uasm

The "Chief Purpose Officer" at Ethos is working hard these days to keep us all well informed - http://www.circleid.com/pp/dot-org-sale

> "I would recommend musl, although the style is a bit idiosyncratic in places: https://www.musl-libc.org"

Opened a random part of musl out of sheer boredom. Here's what I see:

https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/include/aio.h

A bunch of return codes #defined like so (see https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/aio/aio.c):

#define AIO_CANCELED 0 #define AIO_NOTCANCELED 1 #define AIO_ALLDONE 2

#define LIO_READ 0 #define LIO_WRITE 1 #define LIO_NOP 2

#define LIO_WAIT 0 #define LIO_NOWAIT 1

Why weren't they using an enum instead? I wouldn't sign off on this code (and I don't think it lives up to best practices).

> "Tech debt is what the 2nd generation of engineers gets to complain about after the 1st gen made the product succesful at something."

Strange and snarky comment for a "Chief Technical Officer". Software constantly evolves, it's a process of continuous refinement.

Zoom's past success may have been partially attributed to "1st gen engineers" hitting the jackpot. Zoom's fate right now rests on the ability of those "2nd generation engineers" to keep the show going.

Broader question - is there some-kind of support planned for a DNS-like MX address mechanism, for receiving emails via the .crypto domain?

It's 2020 and locking your screen on Linux is unreliable. It's difficult to promote Linux as a worthy consumer desktop OS alternative.

> "If Waymo turns trucking into an automated business (or even just reduces the number of humans needed to haul cargo), we could be in for a similar situation."

Sure.

Tuning in to last week's news - "Mass layoffs reported after Starsky Robotics fails to find buyer, investors" [0]. Starsky had a demonstrable path to "reduce the number of humans needed to haul cargo". What gives?

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22420147

> "I created this font by purchasing a Leroy Lettering set, using Inkscape to trace the scanned letterforms of one of its templates, and some FontForge Python scripting."

How does this work from a copyright/legal perspective?

Stacks are used extensively across the x86 family [0]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions

> "WASM translated to register-based bytecode. That's awesome!"

If the hardware executing this code is "stack-based" (or, does not offer enough general purpose registers to accomodate the funtion call) - this will need to be converted back to a stack-based function call (either at runtime, or beforehand). Wouldn't this intermediate WASM-to-register-based-bytecode translation be redundant then?

Friendly reminder: you don't really know whether this person truly works for the NHS, as they claim. Don't divulge sensitive information to random people.

> "I am on alexa 1m (50k even). I do not have a load balancer, I do not have multiple servers for redundancy. This isn't even a static site, most of our page views are the wiki, the server running all of this has 8 cores and 4 are constantly maxxed out by a non-website related process.

Most websites now and days are over engineered."

That's awesome! Mind sharing some more details? (hosting plan/CDN/etc). Or even the URL?

> "Using CPU jitter is a clever solution. I hope it stands up to scrutiny."

How safe is it to use CPU jitter in a virtual machine?

> "I wish the reporter could elaborate more on whether there are live websites broken due to this or is it a project under development so we can measure the impact more."

(Quoted a comment from the thread on https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=100574...)

Wasn't this specific version of Chrome rolling out to production users world-wide? Clearly there was a subset of users that was impacted by this (otherwise, a report wouldn't have been made in the first place). Not sure why they're asking the reporter about the state of their specific project?... :\

> "They whitelist domains"

That's not a bad idea, actually. Who maintains those whitelists and how do they get updated? If you want to make the web somewhat usable for others, is it enough to whitelist "google.com"/"youtube.com" only (for example)?

I'm not for or against Erlang. While honestly attempting to learn something new today, I became frustrated with how devoid of content most of the comments in this thread are. "I'm {senior title}, and {tech name} is great" is as far as most of the comments go. That's just extremely mediocre.

> "Dark definitely won't be for everyone, but it seems to me like it will empower a lot of people to bring their ideas to reality more easily than before."

I agree.

> "There is a large - and growing - population of technically-minded people who understand the core concepts you're referring to (REST APIs, databases, HTTP, etc) and have ideas or needs for applications, but don't have the experience required to build non-naive implementations of their ideas."

Sure, but one could argue the Darklang approach is actually not that far from a "naive implementation" of those ideas. There's only so much you can do with prefab code and lock-in tooling. There's definitely a market for "Wix for SaaS software", but does Darklang strike the right balance?

> "On this kind of topic, those who know won't say if it's on the record. You're lucky for them to say when it's not on the record."

Honest question:

Would WikiLeaks "work" if all we had was anonymous "former officials" making broad/general statements, providing no proof whatsoever?

What about Snowden's leaks? Imagine a really long article on Politico listing every single thing exposed in the Snowden docs, but without the names/documents/specifics. In a style very similar to what we have here in this Politico piece. Without us even knowing it was leaked by Snowden, but by some random "former NSA official".

Look, I'm not saying this Politico piece is right or wrong. All I'm saying is - this piece is making very big statements, backed by absolutely no proof whatsoever. And yet people are taking out the pitchforks... this isn't journalism, it's just spreading unsubstantiated FUD. And we should be discouraging this, not defending it.

No proof, no citations, no names. A lot of third person language. Anonymous "former officials". Great journalism right there!

> "It doesn't matter how you call it - they will be unable to earn extra money by driving, that is the issue. If they relied on that money to make ends meet, they may not be happy anymore."

Your post makes zero sense, so I'll keep it short for you. Uber was the middleman, and without it - both individual drivers as-well as taxi companies have significantly more leverage over the consumers, and can now start charging higher prices.

> "Uber is not Taxi. OP point is still correct. Taxi companies are coming back but Uber drivers get fired"

They can't be "fired", since they were never properly hired in the first place! They were never regarded as employees. That's exactly what this legislation is setting out to change!

> "I wonder how happy they will be when their job simply goes away because of that bill."

Taxis are... not "going away". They may get more expensive. Taxi companies are simply going to make a comeback.

Uber was making it easier/cheaper for passangers - it did very little for the drivers themselves.

> "In NLOS (and traditional photography) the scene to be imaged is illuminated with N photons but the detector only receives M photons worth of signal back, where M<<N."

How about "averaging" several attempts to compose a single shot? Would it be possible to shine lasers of multiple wavelengths to achieve better results? maybe varying angles as-well?

> "Disney broke the law when attempting to replace its IT department with guest workers. Proof enough?"

You're lying again: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/judge-says-disney-didn...

Will you stop spreading false information? And will you stop making up false accusations?

> "It's the employers bending and breaking the rules and regulators not enforcing them"

Those are serious accusations, coming with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

You can't possibly claim rules are being broken at scale when it comes to bringing in skilled migrants into the US. That just rings like xenophobic scaremongering.

> "You do realize that the "highly skilled" part has been systematically ignored for a couple decades now?"

Is that a fact? "Ignored" by whom, and how exactly?

Applicants must prove they are indeed exceptionally skilled. Sponsoring employers must prove the candidates are skilled. The petitions involve CVs, references from colleagues, diplomas, supporting evidence, interviews, all kinds of proof. Are you saying it's all just bullshit?

Look, we've all met "bad" software engineers. But how much of it is simply subjective judgement? You can't possibly claim those are people coming here on a free pass.

For what it's worth, I've met plenty of mediocre "natives". Maybe it's just the talent pool.

> "H-1B employees tend to be junior"

You do realize that this generalization can't possibly be true?

H-1B are reserved for "highly skilled immigrants" carrying out skilled work. You won't find kitchen staff, taxi drivers or librarians on H-1Bs. As a company, junior engineers simply aren't worth the time and effort that comes with sponsoring H-1Bs. Software isn't an "ass in seat" industry - sponsoring juniors simply isn't worth it.

I like where this is going. Almost daily now, we're seeing reports of "AI startups/companies/products/features" getting unmasked. Technical people knew it all along, but corporate-speak, prefabricated demos, half-baked products and puff pieces were slowly inflating that bubble. Glad it's bursting.

> "https://www.mercedesbenzofnatick.com"

That's one long domain name...

> "Every decision is a discrimination of an alternative decision."

Let's put aside the whole "at-will employment" (which I doubt applies to CEOs) discussion.

You can't fire someone for cheating on their partner. People are allowed to have personal lives, and they are allowed to make personal mistakes.

If you could fire people for cheating on their partner, why stop at cheating when there are so many other personal life choices/factors that could "put the company at risk"?

> “We are reducing the likelihood of future errors by removing you”

It's discriminatory. I doubt this would be legal.