be affected by interference from so far outside their allocation.

Sure, but these concerns do not apply so much to turn based games. In a turn based design all clients move in lockstep by virtue of the core game mechanics. Clients that send invalid commands will have them ignored by the server, and the client view will be updated to the current valid state when the client catches up.

I want Google to allow me to specifically include/exclude mirrors from my search results. "Only show my the original source of this content", or "only show me mirrors of this content".

I don't want to see the same result repeated 5 times across different stack overflow mirrors.

Sommeliers are professionalized, with courses & exams. But I don't believe they are actually judged on their ability to taste wines and detect flavours. Designing such tests would be simple - rate of successful flavour identification based on data from other Somemeliers.

Instead Sommelier exams are subjective - candidates are judged by another Sommelier on subjective criteria rather than objective measurement. In my opinion they judge it as a dramatic performance: how quickly can the candidate rattle-off various flavours? How "high class" is the language they use to describe the flavours? How does the candidate present themselves? Sommeliers dress in fine suits, but this should have no impact on actual wine tasting ability. Yet I am sure if I showed up in a draggy old t-shirt I would fail regardless.

The whole industry seems allergic to objective scientific measurement. I am sure Sommelier's do have some ability to identify varieties, but are they actually tasting all those subtle hints they list off? I doubt it.

Great example of this presentation style is in an old version of the Extreme ultraviolet lithography wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_ultraviol...

One of the most chaotic wikipedia pages I've seen. Sadly today it's much cleaner.

If we have the government to weigh in on which transactions are legitimate or not, why do we need a distributed ledger? Cryptocurrencies are trustless, but if we can trust the government to rule on ownership fairly why do we need a trustless system?

Modern LED street lighting is more directional than traditional sodium lamps, and results in less overall light pollution.

Apple's moat is much larger. The costs involved with hardware manufacture, and the need for a deep software ecosystem are challenging.

Meanwhile Facebook is "just" an app. It's pure software, and doesn't have the same ecosystem tie in. It's not a platform in the way that android/ios/windows are. Starting a new social network is much cheaper than creating a new mobile platform.

Can you not install it on a rooftop? Guaranteed clear view of the sky.