DaveFlater

SI avoids identifying countable entities and events except in special cases like bequerel. This is but one example among many where the needs of IT are outside the scope that SI serves. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339954122_Quantitie...

There they go with Dickens again. Why always Dickens? Haven't we suffered enough?

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393673

GCC optimization causes the frame pointer push to move around, resulting in wrong call stacks. "Wontfix"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38896343

Whether over months or years, they have certainly gotten worse. It is a race to the bottom or to 1 micrometer above the legal red line if one should ever be established.

CFPB and FTC talked about it: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/circulars/consume...

Summary of comparable talk in the EU: https://www.insideprivacy.com/eu-data-protection/the-eu-stan...

Down in the details, it looks like there has been enforcement in individual cases, but it obviously was not enough to stop the flood.

In C++ this is simply legal code. But in C, the bogus warning has now escalated to a bogus error.

   void fun110 (char const * const *a) {}
   char **a;
   fun110(a);

What makes it seem probable that it is patent-encumbered? Is there something specific I can read about or is it just the track record of previous standards (starting with arithmetic encoding in the first JPEG)?

Hertz, becquerel, et al. are algebraically defined as s^(-1) yet intended to be used for different kinds of quantities. The SI brochure also allows replacing radian by 1, which brings angular velocity into the fight. Further reading: https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/52/1/40

Being careful to distinguish 'fundamental laws' from just 'quantities that we defined', information theory and queueing theory have some good examples of proven laws.

ISO 80000 Part 13 gives some symbols within the scope of communication technology (its scope is more narrow than its title would suggest). The standard itself is copyrighted but the quantity symbols are listed on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_80000#Part_13:_Informa...

See also https://www.nist.gov/publications/quantities-and-units-softw...

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39219573

Vast majority: portion of a population that forms a consensus.

Consensus: agreement among a vast majority of a population.

The "two wrongs" hostname is apt. Hertz is for periodic phenomena; becquerel is for radioactive decay. The SI brochure discourages the use of counting units such as 'request'. The number of requests is regarded as just a number, or at best a quantity that is referred to the unit one. The applicable SI unit therefore is just the reciprocal second, s^(-1).

In practice, counting units are used everywhere (e.g., in MB/s, the byte is a counting unit), but I am relaying what the SI brochure actually says on this question.

Ref: https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/

SSE 4.2 appeared in Nehalem, which was 2008.

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39209886

Well, there are two pieces. The first piece is establishing that 'the groups' were doing something wrong. The second piece is the usual struggle about the responsibility of big tech to police and moderate what goes on in the fora that they own and generate their income from. Attention is skewed toward the second question because big tech has the deep pockets, but both questions involve nontrivial moral issues.

They wrote "the term has always referred to those empowered politically by massive wealth" but a more precise term for that is plutocrat. I always understood oligarchy as rule by any small group.

If someone votes a personal prejudice or vested interest, any mandatory rationale provided would be pretextual. It would be great if downvotes were all well-motivated and accompanied by constructive critique, but it just ain't so. C.f. the Reviewer #2 problem in peer review.

Because everyone thinks frame pointers are cool again and as far as I know the problem was never fixed.

Forks are not inherently good or bad but can seriously muck up an ecosystem if they are not well-justified. Mucking up the Linux ecosystem would be BAD.

That's pure Rust evangelism. As devs we are responsible for what we send out into the world. A schism in the Linux kernel would be bad.

Disillusionment. I paid my dues with virtiofsd et al. I'm glad the dev is having fun and learning, I just hope it doesn't escalate into an OS schism.

I have fam stuck on deteriorating DSL for whom the only other options are 5G data or the cable company (the other deteriorating copper wire). The actual-not-theoretical speed of 5G in the places I go has not wowed me. Wait on 6G or abandon all hope?

"There is nothing so permanent as temporary" emergency powers

My Wayland performance experience was that it broke Nvidia at a time when Nvidia was supposed to be working. The reason it didn't work was down in the weeds of this version of Mesa and that version of Nvidia, both of which were recent, and the bottom line was that X performance still exceeded Wayland's.

Security has always been a hard sell to end users because the costs are immediate and tangible while the benefits are in the future.

The pertinent question is whether the user sees anything valuable in exchange for what Wayland does break. If users are to accept breakage, it has to be in a tradeoff for something they want. That incentive has not appeared. That means that the market for Wayland is actually not users but distro builders (c.f. systemd).

You mean this? https://github.com/usnistgov/Metrology

https://wiki.c2.com/?ZeroMeansNull

(Created by me long time ago)

Atlantic/Null is the same as GMT. 1970-01-01 00:00Z

This is simply the greatest tourist shirt of all time.