vikiomega9

I understand, but is there a cleaner quantification of this incentive?

Having said that tooling is key and I find it somewhat lacking to turn on a switch and run my code as a lambda to say compare costs and such.

I figure a "fat" function goes around the idea of organizing your lambdas. Because then you potentially have a high throughput function.

> "… serverless platforms today are useful for important (but not five-nines mission critical) tasks, where high-throughput is key, rather than very low latency, and where individual requests can be completed in a relatively short time window. The economics of hosting such tasks in a serverless environment make it a compelling way to reduce hosting costs significantly, and to speed up time to market for delivery of new features."

The crux so to speak. I wonder if this type of planning makes sense though? Can't I argue that good design, which imo has been around for ages and collected well in canonical books, aid in improving time to market for new features?

> Do you need to break your leg to know that would be painful?

You certainly don't need to break your leg to deduce that the action results in pain. You do however need to know and experience a nontrivial amount of wealth to realize how much power and inherent value being a billionaire affords. One becomes a radical agent of change at this point. It is thus a worthy goal.

I find this problem with most science reporting where the hypothesis is never correctly stated either because the research wasn't done correctly or the reporting failed to ask the right questions. Why does it seem like even the NYT has issues with this?

It's useful to identify such things as luck because we really can't orchestrate those moments by sheer will. To identify a reason is the first step towards controlling the circumstance but for the average situation I'd wager it's hard to do so.

> Don't mean to be rude, but being a billionaire is a boring goal with no value in and of itself.

Are you a billionaire?

Awesome, thanks for clarification. I think I don't quite understand how one can selectively jam a particular "data packet" from a signal or signal jamming in general, and I will have to read up on this.

So it sounds like if the user knew which channel were legitimate they could potentially realize which AP is the real one?

I don't understand how the attacker can block step 3 of the handshake from the client. Can someone ELI5?

What I was able to understand so far is that the use of a particular nonce is being forced on the client and given that invariant keystream one can decrypt known messages. I'm still fuzzy on how the attacker can force this step.

EDIT: Further question, isn't timestamp synchronization taken into account here when invalidating a nonce? What happens when I disconnect from wifi to a mobile network and back to the wifi?

It's starfish, http://www.rifters.com/real/STARFISH.htm#bulrushes

"What I told you the question was either or" haha

Something similar is described in Ted Chiang's Lifecycle of Software Objects

https://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2010/fiction_the...

"...We could run a society of them at hothouse speeds without any risk of them going feral, and see what they produce"

I'm curious to see if there's a collection of similar works that go down this trope, or if it is indeed something that's only recently emerged.

As an aside with similar sentiment, this quote really drove home the point of flexible humans are to their situations.

"Centralisation breeds anomalies: beach resorts often buy their seafood in Mexico City’s wholesale market, hundreds of miles from the coast."

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21665027-its-combinat...

> it says Java derives solely from C++, that's not remotely true

Not really, I just assumed the one I posted was trying to highlight syntax similarity. The ones you posted are just as terse, there's no way I can figure out if the Lisp arrow to Java in your first link is something about the type system or how it handles reference or the like

Mind telling me why and pointing me to a correct resource?

I love representations of language history like this one, https://calvinx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/evo-prog-lang...

To be fair Hitler's rhetoric escalated pretty quickly

I see, so this composite structure is in lieu of having two distinct fields exposed in the API?

Why not just use sequence ID? I'm confused about why a timestamp is important. The sequence ID gives us ordering, is always guaranteed to be increasing.

I've always thought about sharding with a caveat of some notion of an implicit index either via timestamps or composite keys.

How is "western/christian/european" different from "western"?

EDIT: the current framework of international order has roots in Westphalian notions of nation states, which is indeed christian and european.

From a moral perspective the point still stands, cheap exploitation and subjugation resulted in the current divergence. If the two societies diverged as a result of merely the technological and scientific advances but nothing more the yes your criticism is warranted. Long story short, someone had a better beat stick, nobody's is denying that, but the atrocities and exploitation still remain.

Sorry, what does %GDP have to do with per capita GDP in the context of the comment, beside the size of population?

EDIT: I'm trying to highlight the fact that preindustrial productivity is a function of population size and therefore per capita GDP is not really a good measure in that context.

The aim of the challenge is to predict crime hotspots which for the most part don't vary much I'd think? The challenge then becomes identifying cluster density as a function of time which might mean using past data makes sense.

On the same line, thoughts on Kotlin?

So at what point does a megacorp, with all of its power and wealth, decide to do something good? Will we ever get to a point where we can we at least try to evolve towards sustainable capitalism?

This hardly sounds like a disadvantage considering deployment sizes most setups have in production anyway.

"Be aware, however, that inlining duplicates the function body at each call site, so heavy use of the ‘inline’ keyword can cause your code to grow out of control."

I didn't quite understand this part. If the code is being inlined on compilation does it matter? I'm assuming the comment meant the output jar file?

There are patterns around this. For example, persistent data structures and application patterns such as event sourcing. Design concepts like bounded contexts and microservices also count.

I think at a larger scale it becomes much harder to try and transform the system around immutable state. At the end of the day if most one needs to do is store CRUD items the easiest way forward is persist schema to a DB.