mickronome

I have ADD, and at least one form of meditation clearly helps me makes choices better for me when I do it regularly. Many people are clearly motivated in a way that is detrimental to them, and if it helps them in a similar way, they might very well become less motivated by seeing their situation more clearly. Work is a necessity, an abstracted exchange of labour.

But if the same holds for people without ADD and the most common meditation methods. Work output and quality is still going to be higher, although your employees might not appear as enthusiastic as before.

He's clearly, and obviously not talking about using it as a hash, or even to consider it as a secondary hash as someone mentioned.

The use case according to the article is strictly to replace integer modulo to map into buckets for cases where that operation is the limiting factor. In his case that's when 9ns per key is too much, and roughly 1ns is good.

For small hash tables sometimes the worst case of a linear scan of the entire table is perfectly acceptable, and the additional performance the other 99.999% of the time is a welcome bonus.

It's almost certainly a hoax, but any book substitution cipher is very sensitive to errors both in counting, and in exactly which book. From that perspective, if you remove the spaces, it's almost intelligeble even to a non native speaker. Observe:

  ihaiedeposotedinthecopnttolBedoortaboupfourmilesfrombulordsinanepcaiationoriaultsipfestbelowthesurlacsofthhgtoundthsfotlowingarticissbeaongingjoiotlttothepartfeswhoslnamfsategiietinnumberthr ffhttewith

i haie deposoted in the copntt ol Bedoort aboup four miles from bulords in an epcaiation or iault sip fest below the surlacs of thh gtound ths fotlowing articiss beaonging joiotltto the partfes whosl namfs ate giiet in number thrffhtte with

I have deposited in the county of Bedoort (Bedford?) about for miles from bulords in an epcaiation or vault/fault six feet below the surface of the ground.

Supposedly epcaiation is excavation, that one I didn't get. Some of the latter parts I also have trouble reading without guessing a lot. Like 'joiotltto' and 'thrffhtte'.

Agreed, and I also think this investment/lottery/entitlement mindset is toxic because it devalues the actual work.

Human progress, our progress, comes from the work being done, not the money that can be made from it.

While money also end up funding other work, it's blindingly clear through the distribution of money and the proliferation of various speculation markets, that actually doing work to earn money is almost seen as 'earning' it in a roundabout way.

All you really need to do if you have real money, is to do nothing at all. Because while you can earn even more by doing something, even absolutely safe positions will get you a higher lifetime income increase than the average worker can expect over their lifetime.

It's simple math that shows how extremely we've devalued work, and I believe it has a negative effect on lots of things, some that might even too obvious to be visible at all.

If it is necessary with defensive patents for a new company to enter the market with an obviously not - in a quite literal sense - copied product, then it probably is something comparable to a racket.

If it is also the case that patent holders purposely withold the very trade secrets that is the bargaining chips that gets you a patent according to the spirit of the law, then if it isn't a racket, it's still immoral and needs to stop being allowed.

So many patents these days are completely devoid of the secrets they are supposed to both protect, and publish. Little is thus gained for the public good, and much is lost.

It strikes me as odd that patents has such a strong support in the US, as generally there seems to be the case that the government isn't wanted where it's not absolutely needed, and I find it hard to see how one could argue that patents are so integral to society that they should fall in that category according to the metrics that seems to be used for other commonly government controlled areas.

No, AFAIU it only implies that such an attacker would have to face the multi million dollar cost of renting enough hashing power to guarantee that no-one could steal the 'loot' before the attack has settled. I didn't study the article a lot, but it seems the attack transaction(s) previously crafted can essentially be stolen by any node working with it, and that the costs sunk by the attacker to craft the could then be avoided by THAT attacker.

I've never really met or talked to anyone that had both actually used autotools, and liked them. I find it positively invigorating how enormous the span of human perception and affinities seems to be.

While autotools mostly solves a very hard problem using several strategies and tactics that has come to prove themselves over time in that space, and outside of autotools, many of the implementation choices are absolutely puzzling. M4, the general weirdness of things, and not to mention the 10k+ lines of auto generated shell scripts to probe for features.

I've never loved maven, but at least it's insanity is rather symmetric.

Maybe it's a cultural thing? I don't find the language as being particularly abrasive, only as having personality, and quite expressive. But then swearing and cursing seems to be much more accepted in most of Scandinavia than it is in much of the English speaking world.

If the Swedish speaking minority of Finland is speaking anything like the good people of Åland, well, then it could be interpreted as trying to be quite polite. Never met any people who could get more obscenities into the most casual and every-day conversations then they can. It's really quite impressive.

I'm very much for accountability, although I fail to see exactly how it is relevant to this issue. Nevertheless, one could retort, without much of a stretch, or none at all, that if you need to store enough PII about your readers for GDPR to become a really hard issue to solve even with a ~2-year headstart, you either:

1) Weren't doing a very good job with your political reporting, and didn't know about it.

2) You are storing way too much information about your users for a newspaper to store.

3) You use deprivation of news to a particular group of people to try to influence them, or others to aid in your goals, whatever they might be.

4) You don't have that much money, and can't afford the changes necessary.

In my opinion, of these, only 4 is really acceptable for a newspaper, as news at its core is about trust, integrity and dialogue. Each of which none of the other answers leaves untainted.

... but I believe I don't even need to make the argument, because time and the growing distrust of how companies handle their sometimes very private and sensitive information don't care about arguments, it will simply make the things it cares about happen, given time, and the opportunity to be heard.

For big applications with high concurrency and long lifetimes where reducing working set sizes compared to available CPU cache sizes, it probably won't.

But for a lot of smaller applications, or applications where you need to do a lot of warm-up of the JIT/JVM to avoid issus on deploy, and CLI tools it will definitely be a net-positive.

Nowadays they do seem more content with absolutely destroying the usability of every product they own. Except visual studio code, but then they have always tried to appeal to developers through their tools. They just forgot about it for a bot.

As far as I can tell they have actively been working at looking better to developers, at the same time they have had to be essentially forced by public opinion to not silently, and by default send your entire life to their server because you used their OS.

I know Google does many similar things, and it's as bad, and they probably getting worse. But Microsoft didn't use to do that, they did a lot of suspect things, but not that. So they are also getting worse.

They have always tried to woo developers, haven't always succeded, but it's in their DNA. So if that has stayed there all these years, what else have?

Maybe not, but they won't get my money anyway, not yet. Companies rarely change, how they want to be perceived, how they present themselves does change.

Your probably right, but it's because Microsoft understand enterprises many others, like me, want nothing to with them. Because you are not the customer they want, however, they really try to make you think you are.

They seem to very deliberately have marketed to middle and upper management for decades. These are levels the majority of companies barely have! Most companies are small, the kind of companies GitHub is 'built' for.

IDK about bitbucket, maybe it's just me, but the page loads are like watching paint dry. So slow.

Don't get me started on their redesign, making everything blue doesn't magically make it usable. Code review using -u style diffs?! With huge embedded comment slabs! What were you thinking? After three comments, even a small function doesn't even fit one one page, absolutely painful and almost impossible to read the code.

It's not like it's very hard to do a visual diff, it has been done zillions of times. Heck I implemented a partial 'visual' diff in SQL once, should be easier than that when using a proper programming language.

I'm sure they'll try to 'Microsoft' it. They could never keep their hands off any UI in any product, no matter if it works or not, and especially lately, leaving a rather spectacular trail of destruction in their wake.

If it's true, I'm cancelling my paid account immediately. A monopolist tried and found guilty of monopolization shouldn't own the company where many of their future competitors have their private repositories, it's frankly rather disturbing they think it's a good idea.

UI would be a solved problem from an engineering perspective if someone could define what was necessary for building a good UI, for all time, without working directly with pixels, and without completely obliterating the at least somewhat secure browser sandboxing.

There are essentially no unknowns from an engineering perspective to create any possible ( not impossible ) solution in this space, except for two: What is a good UI, and how do we make almost intrinsically safe execution environment for categorically untrusted code?

There might be, and probably is objectively good UI practices, but what is considered by most to be good UI changes with fashion, with what primitives are available, and what is almost - but not entirely - possible at any point in time.

The kind of freedom the author seem to want is probably not possible to do in any reasonable secure way without all operative systems makers agree on a rather advanced security model that continues far outside the browser, in fact it has to essentially replace the default OS model for all content generated from the browser, and for any application that has ever interacted with any such content.

Looking at saving a file without a save dialog as an example, it might sound trivial, but then the smallest bug in the browser, which is a very complicated runtime for executing distributed content of mostly untrusted nature, could rewrite any file into an executable Trojan horse, completely taking over control the next time you run it.

To avoid this, the OS would have to restrict anything saved or generated from a page to the same set of restrictions that page had, transitively.

Even the possibility to save anything at all opens this window quite a bit, but not at all to the same extent as being able to do it silently. In addition to the obvious reasons, there are other benefits like not having to keep a list of allowed files, and thus can't as easily be tricked as easily to reveal the local names of those files either through direct attacks, or side-channel attacks. Unless you are okay with the 'application' not knowing the name of the files, but then someone is going to complain that it's impossible to make a 'recent files' menu, and thus the circle continues.

There are actually solutions to this that are plausible from a technical and engineering perspective, but they all work by extending the sometimes cumbersome restrictions of the browser right into the native environment to an extent that would probably make OS companies extinct in short order. They are likely to want to either avoid this, or try to become a single supplier. The various strategies of the actors in this space seems to be rather obvious.

While It's rarely hard to read a particular piece of code, the combination of duck typing, only structs as receivers, and interfaces can make it as hard to understand as any dynamic language.

There are quite a few traps for the unwary, like that a unitialized pointer to a concrete type will not test as null/nil if it was passed as any of its interface types, that channels ( for concurrenct ) isn't easy except in a few special cases, an that a closed listening socket isn't necessarily closed immediately, and all sorts of shenanigans. You could expect all those from a relatively new language, but not one that is ostensibly very simple.

If you, however, refrain from using any concurrency, interfaces, slices, and maps ( maps and slices are really reference types made to look superficially like they are passed by value ), and accept that the first element in an iteration over a string should give a different result than indexing the first element in that string.

Well, then it's as easy as it looks, for anything where you don't need to actually handle errors, or where you can always handle them where they occur. Also please do remember that log.Fatal() is actually going to kill your process, because calling os.Exit() is obviously the task of the loggin framework!

But yes, Go could have been that easy to read, but there are quite a few really odd decisions that make a lot of the apparent simplicity be rather superficial unless you happen to use a specific subset of the language.

Does that really follow? That purely software based solutions are doomed because hardware based solutions failed? Wasn't most fixes done at least partially in software?

Same reason I can collide with someone on the sidewalk while the universe is expanding at tremendous speed. Over short distances, the expansion can easily be overcome by others forces like gravity or my muscles excerting force through friction against the ground. However, given enough time, there will be less and less objects that are close enough to be able to collide at all. Lots of time though, and there are already now lots of things over galaxy could never ever collide with.

That's how some US tax/banking codes already work, so it's not without precedent. I don't remember exactly what it's called. But allegedly it's a hassle for everyone involved, both banks and customers.

Ah, found it: "... is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which was passed in 2010 and will go into effect in January of 2013. The act requires all foreign banks to identify and report on US citizens with accounts holding more than $50,000 in an effort to clamp down on tax evasion. If banks refuse to comply, they could face a punitive 30 percent withholding tax on all payments from the US."

Developers often are a soft target, esp. in small/medium companies, but in my experience it's more of necessity by imposed expectations from management, than people actually wanting to have "root" everywhere. But I and many others dislikes getting yelled at by management, and no one has yet to accept any reasonable security precautions as a reason for delayed delivery without promptly ordering that precaution to be summarily removed, at least not in any of the companies I worked or consulted at the last couple pf decades.

If management understands that security costs time in feature development, fine. But with the role software development has these days in companies, if security and ops doesn't succeed in getting management on board, please don't hold the developers hostage! Work with them and try to find the least bad ways of working quickly enough. Many of them will support calls for better security practices as long as it doesn't imply more sleepless nights because goals haven't been changed, only the speed of which work can be done.

For any substantial deployment, I really don't want to have any access as a developer, but often I have to have root access to tons of machines simply to have any chance at actually doing my work.

It sounds like someone who knows what they want and who like to get their hands dirty in a job market where they habe that choice.

Not all developers are irresponsible, and not all ops people are impossible to work with. But both certainly exist.

No, many people even as young as 35 tend to have tremendous nostalgia regarding the music of their youth, to the point that I who rarely exhibit any form of nostalgia often have trouble connecting with them. Regarding other things, yes people like to make themselves feel young by adopting styles and activities usually associated with younger people. But music is more rarely one of them, especially genres popularized after their twenties.

Eeasy, given the politics and history of the region in question, anyone in the relevant positions knew Ireland tax break was a long term risk, but worth it short term. Chasing tax breaks is always a gamble.

The algorithm could be simple. Evaluating all failure cases, analysing them, and getting the whole lot approved certainly isn't simple.

People actually do care a lot about the fact that you can't have type safe and thread safe code, or abstractions without tons of synchronization code repeated ad nauseum throughout the code.

Multiply that by 10 if you have several junior team members who have been told, and read, that concurrency and parallelism is easy in go.

While I find it deplorable that several companies are essentially using people, although in this case apparently willing, participants in testing auto pilot or autonomous driving software. I also find the lack of prominent road markings, signage, or any significant shock absorbing zone simply astonishing!

It makes me wonder, is that layout actually on purpose? I truly find it hard to believe that a road or traffic authority in this day and age could design that on purpose! It's quite well known that human attention is a tenous thing, and that the attention given to an object is primarily proportional to its size. But here we have a barrier end that is signed as being about as dangerous as a a bit of debris.

While I understand the issues, it's still much better in the sense that it doesn't kill anyone while failing to learn how to drive. The fact that we fail to develop something without exposing people to risk doesn't create a right to expose people to risk. It should be seen as either an impassible obstacles, or motivation to solve the problem of learning safely.

Some argume that it is okay, because it will decrease risks in traffic in the long run. This is not a valid argument to allow on road bug-testing, as there is a lot of medical research that we as a society don't allow because of ethical concerns, even some research where the risk of death is essentially zero. Applying research ethics to the Uber situation, Ubers vehicles would under no circumstances be allowed on the road until it could be proven that they were at least as safe as all vehicles already operating on the road.

So while the technique suggested might not work well to solve the problem of safe autonomous cars, the more dangerous alternatives should absolutely not be allowed.