sseth

At the time of walking away they had 33% of the Chinese search market - so it is hard to see how they did not have skin in the game - to lose all access to the largest market in the world forever. And not only for search, but also youtube, android and so many other things.

I thought they were dense in the reals, but disconnected as between any two rationals there will always be an irrational number.

The terminology comes from a proposal for C++ which has been under discussion for a long time.

Because it is standard, in these discussions, for someone to quote Rob Pike to say that golang was designed for the lowest common denominator of developers.

Personally, I like go a lot for writing services and console applications.

Did they consider it minor even AFTER the first crash? I think even if you accept that such a glitch was overlooked prior to the Indonesian crash, it is hard to see the justification for continuing to withhold this and other information related to MCAS after the first crash - which - remember - was very much related to the AoA indicator.

As a start, for keeping details from pilots even after the first crash. For example, after the first crash, Boeing did not disclose that MCAS keeps repeating at 5 second intervals. Surely this was relevant information for pilots in life and death situations. But perhaps it would have required Boeing acknowledging the need for additional training, and corporate greed got the better of their judgement.

There are cases in court filed in relation to both crashes. And there are various official investigations, including an FBI investigation.

Sorry - I should have been clear. I am from India - and the ISPs here are quite bad. I have no idea about the USA ISPs.

Because what you get is often faster, more accurate and more resilient compared to the junk DNS run by most ISPs.

And because most site visits start with a Google search anyway.

And finally, because I am comfortable with their privacy statement : https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

They must have been pulling your leg.

I have lived in India all my life, and the fraction of people who think overpopulation is not a problem, or who think it is a good thing, is vanishingly small.

Note that the current rate of 2.3 has been reached from a high of 4.97 around 1975. SO regardless of what (some) Indians have told you, their actions speak otherwise!

The reason is that TFR is not the average number of children per woman over her lifetime.

Instead, it is calculated by measuring the average number of children born to women at a specific age (e.g. 15, 16..49). Adding all of these up results in the TFR. Thus mortality rates are not included in the TFR.

Per wikipedia, what you are describing is the Net Reproduction Rate.

TFR is not calculated that way. Instead, it takes women in the child bearing age group (say 15-44 or 15-49), and adds up the age specific fertility rates to calculate the TFR.

What TFR would result in replacement level of the population depends to some extent on mortality rates among women from birth to end of reproductive age, Thus advanced countries may achieve replacement levels at a TFR of 2.05 (say), while countries like India may do so at 2.1, and other countries with higher mortality may do so at 2.3+.

I do not see anyone condemning the last 30 years of FAA, just the more recent work. Would it not be appropriate to criticize a significant fall from their earlier high standards?

And yes the numbers are not the only relevant issue. It is the manner in which the original certification was done, the failure to act swiftly after the first crash, and the inordinate delay in acting even after the second crash which together seem to paint the picture of an organization which puts the interest of the manufacturer above passenger safety.

Agreed.

After the Lion Air crash, Boeing basically asserted the plane was perfectly safe, and that the pilots should have followed the runaway trim process - this means turning off the electric motor which moves the trim, and having the pilots move it manually using a wheel provided for the purpose. Boeing has tried to imply that in the midst of an emergency which looks very different from a runaway trim, pilots should have followed this procedure and this was in some way their fault.

The Ethiopian Airlines crash has shown that Boeing was being disingenous. The problem is that turning off the trim motors at this stage of the flight leaves the pilots unable to move the trim fast enough manually before they crash and they are forced to switch on the electric trim - which again allows the MCAS to kick in. When pilots who are fully informed of MCAS still were unable to control the plane following Boeing's procedures then imagine the plight of the Lion Air pilots who recovered from the fault 26 times before crashing but had no idea anything called MCAS even existed. An honest admission by Boeing after the first crash would have prevented the second crash and the loss of further lives.

However since Boeing is a multi-billion dollar corporation perfectly capable of defending itself, I think it is best if HN readers focus on defending the dead pilots who unfortunately are not in the same position.

I am pretty sure any mistaken criticism of Boeing will be swiftly responded to and corrected at HN or elsewhere by Boeing's PR lackeys.

It's good to know the history here. For most of 50s and 60s we were roughly equidistant between US and USSR. It was the crass support for Pakistan's Ayub Khan by Nixon and Kissinger before the Bangladesh war in 1971, which forced India to shift a little closer to the Soviet Union. Both Nixon and Kissinger had a visceral hatred of India and Indira Gandhi - see [1].

The USSR did help us with arms and with votes in the United Nations. While this was generally helpful, it led to a shameful episode when India chose to tacitly support the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. It may surprise many Indians to know that more recently, inspite of our tilt to the West, we have supported Russia's annexation of Crimea, and we were one of the first major countries to recognize the annexation.

[1] https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/indira-gandhi-is-...

I remember too. Wonderful books at throwaway prices. I remember Ya Perelman's books on physics. Also a wonderful book just on limits which helped me understand the concept in a way which no other maths book could. And we also used to have beautifully illustrated magazines. I still have many of these books. I think Ya Perelman really made me fall in love with Physics.

Since this is a huge field, you would be better off focusing first of all on one type of development. For example :

- Web Development

- Data Engineering

- Mobile Development

Web development is probably the easiest to get started with so let's focus on that. If your interest lies in Data for example, then the tech stack would be quite different.

For web development - My suggestion is to skim the basic protocols and standards (HTTP, TLS, HTML, CSS, the DOM e.g.) and build the simplest possible React application. This will give you a base to build on.

Once you have some basic knowledge of how to build a simple web app, its important that you learn the basic developer tools. E.g. Being able to use Chrome devtools to debug your application, being able to see the network traffic between the browser and your web server etc. These will help you in development and also deepen your understanding of javascript, http and other web standards.

Its also important to master a good editor. For web development today, I would suggest using Visual Studio Code. Learn how to navigate your code well using the editor, refactor code, get into a productive dev cycle.

After this, there is an endless ocean of stuff to learn. Web Security (OWASP), various features of Javascript - a constantly evolving language, perhaps even Typescript, managing images and other assets, how to modularize your code, learning about the event loop in Javascript, mastering asynchronous programming in javascript and so on and on. That is a lifelong journey - you cannot learn it all at once. I would suggest taking a structured course online which could walk you through the basics in one or more of these areas.

Wish you all the best!

I found several. See https://github.com/janet-lang/janet/tree/master/examples for some.

> Good organizations value good ideas, irrespective of who thought of them.

Ideas with only upside and no downsides may be trivially executed. The problems come with ideas where costs are certain and up-front, while benefits are medium-to-long term, and the transition may carry risks of its own. Big changes and ideas usually are disruptive and the best organizations may still struggle to pull them off.

In my experience even in good organizations people may have different assessment of what's a good idea precisely for these reasons, and getting people aligned behind such changes is what leadership is all about, and does need patient groundwork.

Newton's theory of Gravitation stood for almost 230 years before being superseded by GR. During this time it was proven right over and over. And in fact in many ways what happens with great theories is not that they are proven wrong, but rather that they are extreme conditions where there predictions deviate slightly from reality. In the case of gravity I believe one of the very few deviations from Newton's gravity known was the precession of the perihelion of Mercury - there was not that much known that was wrong about it.

I think it is fair to at least hope to find deviations from GR which would have to be at much more extreme conditions given the greater precision of today's measurements.

Or it may be that Chrome OS runs on fuchsia, and the 2nd linux kernel runs side by side for Crostini. But even if it did, this is at least a couple of years away, I think.

I worked (a long time ago) on Burroughs mainframes which did bounds checking of arrays (and in fact even type checking), because the whole machine was build around ALGOL.

I am not sure whether the experience from these machines was negative. It may be that when you move beyond one-dimensional arrays, bounds checking becomes more complicated.

Perhaps performance suffers too. Languages which do bounds checking often have intelligent compilers which can skip the bounds check in a variety of conditions. So even if the hardware is faster, it may be doing unnecessary checks. See for example : https://www.ardanlabs.com/blog/2018/04/bounds-check-eliminat...

My understanding is that the google tapping was done in UK using British intelligence services, thus bypassing the legal constraints.

Github ranking by open pull request to me feels the best approach if what you are interested in is trends of language adoption.

Measuring total corpus would be measuring past popularity and may miss trends. Search metrics on the other hand may actually overrate newer languages which may be searched more compared to more mature languages. Opened pull requests sounds like a better metric overall.

It's true that they may serve their intended purpose. But only by exposing innocent people to needless risk. Isn't there a better way to achieve the intended purpose?

For example, could the same not be achieved by passing a law allowing the government to revoke the citizenship of anyone who meets these criteria?

edit: Or perhaps a better UI? For example, this is just a checkbox you could accidentally tick. Perhaps it would be made a little harder - raise a warning perhaps? The real problem i think is that visa authorities can design the worst UIs and get away with it since they are an effective monopoly.

You may want to check this list and decide for yourself what it was about : https://www.theverge.com/2013/11/22/5135626/scroogled-micros...

I should add that i have not seen Google itself run such attack ads.

What I have always found strange is that the companies that seem to attack google on privacy are not so hot themselves. Microsoft's rifling through hotmail emails to catch a leaker, and Apple's handing over of iCloud data for Chinese users are examples of things Google has never done.

Microsoft : https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/28/microsof...

Apple : https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17587304/apple-icloud-chi...

From 2012 to 2014, Microsoft (under Ballmer) had launched a program called "Scroogled" - an attempt to in effect destroy the google brand.

The budget? 1 billion dollars. It was run like a presidential election campaign, with Mark Penn hired to run it.

It feels very similar to this. I am guessing that the goal is to trigger anti-trust action against Google, by creating this buzz around it.

The author talks about high throughput achieved via batching. But he has not mentioned latency implications of batching, or perhaps I missed that in the article.

Wouldn't batching lead to an increase in transaction latency, even if we achieve higher throughput?

TrueTime is not a timestamp, but a time with a spread which reflects the maximum difference in time between two data centers.

If i understand correctly, if the size of this increases too much, this brings down the number of transactions per second which can be done, so keeping the spread small is key. Hence the atomic clocks etc.