8,650 karma · joined August 15, 2007
Maybe it'll all work out.
If I have 4 cores, and 1 is going flat out, I could see insulating the unused (or lesser used) cores. The idea being give the hot part the full cooling capacity.
That seems like the obvious idea. But maybe I'm misunderstanding or forgetting something fundamental.
I'd imagine if they rack up a bunch of no-shows They could change their dmca handling process. We're not honoring these without property X, because these last hundred or thousand or whatever turned out to be fake.
I guess, I'd assert google lawyers are not dumb, and they probably have a reason to start stacking "wins". But I don't know what the strategy or end goal might be. I'm just some random guy on the internet with an opinion.
Sorta like weev. There are plenty of reasons to not like the guy. But that's the case that made changing the numbers in a URL a possible felony.
Anyway, once they get that first win, they pick on a slightly larger target, and cite the first win as precident.
There are little bits of research on algorithm replacement. Like, have the compiler detect that you're trying to sort, and generate the code for quick sort or timsort. it works, kinda. There are a lot of ways to hide a sort in code, and the compiler can't readily find them all.
When it's all uniform and consistent it's magic. When it's mushy and weird, it's a lot less magic.
Learning from that guy though was really eye opening. He had a fondness for the I guess 60's ish design. How do you make something that looks good on the side of a pen, and also looks good on the side of a plane? .5 cm to 5m maybe? familiar? recognizable?
This one is a cute puzzle. It doesn't do much for me, but I'd bet back in the day it was amazing to see a company as uptight and powerful as IBM doing something, I guess, whimsical. Yeah, that tape drive is full of dull grey boring tax records. But it's got a sense of humor about it.
Logo's are tricky.
A good design guideline book is a pretty amazing thing, and there's some of that in the do's and don'ts section. There's something comforting (to my disorganized programmer mind) about seeing the idea fully thought out, how it's supposed to be, and stuff to not do.
for example: "It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were awakening." [1]
I'd accept he liked killing, and the 10,000 animals is a fantastic indicator of that. I do think there's a bit more texture an nuance, given the time and technology. I'm not a fan of the "great man" model of history. I think a lot of his reforms would have come around anyway. But he really was an interesting character.
1. https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/theodore-roose...
Let me clarify a little bit. I think there are some folks that just like killing. And some of those folks have the money to spare.
I can think of a family or two that didn't have a lot. But a truck and a spotlight, not to hard to come by. One guy driving and another shoots from the bed of the truck at 3 in the morning. Is that sporting? is it fun for them? Did the meat go to waste? Maybe they just like killing too. But internally I give a little more leeway.
From the hunters I've interacted with, there's a sort of convenient split. One has a lot of gear, pheromones, covers a lot of ground with trucks or atvs. Personally, I don't find this particularly sporting, but it's not really my place to judge. Some folks do (well, did, when I was a kid) this because that meat would save them a lot of money.
The other kind of hunter will only take 3-5 bullets, but tell you if they use more than one, they messed up.
From everything I've read, Roosevelt was very much the second kind. Go out in the woods. look around. Try to really understand what's going on, and figure it out. It shows in his legacy, the national parks, the conservation movement, heck, Teddy Bears are named after him.
It was great for screwing around. But yeah, getting real precision would be a massive undertaking.
__edit__ now that I think about it, they could get massive improvements by counting how many times the wheel rotated. The tire would change size as it wore down, but that would have been a really helpful datapoint.
a quick search didn't find any hard numbers. but, yeah, I'd bet a few dollars they they were (are?) very good.
They had to get a janitor to pull my car around the next day.
I mean, it's a little unusual to need to push the stick down to go into reverse, but I guess it's like secret knowledge now days.
I really love that car. Who knows how things'll go. I hope it'll outlast me.
But there are some things that are challenging to test for. Tests sample the space, proofs define the space. you can't build it wrong. (you can sure have a bad spec, and build the wrong thing though)
Tests definitely help. It sorta feels like there's value left on the table. The spec, the types let you define broader constraints, and you catch them all.
My thinking is still pretty fuzzy. But I feel like there's something important and valuable with the idea of "this is the specification of the software" and the "this software meets that specification".
Now, yes, maybe the specification is wrong. Proofs are hard to write. All software has a bunch of implicit constraints. I forget them for the code I wrote, and it's even tougher to figure them out when I'm handed a legacy project where the author is long gone.
There's something really important about that dual view of, this is what it's supposed to do, and this is what it does. And tools can help check that they agree!
There's like the classic Haskell example of verified email - at some point the user was sent an email and they clicked a link, so that string is special, pretty sure foo@example.com is a real email.
The ability to slap a type on something, then have tools tell you "this is everything that needs to be updated" is really appealing. Like, The account must be in good standing before shipping product. So I keep puttering around with it.
It's often difficult to add features and be super sure you're not breaking stuff. Well, maybe not you, but me, for sure.
Try this call no more than 3 times in 60ms, and get back to me. It’s complicated and frustrating and not always worth it, but even with lots of io, the logic, the strategy, can live in the pure compositional parts.
Your mileage may vary, but it’s often worth a little thought at least.
So given that context, it doesn't sound to tough to add a cost to the type for each operation, function call, whatever, and have the type checker count up the cost of each call. So you'd have real proof that you're under some threshold. I wouldn't put the agda runtime on a flight control computer. But I think I could write a compiler, now, For like a microcontroller that would count up (or spend time budget, doesn't matter).
A more sophisticated computer would be way way harder, and be resource efficient. But if you modeled it as "everything's a cache miss" and don't mind a bunch of no-ops all the time, that would be a pretty straightforward adaptation of the microcontroller approach.
I know, I know. But it was designed for non programmers.
Their syntax in this case is
Perform . . . Times
The language might give some insight by offering a different perspective
So, does the defense get to subpoena the logs, and depose a programmer to explain why some random request returned a 502?
Does the defense get, like, red team access?
Although I'm a lazy programmer, I do think a lot about failure modes. If my freedom is on the line, I can probably think up a few (orders of magnitude) test cases. Happy to provide a shell script or python or golang binary to check. Heck, if it comes down to it I'll provide a stack of fortran cards. Do I get to see the source? That "few" is probably going to move a decimal place or 5.
I get volume is not reasonable in the eyes of the court. Scale is how you(I) find problems, but whatever. Gimmie source, gimme access, I doubt I could beat Knuth, but with my freedom on the line I could give him a run for his money.
How do CVE's count? If I find evidence of log4j do I auto win?
This makes me think of the Jepsen tire fire talk. The system probably mostly right. But there's no way it's correct. What's a "fair" level of access to prove that?
I thought you meant, adding points would shrink the size of the smallest triangle. Rereading the thread and the article, (I think you mean) The only possible effect (if there is any effect at all) of adding points is is to shrink the size of the smallest triangle.
I was thinking of a 10x10 square, and points at (0,0) (0,1) (1,1) - adding a point at 5,10 has no effect on the smallest triangle, but you could add a point at 10,10, and get a line, area zero.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I don’t think this is true. Any 3 points almost in a line will have a very small area. Adding points inside the triangle would help, and bisecting a small angle, a point on that line would work would work even outside of the triangle, for a ways anyway. I can think of a few other examples.
Most points won’t help though.
I'd imagine ms vc++ has tons of stuff to support this?
Again, I haven't used a commercial compiler in a while. But that seems like really standard stuff you get with them, yeah?
Strangely, I also have ECMA-404 and RFC8259 open in other tabs. mostly annoyance with the occasional flashes of anger over number formats and duplicate keys.
but I think the things you want to look for, if you start from scratch, are 1. evil mode https://evil.readthedocs.io/en/latest/overview.html#installa... 2. the leader key https://github.com/noctuid/evil-guide#leader-key
these are random search results that may or may not be authoritative, but they should be a good start.
I thought, the way insurance worked was, I take a little money from a lot of people, and when some rare event happens, I pay out that one person whose house burned down. I don't know the math off the top of my head to calculate how likely a lightning strike, or bad wiring or whatever might cause a house to burn down, but I'm sure such tables exist. So I bet every month that no more than one house will burn down. If no houses burn down, I'm in great shape and put that money in the stock market or whatever and get a better return. Maybe I get unlucky and have to rebuild 2 houses.
The sort of sense I get is, the insurance companies can't calculate the probability of catastrophic weather. So there's no way to pick how much to charge for premiums.
I get that it's a continuous curve. But if the cost of the premium is half the cost of rebuilding the house, why buy insurance? If I can squeak by one year without having to rebuild, I should just keep the money and rebuild out of pocket.
Perhaps I'm way way wrong. But insurance is cheap. If it's not cheap, why bother? if it's annually a big chunk of the total value of the asset, is there any point? Why put a $100 lock on a $50 bicycle?