thePunisher

The obvious solution would be to borrow the HeavyThing instead of having it dropped inside the function.

The very first Dragon that went up to ISS had life support enabled. When it landed Musk himself said that had there been astronauts on board they would've had a nice ride.

Even though that was 8 years ago (!) I can still remember it clearly.

But Boeing is forever crooning: "Yeah, but we put a man on the Moon." So NASA will lick their boots anytime and pay them whatever they want.

Off course, if Boeing messes up again, the carpet will be pulled from under their feet.

Congrats SpaceX! A job well done.

I assumed this launch would be uneventful since SpaceX has been flying numerous missions to the ISS, and this one merely has people on it but is basically business-as-usual for them.

Apparently not enough as Huawei seems pretty nervous about it. If your competition is using 7nm and 5nm parts and you're stuck in the past with 14nm your market share will erode very quickly, especially in the smartphone business.

Mind you that other Chinese smartphone makers do not (as of yet) face the same restrictions and are able to purchase the newest parts. What chance does Huawei stand against them, even in the Chinese market? I'd say very little.

If this is really the case, SpaceX should take a step back and fix its quality control problems.

I mean, the aerospace industry has been using X-ray inspection for decades to check weld quality. Why isn't SpaceX doing this?

It has been known for DECADES that Oracle is outrageously expensive compared to the competition. But the unwillingness of larger companies to go with open-source databases which have no multi-billion dollar company behind them has kept Oracle in the saddle all these years.

The fact is Microsoft didn't copy anything except the idea, and you don't need attribution for that. Winget was rewritten entirely from scratch and there was no open-source involved.

I'm not even sure if the author's idea was original anyway. It looked more a CLI program to download and run installers.

The problem seems to me that management doesn't appreciate the need for competent (and therefore expensive) software engineers in critical projects like defense, aviation and space. The whole idea of trying to save a few bucks on something as critical as a fly-by-wire system or end-to-end testing seems totally ludicrous to me.

Boeing has been cutting too many corners since the MBA's took over and started reorganizing things to maximize profitability. There's a good chance the company will fail because of this.

I'm somewhat surprised this loophole is allowed to exist at all. More likely companies involved in this trade will be put on a blacklist as well.

Those stocks will run out eventually. Huawei is probably betting on the sanctions being resolved through negotiations and the Chinese government making concessions on trade.

However, I wouldn't count on this happening since the U.S. knows very well the power of being able to spy on adversaries and allies using network and telecom equipment. I don't believe Trump will back down on Huwawei no matter what the Chinese government offers.

I hope they learn something from it, because they seem to be blowing things up at a prodigious rate.

I wonder how many more explosions we'll have to witness before Starship flies.

I keep noticing that more and more aviation and space missions fail because of software problems. It seems to me that the new generation of engineers are generally less competent or companies see software as an afterthought which can be outsourced to lower-wage countries.

The Boeing MAX and Starliner come to mind, but the failed Moon missions by Israel and India are also examples of this trend.

Cost cutting in software development is costing companies dearly. Boeing may even go bankrupt because of this.

The prior art is so obvious that it wouldn't create any fear, merely a mild distraction at best.

We are all slaves to the whim of companies. Sure I could've continued using Delphi beyond the late '90's but that would've meant that I wouldn't have been able to hold a job as a developer in the '00's when .NET became all the rage.

Sometimes you just have to make do with what your customers want. And besides, C# is IMHO the best computer language ever invented.

I've been using it for years, and what attracts me is the native UI widgets instead of the self-drawn widgets in Qt and GTK.

This also makes customizing the widgets much harder (if possible at all). There are also some self-drawn widget libraries available for wxWidgets.

That would be very difficult since there would be prior art.

Exactly that: you open-sourced it so it's your donation to the world. Don't be sour if someone copies your idea or makes a ton of money from it.

And what would be the benefit if Microsoft gave you credit for it? Most likely their lawyers would reject it since you may then be able to sue them for...I don't know what, but money in any case.

It's a very Microsoft-thing to do to copy someone else's idea and improve on it (C#, RDP, Excel). If you release something as open-source you have to ask yourself if your doing it out of altruism or for money? In case of the latter you have to plan accordingly, by patenting or with restrictive licensing.

Sounds more like snake-oil to me.

The only takeaway for me is that most developers these days don't understand the difference between systems programming languages and general purpose application languages either.

We need an AOT compiled general purpose application language like C# with managed memory access. If people want to fool around with low-level stuff let them use Rust, assembler or C/C++.

With a $85 price tag I think it's moving away from its original premise of bringing cheap computing to the masses and especially students and tinkerers.

Aside from that, I never liked the intimate relationship between Broadcomm and the RP Foundation.

Nice. The only drawback I see is that it's written in C.

I was thinking of using this as a starting point:

https://archive.codeplex.com/?p=htmlrenderer

You won't be able to run an A/C off 500W, most use 2000W or more.

I couldn't read the article but I wholeheartedly agree anyway. In fact, we NEED this language more than ever, since C/C++ is eating the world with its memory unsafety.

Like I said, those were extensions made by compiler vendors, and not part of the original language.

Borland enabled adding Assembler to almost every language for which they made a compiler.

I use the free wxFormBuilder designer, which works great.

I've been thinking about writing a new webbrowser with very limited functionality which could be used on secure networks, such as Tor. It would only support a limited subset of HTTP and HTML / CSS and HTML Video. No Javascript / frames or anything else that could impart the safety.

I've been meaning to pitch it to the Tor Project, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

I don't understand the rationale behind this. Why would a commercial company dupe itself into restricting the licensing of its product?

But those would be logic errors, not memory management errors. If someone is stupid enough to pass user input directly to a shell or database then yes, they will get compromised.

But these comprise only 30% of all security errors as the research shows. Most are due to memory management issues.