jasonzemos

I'll second this. The upper echelon of 5v5 is an entirely different game. It's similar to what was alluded in the post[1] about chess in another thread. The level of complexity is so high and the depth of refinement is so technical that generic statistics just don't quantify the conclusions we draw from simply watching someone's FPV. One would need to start by analyzing data at the most basic level: did the player move between two points as efficiently as possible without penalty or mistakes? How far away was their crosshair from where it needed to be at the point of contact for each engagement? How often did they misjudge where everyone else was? How accurate are they at timing enemy movement to another location without seeing them? What is their level of consistency at making certain well-known plays at certain locations? These are just the basics. The game-world data is available though for analysis at this level of detail.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40330923

As an anecdote, my neighbor is a crazy asshole who started blasting music and having parties at random hours; it can be problematic for sleep and productivity. Police in California are inept at stopping this. Will the company pay to send lawyers or do I have to waste my own time and money to pick up and move my whole life for something worse to be waiting at the next rental?

I've never owned a microwave, instead I air-fry everything. Pretty sure this is the same trick restaurants use, especially fast-food ones. Microwaves make soggy leftovers.

This point is of the utmost importance from a public policymaking perspective. Laws such as these are easy to craft now and difficult to change later. I feel like we are previewing an unfolding disaster here.

The future will clearly yield a class of "beings" striving for some degree of indistinguishability from or coexistence with humans. Proposals that discriminate --literally discriminate -- without respect for the principles of universality and equal treatment under law are creating and condemning a marginalized group before it even reaches maturity. This is an old and tired theme repeated through history. Let's foresee this and not get it wrong.

US Marines are trained to make their bed with military speed and precision as the first thing they do each morning. If one can't do that little thing how can one accomplish everything else with military speed and precision for the rest of the day?

Doing nothing your entire life but killing grazing animals and wearing their fur on your shoulders and teeth around your neck is just man a few thousand years removed.

If one of the variables preceding the `if` has side-effects then it's inferior to the specified lazy-evaluation of the `if`. Any external function not annotated pure will be called to assign those variables which otherwise wouldn't have been if it was packed into the `if`.

This is actually something I think the C++ standard should address soon. There are cases when extern functions which aren't appropriately pure are still "optional." The example par excellence is debug logging, should one choose to not use macros.

While I wouldn't be surprised to see some proactive PR from the company in the wake of recent events, perhaps including the post on the zkSNARK competition last month; which was in my humble opinion one of the few submissions that has truly moved me since the late 2000's on this site:

I feel obliged to attest that the people I knew working at Jane Street at that time were some of the straightest shooters one could know. My anecdote is that SBF's toxicity didn't originate in their culture. Perhaps it was a counteraction to it, if anything.

This was the same firm that stood behind the now convicted Trump organization's financial statements.

Where can I find information about how the German government came to this decision? Does this involve contracts to outside companies for development and consulting or will that all be done by the government? If the former, when and where did the bidding process take place? What alternatives were considered? I don't speak German, so I need some help understanding this. Precise links would be appreciated.

> Their pay can only go up by negotiating better contracts for union card holders.

Look no further than Martin Scorsese's The Irishman for an exegesis of other ways union leaders can increase their pay and solidify their power at little to negative benefit for union members. What happened with Jimmy Hoffa doesn't categorically indict all unions themselves, but it illuminates the continuum of soft "influence" and hard corruption. Where that doesn't exist, the pressure is there by interested parties to create it. The odds are in the favor of amassing power and wealth and strengthening a bureaucracy to further serve itself toward those ends. The iron law is upheld.

Is it a problem that the URL is not HTTPS or is it the blessing required to defeat it?

> io_uring doesn't replace poll/epoll, it effectively replaces typical event loop frameworks.

I'm sorry but that statement is incorrect. The same functionality is accomplished by either io_uring or epoll.

> every line in an application that calls read/recv needs to be refactored

If the GP finds it easy to refactor from poll to epoll they will find it no different to refactor from poll to io_uring; the only caveat being they won't exceed epoll's performance with the io_uring until the standalone syscalls are further refactored. They don't need to be. The statement is incorrect.

io_uring is basically a drop-in for epoll. It has an intrinsic performance benefit because multiple operations can be both submitted and completed in a single action. Rearchitecting is only optional when going further by replacing standalone syscalls with io_uring operations. In the case of poll(2) I believe it should be no more difficult than refactoring for epoll.

You make it sound so simple. Becoming a group member in this context means corrupting oneself. You are what you do. You are the last action you take. If you deceive the other externally while holding different positions internally, you are those external positions, and the internal is the deception. Those that lie to themselves this way have nothing to offer the group and will certainly never "make a change from the inside."

After this gained prominence I took a hard read of Koopman's Stack Computers: The New Wave intent on writing an interpreter. I sought some optimization properties that would apply to the modern requirements for ILP, OoE and parallelization at low core frequencies -- none are offered. This manifests in WASM, and the criticism was elaborated very well: http://troubles.md/posts/wasm-is-not-a-stack-machine/

> This essentially makes WebAssembly a register machine without liveness analysis, but not only that, it’s a register machine that isn’t even in SSA form - both of the tools at our disposal to do optimisation are unavailable. In a true, optimising compiler we can recreate that information, but WebAssembly was already emitted by a compiler that generated that information once.

Private organizations are patronized by market capital -- though more importantly, as individuals condemn it afoul, not patronized. The same isn't true for the state, of which there is only one, and operates as winner-take-all.

Aaron did a really nice job putting together Solanum (https://github.com/solanum-ircd/solanum).

There is no reason to rely on "triple replication" for data integrity. This has long been a solved problem. An appropriate erasure encoding can reduce the probability of loss ~ten-fold while consuming physically less space (i.e. 2x worth of replication). Companies forego this technology because they feel confident in their operational ability to address failures quickly and competently. That's what we're relying on for data integrity, not the math.

One company controls the specification and reference implementation. These gimmicks tend to be "open" so contributions can flow in from anywhere, but the company has full priority and benefits by controlling the pace and final result.

Outsider contributions are submitted publicly, while features developed by the company start in secret and can remain secret as long as possible. The company's contributions are rammed through while outsiders contend with endless bikeshedding with no guarantee they will get anything they need.

In the end there is no sensible reason for any other entity to partner with the controlling company. The partner finds they are prevented from innovating while being bogged down by the "process." The controlling party then seeks to cannibalize the partner's product during this time by shelving any of their unique features and ideas. Once the partner moves on, the requisite changes and fixes to the specification are magically pushed through.

I wouldn't call this a core business model as much as an enhancement to one. Fundamentally it's an attention grift -- a bamboozle of complex rules, procedures and processes, cloaked in goodwill, and furnished by a large interest and future hope at any given time.

Why are communist Chinese even admitted at all? Many Americans have tried and failed at admission and now have to settle for some lesser education or none at all. What are they teaching people who are forbidden to learn? Why should they tolerate people returning with systemic resentment? I see no return on this investment -- none at all.

Great link as it mentions Radar Detector Detectors. This is actively enforced in the US state of Virginia.

It's demonstrably true for the Trump campaign.

> Element ends up with some small (10%?) marketshare alongside loads of other Matrix vendors out there doing their thing.

What is a good reason for Element to relegate itself to only 10% of its own market and allow other vendors to pick up the remaining 90%? Can you name a product or service which Element is unable or unwilling to provide that competing investment could make returns on? If you can, why not pivot into that yourself? Can you assure parties investing in Matrix that Element is a trustworthy and synergistic counter-party?

Yes we do. It is only more important that the state is first correct, and doesn't persecute when either it or you are not.

What if the paper which finally gives us The Singularity is titled "All you need is all you need?"

You've forgotten the core tenet of every engineering discipline is the master-apprentice relationship. The reason why what you describe is really the gig economy is because you've turned contractors into autodidacts to cut costs. You're not only expecting engineers to work for you, you're expecting them to learn their craft without capitalizing that yourself. Someone has to pay for that too; it probably won't be your other contractors -- otherwise you'd be something like a real company again.

Your success in this direction to turn software development into some kind of cattle feedlot is only a mirage. Let me make it clear in economic terms: you're up a few chips at the casino, for now, because the market allows you to be. In the long run it's not sustainable, and won't yield any major feats of engineering with any level of competence.

That's starting to sound an awful lot more like C++.

Dan, if you're actually one person and not some algorithm, I have to commend the visibly valiant effort you've put into this place. You got this one wrong though.

It was a different atmosphere back then; far more "grifty" a time perhaps. I need not make appeals to some Hegelian universal history for us all to see now the owl of Minerva has flown. You were duped and spread disinformation -- that's okay -- apologetics can save you.

Since you are in a position of authority and trust, ironically, just like the subjects of this very story, there is one thing you can do: Apologize.

Just apologize, and keep doing your thing. History will judge all of us far better than our downvotes.

The title was edited only after the original propitiated the story into notoriety. The votes before and after the intervention therefor became in conflict. Hacker News aided in the spread of disinformation.