tanderson92

Analytics can absolutely be useful for your personal blog / website. Imagine you're an academic on the postdoctoral fellow / tenure track job market and you want to both numbers and see locations of where your hits are coming from, google analytics can help. For universities the ISP entry is often "X university" which makes things even clear than the broad Geo category of which city the hit comes from. This can be very informative in terms of what leads are likely to come up.

Chris Collins (R-NY).

I used to listen to KUSC until I got annoyed with the commercials and interruptions, of which there are quite a few. Now I recommend Radio Swiss Classic (http://www.radioswissclassic.ch/), which is better in this respect; the music may be of slightly less variety and with less scommentary.

Radio Swiss Classic plays older compositions; I dislike modern music as well and use their stream.

Not all linux kernel modules are in the main sources. Many projects begin outside the main tree and are pulled in later after they have proven themselves and have matured, responded to criticism, etc.

Got it, thanks.

You still lost that money though, the optionality isn't worth anything because you gain nothing on the RSUs by switching jobs.

Right...

https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1211098137823240193?s...

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” - Karl Marx

To be clear, you are surprised to see results on algorithms by a professor of computer science?

I wonder what gave you the idea that I was implying that.

Gitlab is of course free to disclose any information they like about those abusing their platform.

I wonder if the users who were affected by this malware think something similar.

Doctors' trade group actively lobbies to keep the supply of physicians below demand so as to inflate their guilds' average salary.

Critiques of the merely well-off can sometimes be more indicative of the major problems facing America, since there are so many more in this category. For example, by critiquing this 1% class you also get into very interesting questions about land use in California.

That is not what 'distrust' means.

Is it unreasonable because google has never before done things untrustworthy with regards to their employees?

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-ex...

It also works for Facebook (!), though FB keeps changing the API / keys so make sure to keep an updated youtube-dl.

This has the opposite effect that you think it will have. A person with many, many enemies would have many prospective buyers which would drive down their expected borrowing costs, which then materially benefits them. It's the same reason why the cost of capital of companies disfavored by ESG mutual funds is higher (and they are thus punished) -- fewer people are willing to buy their stock.

I didn't say I distrusted the hardware, I said the very opposite. I said I didn't see how, before this attestation feature, you could guarantee your computer software even asked the hardware to generate the key.

Oh that's great, alleviates my concerns, which was like, how do you know you're even asking the yubikey to do key generation rather than a malicious actor generating a private key and placing it on the yubikey. Thanks!

This is assuming the binary you are running on your internet-connected computer is doing what you expect.

But you already succeeded at sacrificing security, because there is no note about performing key generation not in an internet-connected machine, ideally a live cd / usb image boot.

From the drduh guide:

> It is recommended to generate cryptographic keys and configure YubiKey from a secure operating system and using an ephemeral environment

Wireguard didn't exist 5 years ago, so this comparison seems inapt on the current topic. That is, unless you merely want to promote softether... :-)

From TFA:

> They have constructed a historical database that tracks the tax payments of households at different points along the income spectrum going back to 1913, when the federal income tax began.

It may be reading the book for the full detail on methods and results. I plan to.

> It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated.

I read the article, in which this expected point is addressed. From TFA:

>They have constructed a historical database that tracks the tax payments of households at different points along the income spectrum going back to 1913, when the federal income tax began.

That is actual payments, not whatever the tax law says should be paid. Did you think academic economists wouldn't address this point?

He criticizes her for educating the future corporate lawyers of America. In her very first Youtube video as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) she proudly discussed her long career teaching ``money courses'' for Harvard Law.

Could you possibly elaborate on why you feel Nathan Robinson is an extremely weird dude? I only know about him from his writing in Current Affairs (and famously his take-downs).

They've been explicit about their motivations in this regard (claiming innocence). Then they backtracked when convenient (surprise!), but in a way that still broke AMD processors. See here: https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49

By the way, it's interesting to note that Intel has a disclaimer on every MKL documentation page about this; my speculation: this was required by terms of a settlement.

From the above link:

>The Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check the vendor ID string and the instruction sets supported. It also checks for specific processor models. In fact, it will fail to recognize future Intel processors with a family number different from 6. When I mentioned this to the Intel engineers they replied:

> > You mentioned we will not support future Intel processors with non-'6' family designations without a compiler update. Yes, that is correct and intentional. Our compiler produces code which we have high confidence will continue to run in the future. This has the effect of not assuming anything about future Intel or AMD or other processors. You have noted we could be more aggressive. We believe that would not be wise for our customers, who want a level of security that their code (built with our compiler) will continue to run far into the future. Your suggested methods, while they may sound reasonable, are not conservative enough for our highly optimizing compiler. Our experience steers us to issue code conservatively, and update the compiler when we have had a chance to verify functionality with new Intel and new AMD processors. That means there is a lag sometime in our production release support for new processors.

> In other words, they claim that they are optimizing for specific processor models rather than for specific instruction sets. If true, this gives Intel an argument for not supporting AMD processors properly. But it also means that all software developers who use an Intel compiler have to recompile their code and distribute new versions to their customers every time a new Intel processor appears on the market. Now, this was three years ago. What happens if I try to run a program compiled with an old version of Intel's compiler on the newest Intel processors? You guessed it: It still runs the optimal code path. But the reason is more difficult to guess: Intel have manipulated the CPUID family numbers on new processors in such a way that they appear as known models to older Intel software. I have described the technical details elsewhere.

Of course. It's very much intentional, and "not optimized for AMD" is putting it very very mildly. They don't need to optimize purely for stepping level, they could provide sane codepaths for when the CPU flags indicate certain features.

See my other comment on this topic.

This is well documented: https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49, https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#112.

It goes very far back to MMX: https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&cid=13042922

tldr: Intel's compiler doesn't optimize using standardized instructions on non-Intel hardware.

Yes. The problem is assuming the only thing that matters with the fourier transform is the DFT. Point #1 is incorrect. Sometimes sampling theorems are misleading (not incorrect). There are cases where it is highly advantageous compute a continuous fourier transform without a DFT.