rewqfdsa

It's part of a larger push toward revisionist history in general. It's no longer correct to imagine that great people moved history through inspiration and force. Now, everything is cooperative, gradual, social, and voluntary. Today's archaeologist might find the remains of a burned city littered with arrowheads and skulls and say, "There was no invasion! This was clearly just theater!" You might see an entire civilization wiped out, a language made extinct, a change in religious idols, and a sudden decrease in the sophistication and production of pottery, and the conclusion has to be "Oh! The people of this region voluntarily absorbed the language and practice of their neighbors" and not the fucking obvious conclusion "They were wiped out and replaced." And now, there are no inventory, no inspired people, just groups and systems that at some place and time happened to squirt out relativity.

> It's political suicide for a man to publicly stand against radical feminism

Standing against feminism is becoming more and more viable. The amazing thing about these radicals is that they only have the power you give them. If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Is your ideology beach body ready?

> for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.

Strawman, and you know it. I want equal treatment for all. Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.

It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.

> feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas

Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.

And then you get people who promote the Duluth Model, which declares men guilty until proven innocent. No, feminism has turned into an anti-male movement. Prominent exceptions aside, feminism is the excuse the current illiberal generation is using to curtail the rights of men. "Bitch" is profane, but the word "mansplain" is apparently respectable vocabulary.

Tell me all you want that feminism isn't a harmful force in society today. That idea is not consistent with my experience. When modern feminists hear that boys are doing worse in school than they used to, they just say "good; it's about time". These days, every time I hear someone arguing against equal treatment, against free speech, against due process, and again diversity of opinion, that person is a self-proclaimed feminist.

Modern feminists really believe that today's men, especially white men, should suffer for imagined crimes of our ancestors. It's perfectly fine to have women-only conferences and events, but if we even think of a men-only club, that's backwards and sexist. Feminism is about double standards and about setting the genders against each other. The idea that feminism benefits men too is a lie.

> I'm not demanding hypersensitivity, I'm simply claiming that the path towards better debate is one where emotional invective is left off the table.

You're taking the standards of a debate hall, applying them to an internet community, and then using the predictable and inevitable discrepancy to call the internet community hateful when, in fact, that's the normal level of discourse for _any_ internet community.

> I really don't see how this stance is hypocritical

Do you excuse the other side's casual use of "kill all men"? What about explicit statements that I am literally unqualified to hold an opinion because of my chromosomal makeup and the color of my skin? Those come across as equally hateful to me.

Is that really the best you can do?

> Fucking demolished

Perfectly appropriate informal language that means "You won the argument convincingly"

> It's sad that a bunch of raving lunatic SJWs can have this effect. Useless self-absorbed maniacs with no purpose in life but to pester those that have.

Many SJWs are, in fact, saving lunatics who have no purpose in life but to heckle and protest everything

> Fuck that piece of shit

Very common language when talking about public figures --- and I'd be willing to bet you used similar language about Bush, or Cameron, or Harper, or anyone else on the wrong side.

You're demonstrating exactly the kind of militarized hypersensitivity and craven hypocrisy that's turned colleges (and increasingly, workplaces) into zones for political indoctrination.

> Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses

Do they? What "outlandish responses" might those be? You're smearing by implication. What specifically do you find so "outlandish"? As far as I can tell, people making claims like yours think that creating a consistent set of rules for all, promoting free expression of all views, and countering group libel are thoughtcrimes. What's "disagreeable" is countering the idea that I might be guilty of something because of my gender and ancestry.

> it ends up being slightly malicious or dismissive of other movements like feminism

When feminiism has become a movement against truth and against half the population, what do you expect?

Besides, what makes those subreddits "less than agreeable"? I think they're important. Social justice is cancer.

> What is hard about making signals cooperate?

Library A wants to handle SIGSEGV for memory mapping X. Library B wants to handle SIGSEGV for memory mapping Y. Which of them calls sigaction? What if both do? What if then unload one of the libraries?

Windows handles this interaction sanely. Sigaction does not.

> raise() is supported on Windows, but kill()

Windows splits the jobs of signals into structured exceptions and APCs. You can definitely send an APC to another thread: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms6...

> They are much nicer to use than the Windows equivalent.

Strongly disagree. It's hard to make different signals cooperate. Vectored exception handlers in Windows have built-in support for arbitrating between different users.

The trouble with signals is that there are so few of them and we can't add more without breaking the ABI.

> Linux itself remains a minor platform for end users

What the fuck? Android is one of the most popular operating systems in the world.

> Just because it's the same wire, does mean it's internet.

Just because it's not the internet doesn't mean that we shouldn't regulate it. The obvious spirit of the law is preventing the owners of physical infrastructure from favoring certain content providers (themselves, usually) over others whatever the technical means by which this unequal treatment is accomplished.

Yes, this idea means that the FCC should make Comcast count traditional cable against its customers' data caps.

Sure. The problem is that intermediate-skill developers read comments like yours and just glean "lol, syscalls are slow" from them. They then go on to use mmap and kill MM performance. It's important to keep your audience in mind. Most developers do not write high-performance IO layers that talk directly to hardware. Most developers will blindly follow any sufficiently authoritative voice that tells them X is better than Y, which leads them to misuse powerful tools.

In the vast majority of cases, you want plain read and write. In the vast majority of cases, the overhead of jumping into the kernel is not your bottleneck. Simplicity counts for a lot.

How do you know I haven't? Besides, I said "most of the time". There are obviously important applications for mmap.

Read and write, most of the time.

It's funny how code written by masters tends to look a lot like code written by novices, while intermediate-level code is full of baroque architecture and clever tricks that don't work. The difference between master code and novice code is that a master knows when he can get away with simplicity.

It depends. Are you using aio? O_DIRECT? write(2) gives you plenty more options and these days, it's no less efficient than mmap.

The whole idea of system calls being expensive is obsolete now that we're not using heavyweight software interrupts to implement them.

What the fuck do you think happens when you write to a mmap(2)ed page anyway? The kernel has to know the page is dirty somehow so that it can remember to flush it later. It learns about page dirtying by initially mapping the page read-only, letting the CPU fault when you try to write, marking the page dirty, and letting the write proceed.

You're entering the kernel either way.

These disparities disappear once you account for certain key demographic differences. In modern service-economy societies, average educational attainment is unimportant. What matters is how many positive-marginal-product people you have, and the US still produces them in spades.

Right, so if your holder object is heap-allocated, you need to dereference a pointer so that you can then call into the implementation. That's inefficient, bad for the cache, and puts needless pressure on the heap allocator. C++ classes built out of pure virtual member functions are just as compatible. If you use something COM-like, you can reference-count and manage them in a uniform way.

PIMPL as commonly described is a waste of good electricity, like most design patterns. Especially because most of the time I see it used, it's from the keyboard of some well-meaning but inexperienced developer who doesn't even need to maintain binary compatibility.

PIMPL is an inefficient antipattern when the holder object is itself heap-allocated. You're better off coding against interfaces, COM-style.

> Advertisers just have to accept

Advertisers will adapt. What you have to accept is more annoying advertising coupled with increasingly error-prone code in both ad-blockers and ad-blocker-blockers. The only one that wins is Moloch; everyone else is worse off.

> What information one can get from someone's browsing history is awfully invasive.

Is it? Advertisers don't get some kind of toast on their phones saying "Joe, 34 from Topeka with a toaster fetish, has just visited your site!" along with pictures of Joe and said toasters. That's a strawman that the anti-tracking people love to hint at, but it doesn't actually work that way.

What actually happens is that advertisers target broad categories. They say, "show this ad to midwesterners who've visited sites about toasters", and that's what happens. There's no secret dossier just waiting to be sold to the highest bidder for purposes always left unspecified.

Yes, centralized trackers do end up learning a portion of your browsing history. But you don't have to accept third-party cookies. You can run with an ad blocker. And you can just reset your cookie[1] state every so often. You can do any of these things. You'll just pay for your paranoia with a shittier web.

[1] Yes, I know about non-cookie trackers. Advertisers stashing information where it's hard to clear are scum. It's up to web browsers to make it easy to flush all server-visible state.

It's an arms race. Advertisers may be able to detect ad blockers in the short term, but eventually they will lose. That's because users control their machines and advertisers don't. Widespread use of adblock-blockers will only hasten this inevitable defeat.

The techniques used by the project to which you've linked can be trivially worked around by detecting the script itself and either not running it or telling it what it wants to hear. (Come on: an iframe? You really don't think a browser extension could lie about that? I expected at least some kind of server-client traffic correlation for a serious ad-blocker-blocker attempt.)

But what kinds of science and technology? Maybe our user has a bit of disposable income and wouldn't mind ads for high-end hardware he didn't happen to know about. Maybe she's interested in DLC for games she's passionate about, as measured for frequently of forum visits. Maybe our user runs a lab and would be very interested in high-end PCR machines.

You can do much better than "interested in video games or technology" if you know a bit about your users. This tracking makes advertising much less annoying (occasionally veering into useful).

> detect adblock

One does not simply "detect adblock". Browsers are user agents. They run code in an environment optimized for user safety and convenience. These environments will always be able to tell your site's server- and client-side code exactly what it wants to hear while showing something different to the user. You can't stop it. The client will always win.

We may eventually get to the point where clients use various computer vision techniques to recognize ads. If I can clearly distinguish jiggling, improbably large elf anatomy below a flashing yellow "PLAY THIS ONLINE RPG" from content I want to see, so can an algorithm, at least to within an acceptable error rate.

Advertisements that are so borderline that they can't be detected as advertisements are ones I probably don't mind seeing anyway.

Spammers have already tried all available countermeasures and they've completely lost. Spam is so completely ineffective that it's actually dipped below half of email traffic.

No, the client will always win in the end.

... but it may change most minds. What bothers me about advertising is the visual noise, which amounts to a pollution of my environment. Better advertising can help reduce the need to rely on pure attention-sucking and so reduce the urge to block ads entirely.

I don't give a damn about tracking. All the doomsday scenarios that those in the anti-tracking camp imagine have not come to pass.

If the bias reflects a real Bayesian prior, it isn't the kind of bias that's unjust.

Yet he didn't list any or describe any criteria for evaluating them. The "in some circumstances" bit was just a way to weasel out of potential objections.

Which is more plausible?

a) the action of natural selection, sexual selection, and the hormone environment magically stop at the blood-brain barrier, or

b) there are real group differences between human populations?

We've already eliminated all overt discrimination. If you continue to cry discrimination, you're essentially postulating a giant unconscious conspiracy. I find the idea wildly implausible. It's much simple to just accept that not everyone is equal in aptitude and ability.

The baseball game in the image wouldn't be worth if equality of outcome were the rule for baseball team tryouts. The entire game is based on fair competition under the rules pushing participants toward excellence.

Inequality of outcome is the entire reason we see baseball played at a high level. When you demand equality of outcome regardless of talent or effort, you're asking for society to stagnate. You're asking for pervasive mediocrity. You're asking for us to kill effort and motivation. No thanks.