Though, it's nice to see in this particular case that a near monopoly player gets unseated and creates room for innovation.
21,824 karma · joined October 23, 2014
Though, it's nice to see in this particular case that a near monopoly player gets unseated and creates room for innovation.
... which must be just a coincidence, right? Nothing to do with this:
Simplest answer is that there's no representative test case in the test suite yet.
Unfortunately the problem of compiler testing is a very challenging one IMO. You can't test it exhaustively, or perhaps if you did write such a suite it would take longer to execute than is feasible.
> we all are just lucky enough that most messed up optimizations will break _something somewhere_ early enough to not get merged
Your compiler is only as good as the set of code people routinely use it on. Rust has exploded in popularity but it's still much less popular than C, C++.
It's a pretty frustrating experience -- was it all for naught? Maybe it's useful to vent about it a bit.
Look at the cryptocurrency and Bitcoin economies for an example. Instead of being a democratic mining economy where spare cycles are used, only companies which invest capital to find semiconductors from the latest process node combined with facilities and inexpensive electricity benefit from mining.
Only the next Standard Oil / Amazon / Google will benefit from the people-free economy.
During winter storm Uri, they did a duty cycle where we only had power available for ~6-12 hours at a time on the days it was available. This was apparently to avoid that very problem.
So far as I know, the obvious mitigations like winterizing NG generation and/or peering with neighbor grids have not been performed.
This is what people seem to get mixed up about the First Amendment to the US Constitution. These scientists were removed from the conference because they were highlighting the scientific role to push back against government censorship. Not because it wasn't germane to the conference, but in furtherance of the censorship itself. The US Government participated here indirectly via its chilling on scientific discourse.
Comments in this thread suggesting that "this is just some private actors" are mistaken. This is absolutely the consequence of the Trump HHS policymakers decisions.
Is it your position that if an article is critical of a world government it must not be discussed at a scientific conference? Or even "you should expect to get ejected from a conference if you criticize the host government"? Because believe it or not, that's not been a problem in the USA prior to Trump. And it runs contrary to how science should work.
It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees.
But Trump was fooled and is more committed than ever to the since-abandoned misinformation campaign. It took on a bigger life than Exxon ever could've imagined.
The snowflakiest of them all - they can't handle unbiased readings from instruments that survey our planet.
https://github.com/EtchedPixels/FUZIX#what-does-fuzix-have-o...
Taking gigawatts of energy out of the planet ecology and redirecting it to something else seems like it could have drawbacks. Of course, on net it seems likely to still be a significant improvement over burning hydrocarbons.
Or Mr Farrow can you post some evidence somewhere we can see?
The vast majority of the ecosystem seems to be focused on uCs until very recently. So it'll take time for the applications processors to be competitive.
If everyone plugged one in, could the transmission network reliably deliver the power generated where it's needed? I thought that was a serious long term challenge for utilities wrt solar.
I definitely agree - but if the organization creates pain as an externality, then there's no incentive for them to change. Making them realize the cost of their decisions seems appropriate and just and not-even-abusive. Yelling at the person on the phone is bad and doesn't help anyone. Malicious compliance like this helps motivate them to escalate their concerns to people who can change the policy.
Witness the abrupt reversal in public opinion on foreign wars in the last month.
As far as monopolies go I don't think it's our biggest concern, like you say.
If we want to continue to wage wars and seek conquest, it's not great to have it located in one/few countries. But instead if we want to work towards peace, we should continue breaking down barriers to trade (while maintaining protections for labor).