temporarely

> (Russia, US, UK, China)

+France

I find that rather offensive. Implication that what, moi can't think for myself or am a sock puppet?

> "Speak ill of no man"

Aha.

I have a "radical" idea: why not actually let the constituency of this party make the choice.

This is correct. There is a social context to this matter. The advocates of 'almost right is most cases is ok no harm done' are ignoring the (likely) operational and utility context of these tools.

Back in late 80s we were building automated Fortran to C converters. Client was in the aerospace field.

> What is the value if is done automatically, nobody learns anything and the code is just a transcript of the old one?

You may be shocked to learn that businesses using software have a different metric for the value of "code" than educating their (transient) code wranglers. The actual value of software is computational work. If a new language affords better tooling and availability of human resources, that is a win.

Sorry, but personal views? This is a matter of history. These companies made obscene profits for their owners. India and China were looted.

East India company calls to say forget me not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_india_company

The beginnings of capitalism & colonialism. Systemic wealth transfer is not a mystery.

We have definitely experienced "boom bust cycles" since the creation of the Federal Reserve. The very first such bust was called the Great Depression.

Cubism was ultimately a dead-end as well.

Many thanks.

> So CrowdStrike is deployed as third party software into the critical path of mission critical systems and then left to update itself.

TIL that US government has pressured foreign nations to install a mystery blob in the kernel of machines that run critical software "for compliance".

If this wasn't a providential goof on the part of Crowdstrike -- the entire planet is now aware of this little known fact -- then some helpful soul in Crowdstrike has given us a heads-up.

what does archive.ph have to do with that? Isn't it just a way to get around paywall?

> its a very difficult problem to do generally.

Can you expand on this?

1 - (Application) System exist in the real world, not software. Software exists in machines.

2 - Computing is used to solve real world problem.

3 - "In building software we inevitably invent or use abstractions to represent or effect real world things." Here is the problem where we part company.

4 - Abstractions that inform computing systems are indeed useful.

[edit+ps]

self disclosure: I've reached 'architectural orbit' numerous times in my career. 30 years later, I am sharing a subtle point. Effective software models cutout attributes of real world elements of the problem domain. All attempt to "model the world" end in tears.

All happiness is rooted on purposive and positive mental ideation of one's existence. Having children will affect your mindset and worldview; for almost everyone I know this change has been positive.

> The real world definitely isn't

Ironically, (ime/o!h;) it turns out this the "root of evil" plaguing abstraction: thinking that software architecture must map to "the real world".

> Absolutely true, but how do you expect that to happen or come about?

In the same manner through which legal protection for various other matters have come about. By raising awareness, sharing thoughts and solutions, and organizing.

Enough of this waiting for virtuous entities to address legitimate concerns of the public.

The "ad industry" is a cancer and we need legal protection against this "industry". The solution is political not technical and definitely can not be left to "the market".

Haven't you had enough?

> Except that before GUIs became popular amongst programmers, the "technically unwashed" all used the command line.

Not even remotely factual. Technically unwashed before GUIs is before PC so that means mainframes. And mainframes did indeed have 'terminals' but the interface 'drawn' on these terminals were basically ascii-art GUIs.

In my view CLI is "inherently" more abstract and requires a relatively deeper understanding of the system that is being interacted with. I honestly find it strange one needs to elaborate on this manifest fact: see all the unwashed happily tapping away on their smart phones.

Also we're not discussing "systems" rather interfaces. The system is invariant. Take OS X. I know few normies who even know what "terminal" is or what it means and on the other extreme, most of my fellow techies mainly interact with it via a terminal. It's the same system.

Training also indicates specialization. Arguably any endeavor requiring specialization is already anti-social, if we consider society in its widest sense.

Your point regarding unintended consequences is a valid concern.

GUIs are more accessible so if we're playing this game, sure GUIs are "antisocial" in the sense that interactions can not be shared but on the other hand, GUIs are democratic since even the technically unwashed are afforded utility.

Thanks. (page 151 for those interested)

Thank you.

Sure, it is arguably cleaner to explicitly isolate error condition from general process meta-data. So in my OP diagram you can add an errout coming down from the proc-box. I've used this actual pattern in-process to hook up pipelines of active/passive components. However, there is no sense (imo) to propagate the errout of P(n) to P(n+1), so 2-in, 3-out.

p.s. That is pL(n).stderr -> pE.stdin, where pL is the 'business logic' and pE is the system's error processing aspects. I.e. the error processing component's stdin is the stderr of the logical processes (Lp), so there is a uniform process model applicable to both logical and error processing elements of the pipeline.

The issue is how to do this within the limits of line terminal interface (CLI). In code (as in in-process chaining) that aspect is a non-issue.

here you go:

Disruptor, Thompson, Farley, et al 2011

https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/files/Disruptor-1....

I've always felt stderr should have been stdmeta.

p.s.

Well, actually more completely, something like this:

                  +---------+
    [meta-in] --> |         | --> meta-out
                  | p r o c | 
     input    ==> |         | ==> output
                  +---------+

Working on ideas is a creative endeavor so this prompts the implicit 'what is your personality type?'

There are imo two general paths: opportunistic (in a positive sense), and inspirational. The former maps to 'resourceful' mindsets, the latter to 'creative'. Since you are asking this question, the assumption is that you are not a naturally creative type, so work on the opportunistic angle.

The nature of the relationship between the employer and employee is spelled out in the employment agreement (in the US). Sure it is legalize but the nature of the relationship is clear:

Any company that claims to be a "family" should put an employment agreement in front of you that reflects that. I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling such a relationship.

Rather, ime, the nature of the relationship spelled out is one of asymmetric power, rights, and remedies.

aside: WALL-E's story is strangely analogous to the mystic journey of a seer. This includes the precise steps of (a) isolation (b) love (c) rejection (d) hero's voyage (e) androgyny (c.f. WALL-E in the space ship), (f) spiritual fight, (g) the 'kiss' (h) the 'return' (j) union and establishment of a new earthly life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces