Locke1689

I wrote a simple console program to easily configure hundreds of different color schemes for your WSL terminal: https://commentout.net/wsl-colors.html

Once again, I think that's more of a statement on how he achieves his goals, not how he arrives at goals in the first place.

For instance, there's an inherent conflict between freedom and security. The government and the people must strike a balance on these issues. How does Trump decide what the right balance is? What philosophical principles does he use to decide how much freedom we should be willing to trade for security?

By "vague statements" I was referring to his comments on "America winning" or "being great again." Does Art of the Deal describe those statements in detail?

This is the Art of the Deal:

  1. Think big
  2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
  3. Maximize your options
  4. Know your market
  5. Use your leverage
  6. Enhance your location
  7. Get the word out
  8. Fight back
  9. Deliver the goods
  10. Contain the costs
  11. Have fun

His only statements on normative, not positive, values come from things like "America winning" and "being great" and "going back." But it absolutely true that, for many Americans, these are a contradiction in terms.

I can attempt to infer his values from these vague statements, but I think that it is improper for a leader to not start with a set of first principles, independent from ill-defined notions like "winning", that guide what it means to win and what it means to be great.

I see no contradiction.

You seem to believe that either winning elections or making money are satisfactory demonstrations of intelligence (as meant by IQ, or g). I do not.

I would be happy to reconsider if he released a simple IQ test, or even his old SAT scores (assuming he took the SAT).

figures based on Forbes estimate of his net worth.

You know Forbes is just a business magazine, and just a small one at that?

They don't have any privileged information. They probably just based their reporting on his self-reported wealth. At best they could look at the public valuations of some of his properties, but since the Trump organization is privately held they have no way of knowing how badly he's leveraged.

Here's a hint: check how much Forbes said Elizabeth Holmes was worth in 2015.

I don't know about that. From what I can tell, he seems to consistently follow the same or similar playbook outlined in 'The Art of the Deal'.

That you don't see the difference between a set of strategies for making money in real estate and a governing philosophy of how you see the world and act as a person is the crux of the problem.

Except that all the numbers on his net worth are based just on his word and he's clearly a serial liar.

Interestingly, I think the fact that he's quite stupid may be how he succeeded at the presidential election. An intelligent, principled person would have a vision and philosophy that guides their actions. When questioned on details or specifics they would use their philosophy to arrive at a reasoned answer.

Trump has essentially no record of this. He has no governing philosophy or sophisticated understanding of how the world works. He seems to do nothing but say what he feels in that moment -- even if how he feels isn't backed up by any reality.

However, in certain election environments that can also be a huge benefit. If the electorate is looking for a foil, someone to reflect their feelings, and the electorate itself isn't acting on calculated reasoning, the dunce with an acute sense of emotional environment is the perfect avatar.

In a sense, the reasoned candidate is at an inherent disadvantage since they will attempt to articulate a particular philosophy. If the electorate is mostly a coalition based on shared emotional reaction, stating a clear philosophy can do nothing but weaken support among your own constituency. In essence, being specific allows people to disagree with you. If you hand wave, they just imagine you think like they do, since they already think you feel like they do.

I can think of another group of people who a similar skillset: confidence artists. They're often not very bright or very skilled, but they are good at reading a room, a person, and an emotion. Interestingly, I don't believe Trump believes himself to be a con-artist; he's just a natural.

Is Edge + the new Windows Application Guard similar in protection?

Read the source for the compiler and find all the differences. There are constantly minor semantic changes, like numeric conversions, double parsing, scope of generated temps in for loops, delegate conversions, Nothing, etc.

I just started typing this list off the top of my head and every time I typed something out I could think of one more thing. And these are just the ones I remember, so they're probably the ones that were annoying to work around in the compiler.

The breakdown of the rule of law is probably worse in that it will contain all the aforementioned, and more.

The difference between populism and democracy is that populists always claim to speak "for the people" even if the people are divided. They'll even take action against the majority and simply claim that all the "real" people are for it.

And despite lambda calculus being written entirely using single letter variable names, Scheme programmers all use proper word-size variable names in their programs.

Mathematics notation is so notoriously awful that mathematicians often can't even read equations from other disciplines without significant extra context.

You are the one who imputed that 'cmurf referred to all parties named the Republican Party, rather than the more logical interpretation as the current party named the Republican Party.

This is simply not true. I was there when my entire org got rid of its test team and the people who stayed were not more likely to be H1B holders. If anything, the reverse was true.

I wouldn't say that's what most people mean by parallel, but in that case I think you're better off building a layer on top of the compiler for that.

For instance, provided deterministic compilation you could keep a networked cache of compiled libraries that would be delivered as needed.

Trying to be network-parallel at any finer level is probably a waste of time -- network and (de)serialization overhead would eat away all the advantages.

I don't agree.

Before we moved to Git, Roslyn was on TFS, which was basically Perforce/CVS/SVN.

You're absolutely right that the distinction among the former VCS's is minimal. However, Git offers value that was transformative compared to the former. Namely,

  1. Git allows you to easily switch between multiple work items while keeping track of the work done in each item.

  2. Git allows you to easily integrate with people who have significantly diverged clones of your tree without too much trouble.

  3. Git allows you to easily work offline.

(2) is very important if you want to host rapid release schedules with divergence of features. It's especially useful if you want to have long stabilization periods and low-risk bug fixes delivered in parallel to multiple customers.

(3) is pretty self-explanatory, but for most people it's underestimated how much downtime your VCS has. I'd bet, for most people, it's significantly less than 5 9's. Not only is that wasted time, it's frustrating because it's usually consecutive and removes entire working days at random.

Most of the .NET repos are structured to use inner and outer loop testing with Jenkins. Most tests on most architectures are run in the inner loop, which are kicked off in parallel as soon as you make a pull request to one of the .NET repositories on Github.

Some repositories, like CoreCLR, have outer loop testing that runs on a separate schedule (nightly, I think), but those tests are far less likely to break and are more devoted to finding rare and difficult to compute edge cases.

It depends on what you mean by parallel.

Certainly the Roslyn C# compiler is highly parallel. All files are parsed in parallel, then all classes are bound (semantically analyzed) in parallel, then the IL serialization phase is sequential.

Certainly: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn

You can get that in VS via the Interactive Window (View->Other Windows->C# Interactive).

Theoretically you could implement a completion system for the terminal but we reused the WPF editor layers for the completion system rather than building a new one from scratch, so it isn't available in the terminal.

Also, all that is open source at https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn and the scripting core can be rehosted as an API.

Appeal to authority is only deductively invalid, not inductively invalid.

Arenas have fast allocation (because you often have no freelist and just increment the end). They also allow you to quickly reclaim old data, which is important for a database because a query might run long enough for the allocated memory to be considered old (for one example). And they don't require compaction or copying, because objects of the same lifetime are physically near each other in memory.

This is exactly how the Gen0 nursery works. The surviving objects get copied to Gen1 before the Gen0 bump pointer is reset. Of course, in C++ arenas there cannot be surviving objects or that is implemented manually.

The main difference here is that what is in the nursery is decided by the GC, whereas a manual arena requires you to pre-decide what is in the arena or not.

You don't seem to understand how performance benchmarking works.

Unless you seek to optimize a single application, a benchmark is meant to be broadly representative of a wide category of applications whose performance is dominated by the component being benchmarked.

For instance, an application which allocates no memory is a poor benchmark of the memory allocator, and it is also a poor general representative of program performance if most programs' performance is dominated by memory management.

I think the only point being made by the article is that their focus seems to be on pause times above all else.

These tests don't seem to specifically test GC, so it doesn't seem to be a good comparison.

Comparing Go and C# as languages don't seem to be the goal of this exercise, either. Instead, the article was making the point that the garbage characteristics have generational components. This is true of C#, so I would expect it to be true of Go as well. If that is the case, whatever Go's current performance numbers are, they could probably be made better by a generational GC.

The following statement from the article addresses this:

As Go is a relatively ordinary imperative language with value types, its memory access patterns are probably comparable to C# where the generational hypothesis certainly holds and thus .NET uses a generational collector.

I think that's reasonable. I would say it is on the Go developers to point out why they think Go would have seriously different performance characteristics from similar C# network applications using Task-based asynchrony (similar to goroutine + channel based asynchrony in Go).

It is possible to make most reflection operations run with no peak time performance overhead at all compared to normal operations.

Hmm... but my discussions with people who have worked on Ruby execution engines say that Ruby's normal operations are slow (because Ruby is constrained to do many slow things for normal invocations). How does Ruby reflection compare to .NET reflection and how does Ruby invocation compare to .NET invocation?

My building is currently undergoing a renovation and we still have private offices.

To support your point: a number of people have voluntarily taken over a former conference room to turn it into an open space office.

Personally I have worked in both and don't find one better or worse than the other. I actually value sunlight, direct or indirect, more than the layout.

The terminal doesn't support as many features, but I can say I have yet to segfault it -- which I can't say any day this week for cygwin or MSYS mintty.

Note: MS employee, doesn't work in Windows division.

This is just classic FUD. The probability of being harmed in a terrorist attack is tiny and the probability of any given immigrant being a part of a terrorist attack is also tiny.

This is a mountain out of a mole hill. You'd be better off eating less junk food and paying more attention while driving rather than concern yourself with these edge cases.