m-j-fox

I don't know much about IBM except that they made Intel and Microsoft successful. And I read that Mythical Month Man book.

I'll bite: why assume that IBM does know what it's doing?

I'll try anything once ...

But I'm curious: what's the headline feature? Like Go has their channels, Python has duck typing, Haskell is pure and lazy. What is EC's raison d'etre?

But it's so easy: [ctrl-z] kill -9 %1

You won't get out of notepad that easily.

GraphQL sounds like a cool thing I should be using already. Now let me scroll down to find out why it's a dumpster fire I should avoid at all costs.

I hope I'm not the only one who thought this was an Onion headline. Like if AI can run a Ford then AI can run Ford.

It looks like they do. But don't get excited because it's off-campus. How is that better than any other daycare in Milpitas?

http://child-care-preschool.brighthorizons.com/ca/milpitas/c...

I wouldn't say no if my employer wanted to run a daycare in the building. It would save me some hassles dropping my kid off and dealing with emergencies.

But they don't. And as far as I know, no one does. Not in Silicon Valley. Not anywhere else. Am I wrong?

Will be neat if it works. The problem with parallelization is that it's hard to get performance wins. There's a lot of benchmarking and you have to be careful to stay on the right side of Ahmadel's law.

Can the analysis be automated? I hope so. That would be cool.

Haskell itself is extremely amenable to this sort of thing but no one has figured out how to implement it AFAIK. It may be possible with profile-driven optimization to at-least guarantee adding a thread doesn't do more harm than good.

I love everything about this until he presents the syntax:

    album :: Schema
    album = ProductType (HM.fromList
      [ ("title", Builtin SString)
      , ("artist", Builtin SString)
      , ("tracks", Builtin (SSequence (Builtin SString)))
      ])

No thanks!

> (It won't be hard to make this conversion automatic, though I haven't gotten around to it yet.)

Well let me know when you get around to it.

> Encrypted By Default

Just like NHS's Windows boxen.

I wonder why it needs so many pins? It only has 4 DDR channels, which is going to be a bottleneck keeping those cores fed. 8 channels would be more appropriate for 16 cores and it would explain why so many pins.

Nice work! You know EDA is big business and for some reason their UI uniformly sucks. You should talk to Cadence about doing the front end for all their tools. You'd make millions and more importantly end an epoch of suffering.

Wasn't this a plot point in Silicon Valley?

Does anyone know if any non-MS implementation like samba is vuln?

I'm curious, does anyone know what tool he uses to disassemble the program into C? It looks neat.

Some great points. And yet, there's a coffin jpeg with instacart's name on it. Just give it a minute.

I'm with douche. If your config is so complicated you need variable substitution and regex then it's no-longer config: it's a driver program. Might as well program in a programming language.

I feel like the name bpkg is taken. BSD uses it and a search shows there's a Bash package manager that calls itself bpkg also.

Maybe call it cpkg?

> very hard to understand why a function could be useful in the first place

So true.

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.9.1.0/docs/Contro...

> mfix :: (a -> m a) -> m a

> The fixed point of a monadic computation. mfix f executes the action f only once, with the eventual output fed back as the input. Hence f should not be strict, for then mfix f would diverge.

But why tho?

Maybe I got my terminology wrong. I'm talking about the wave of new standards. I feel like they're a bunch of new languages which are improvements over C++ but not backwards compatible with C++. Every problem you have interoperating two different languages you have between these different C++es but worse because there aren't tools like SWIG to help you.

I'm cautiously excited. The problem with C++ is there's just so many good frameworks but you can't use them without creating more C++.

SWIG should be called WIG. And anyway, I can't see it surviving modern C++.

As long as I'm ranting, what is modern C++ but a bunch of new languages that are incompatible with C++, each other, and everything else? Forgive me if I'm wrong but this seems like a terrible idea.

I think this will make a fine build machine for aarch64:

http://b2b.gigabyte.com/Density-Optimized/H270-T70-rev-100#o...

With 372 cores and 32 dimm slots you can put your whole Ubuntu source tree in tmpfs so you will not have to wait too long to recompile your distro.

I'd talk to Gigabyte. They build systems to spec. If you want to go to Cavium directly then you're right that you have to convince them you have a solid business plan to move some thousands of units a month, in which case they will bend over backwards to help you do so.

When I saw the picture at the top I thought someone besides me was using ThunderX as a PC. The single-thread performance is nothing to write home about, but if you can find something to engage all 48 cores (like pbzip2) then its bananas.

I don't know why they say Cavium is "not interested" in making a PC. It's not their main market, but they'll sell you chips and eval boards. You need a few daughter cards for SATA and PCIe so you can plug in a graphics card. What's really needed is someone to integrate that design, putting the normal IO on board.

It runs 98% of Ubuntu packages, thanks in part to Linaro's own hard work. So they should know, it's a perfectly viable project.

Should we do a Kickstarter to manufacture our own DIMMs? Its an easy design and I hate donating to some corporate gross margins. Maybe enough people feel the same.

Should be about 1/8th more since it's just a 72-bit bus for carrying 64-bits data and 8-bits check. Or rather, your dimm will have 9 chips instead of 8.

How they get you is Intel will sell you a xeon which is the exact same die as an i5 in a different package for more money.

Sad story. Digital's best idea for monetizing Altavista was to plug their server hardware to the 0.001% of users who might be in a position to buy some.

If Google truly invented something revolutionary, it was a business model.

Seems naive for rust to try to persuade you to use their language when the right way is to launch under the aegis of a vertically integrated corporate platform. You need an HP, Sun, MS, Apple or Google foisting you on developers to have any shot at mainstream success.

Fine but why not pump it out onto some crops? Here I am paying to heat water for my house and pool -- I should move next door to Google and hook up to their drain pipe.